Conviction can be based on clinching evidence of an eye witness.

Y. Venkatachalam, J.

This criminal appeal is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No.104 of 1985 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge Erode.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 30.5.1984 at about 11.00 p.m., the accused is alleged to have committed the murder of five persons with a deadly weapon one after another on account of a property dispute. The report about the incident was given by a milk vendor at the early hours of the next day, which is a very vital document. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in front of the house of the deceased Nagamalai Gounder at Kondayankadu in Kondayampalayam village on the fateful day. The accused is the elder brothers son of the deceased Nagamalai Gounder. The deceased Poonathal alias Ramathal is the wife of the deceased Nagamalai Gounder. The deceased Balasubramaniam and Murthi alias Ramakrishnan are the sons of the deceased Nagamalai Gounder and the deceased Selvi alias Anbu Selvi is the daughter of the deceased Nagamalai Gounder. A charge sheet was filed before the Second Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.22 of 1985 and the same was committed to Sessions. The accused person and the deceased persons were living within the jurisdiction of Puliampatti Police Station. The deceased persons were all living in the outskirts of the village. There arose a property dispute between the accused and the deceased Nagamalai Gounder with reference to the property in Survey No.26. On the other hand, it was alleged by the accused person-Govindasamy that Nagamalai Gounder and his two sons Balasubramanian and Moorthy (now deceased) obtained his signature in a stamped blank bond paper at the point of knife just on the evening hours prior to the night of the occurrence presumably to be utilised by the deceased against the accused.

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode after following the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of law examined P.Ws.1 to 28. On behalf of the accused no defence witness was examined. The accused person himself has not chosen to examine himself as the defence witness.

4. Considering all the material both oral and documentary, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by the said finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge the State has preferred the present appeal.

5. Before us, both the Additional Public Prosecuto representing the State and learned counsel for the respondent/accused have argued in detail with reference to their respective contentions. We have also considered the rival submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings given by learned Additional Sessions Judge suffer from any patent error of law, perversity of approach and illegality.

7. Before we proceed further with regard to the legal aspects involved in the matter, we would like to examine whether there was any motive on the part of the accused/respondent with regard to the commission of the crime beyond all reasonable doubt. The law is very clear that conviction can be based on the clinching evidence of a direct eye witness. Here there is one direct witness to the occurrence. The law is also clear that in cases where dying declarations had been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the acceptable evidence, conviction may be imposed on the accused persons by the Sessions Judge. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Admittedly, the accused person is alleged to have committed the murder of five members in one family purely on account of a property dispute wi