The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased, Harish Kumar, is the son of P.W.1 Velusamy and at the time of the offence Velusamy was a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Curiously, the Investigating Officer P.W.22 , in his cross examination, has deposed that the statements of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were recorded on 22.06.1998, which is companyroborated by the testimony of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5.
It is relevant to mention here that Accused No.3 was a juvenile and was dealt with by a different forum under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015.
One Mr. Pattai Muniasamy, the paternal uncle of Accused Nos.1 and 2, had given a sum of Rs.13,00,000/ Rupees thirteen lakhs only to P.W.1 for safe custody, which he got back in instalments.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are distantly related to P.W.1.
There was a relationship between Mohankumar the son of Pattai Muniasamy and one Kalaiselvi, who is the daughter of P.W.1s companysin Kannuchamy P.W.12 .
A.No.884 of 2001 companyfirming the judgment dated 29.08.2001, passed in S.C.No.250 of 2000 by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is called in question in this appeal by Accused Nos.1 and 2.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.
Though attempts were made to get them married, Mohankumars family refused the proposal.
