Hanestraj v. State Rep.By

in Crl.A.No.675 of 2024 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Heard the learned Senior counsel the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. We have perused the evidences of PW2, PW6, PW16, Accident Register and the material objects recovered. PW2 is the husband of the deceased, who had taken the deceased to the hospital immediately after the occurrence. The deceased had orally informed about the occurrence and the commission of offence to her husband/PW2.

3. The evidence of PW2 corroborates with PW6, who is the Ex.Counsellor at Thenimalai. These evidences cannot be construed as wholly unreliable.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no linking evidence as far as the petitioner/A5 is concerned. However, the said ground is arguable with reference to the evidences as stated above. Therefore,

we are not inclined to consider the present petition.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. List the Criminal Appeal after two weeks.

(S.M.S., J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 14.11.2024 gd S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

gd 14.11.2024