The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the charged offenses beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of credible evidence and consistency in witness testimony.

(Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment made in S.C.No.48/95 dated 5.1.1996 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dindigul.)

M. Thanikachalam, J.

The challenge in this criminal appeal is the conviction and sentence suffered by the accused in S.C.No.48/95 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Police Station, by filing a final report, compelled the accused/appellant, to face the trial, for an offence under Sections 420 and 302 I.P.C. on the grounds, that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from one Sandhiyagu, that later on, when the dispute had arisen between the accused and Sandiyagu, regarding the nonpayment of the amount, the accused in order to cheat the deceased and with an intention to commit murder, assaulted him on 22.4.1994, during mid night, and in this view, he should be dealt with appropriately.

3. The learned trial Judge, having satisfied himself to proceed further, framed charges, questioned the accused. The accused denied the offences, thereby compelled the prosecution to examine 11 witnesses, seeking support from 14 documents as well as 11 material objects. The evaluation of the above materials in the wisdom of the learned trial Judge, brought to surface the guilt of the accused under both the charges and in this view, he convicted and sentenced the accused, to undergo R.I for five years for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C; and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., thereby giving cause of action for the accused, to come to this Court.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case, leading to conviction, as exposed by the prosecution witnesses.

(a) Tmt. Kesammal (P.W.1) is the mother of Sandhiyagu and Tmt. Nambikai Mary is the wife of the said Sandhiyagu. They are residing at Sirumalai Village, which lies within the Sessions Division of Dindigul. The accused is a Ceylone refugee. In order to have a home of his own, it is said, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from Sandhiyagu, promising to return the same within 10 days. The request was complied with by Sandhiyagu. On his failure to keep up the promise in returning the amount within 10 days, P.W.1 and Sandhiyagu demanded the amount, accusing the accused, that he is delaying the payment, in the presence of P.W.3. Then, the accused promised to pay the amount on 22.4.1994 during midnight at 12’o clock.

(b) As undertaken by the accused, on 22.4.1994 at 12.00 midnight, he came to the house of Sandiyagu and knocked the door. On hearing the knocking, Sandhiyagu, P.W.1 who is said to be residing near the house of Sandhiyagu and P.W.2 woke up. The accused reported to Sandhiyagu that the amount is with a person, who is standing outside and if he comes with him, the amount will be paid. Despite the protest by P.Ws.1 & 2, believing the words of the accused, Sandiyagu followed the accused. P.Ws.1 & 2 doubting the conduct of the accused followed them. When they have reached near Suriya Estate, the delay caused by the accused was questioned and immediately, the accused took M.O.1 knife, stabbed Sandhiyagu over the chest and caused stab injuries. When P.W.1 raised alarm, which was witnessed by P.W.2 also, along with others, the accused took his heels from the scene of crime, leaving the cover of M.O.1 viz., M.O.2 as well as his chappals M.O.3. Thereafter, with the help of Manivelu, P.Ws.1 & 2 took the injured to Dindigul Hospital, through a bypass lorry.

(c) P.W.5, the doctor who had seen the injured, noticed no life and declared so, making arrangement to keep the body in the mortuary. The mother of the deceased thereafter, went to the police station and informed the matter to the then Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.9 who had reduced the same into writing and registered a case in Cr.No.442/94 under Section 302 I.P.C.

(d) P.W.11, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R., commenced the investigation and in that process, went to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, i