The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows:

It has been elicited in the cross-examination of the Sub-Inspector that Pallikudathan alias Sithan Lakshmanan and Kullu were examined in the committal Court and that Lakshmanan and Kullu were examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, and that the three witnesses mentioned were not treated as hostile by the prosecution. In those circumstances, in our opinion, the three witnesses examined in the committal Court should have been examined in the Sessions Court as well There is no satisfactory explanation for not examining those witnesses in the Sessions Court. In our opinion the omission to examine those witnesses is a serious defect in the conduct of the prosecution.

A number of contradictions were elicited between the statements of these witnesses made to the police in the course of the investigation and their evidence in the trial Court. The learned Judge does not appear to have attached any importance to those contradictions and the reasons for the same are contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his judgment. The learned Judge says:

“It is seen from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector that P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined only at the inque

Click Here to Read the rest of this document