JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the appellant accused’s appeal was partly allowed and his conviction under Section 302, IPC was modified into one under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentence was reduced to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 324, IPC was confirmed by the High Court and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: the brother of the complainant allegedly had an illicit relationship with the daughter of accused no. 4, which resulted in enmity between the two families. On 26.01.2002, the accused persons allegedly came in front of the house of the complainant and a fight took place between the two groups. The present appellant attacked the complainant with an iron rod, while the other 3 accused allegedly attacked other members of the family with sticks. The deceased, on hearing the noise, attempted to intervene, and was attacked by the present appellant on the head with the iron rod, which ultimately resulted in her death.

3. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 324 and 302, IPC and sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life, respectively. The other accused were acquitted as the charges against them were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, as mentioned above, the High Court modified the conviction under Section 302, IPC, and sentence imposed thereunder, to one under Section 304 Part II, IPC, on the ground that the case of the appellant fell under Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, that is, there was a free fight between the two parties.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – accused and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu at length today.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in convicting the appellant by solely relying upon the testimonies of the relatives of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant should have been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, particularly when the Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution’s case and acquitted the co-accused.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the High Court has considered all the evidence on record and rendered a well reasoned judgment which does not merit any interference by this Court.

7. With respect to the first submission of the counsel for the appellant, regarding the testimonies of related witnesses, it is settled law that the testimony of a related or an interested witness can be taken into consideration, with the additional burden on the Court in such cases to carefully scrutinize such evidence [See Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435]. As such, the mere submission of the counsel for the appellant, that the testimonies of the witnesses in the case should be disregarded because they were related, without bringing to the attention of the Court any reason to disbelieve the same, cannot be countenanced.

8. The counsel for the appellant next submitted that the benefit of doubt extended to his co-accused should also have been extended to him. According to him, once the co-accused were acquitted, the appellant should also have been acquitted. However, there is no such principle of law, that requires automatic acquittal of an accused because of the acquittal of the co-accused. The same is a settled position of law, which has been reiterated by this Court in numerous judgments, including the case of Yanob Sheikh v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 6 SCC 428, wherein it was held

“24. … Where the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused