The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for material evidence and eye-witness testimony to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.

1. The appellant/accused was convicted for an offence under Section 304(Part II) IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in SC No.8 of 2007 dated 26.11.2007. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed by the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the brother of the appellant. The deceased was a drunkard, spendthrift and habitual offender and was not liked by the members of the family and villagers. By reason of the behaviour of the deceased, no one had come forward to marry the sister of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant decided to kill the deceased. With a view to do so, on 16.1.2006 at 9.00 p.m., the accused beat the deceased with a wood long on his head and dragged the body of the deceased from his house to the nearby father's house and again, voluntarily beat the deceased with a wooden log on his skull occipital region and due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, the deceased died at 11.00 p.m., on the same date. Therefore, the accused was charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC.

3. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined, 31 exhibits were marked and 7 MOs were produced.

4. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of PW.7 VAO who deposed about confession of the accused and recovery of the wooden log, and lungi of the accused; and the statement in Accident Register Ex.P.26, and Inquest Report Ex.P.31 held that the deceased committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and found him guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part II).

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 erred in relying upon the evidence of PW.3 in cross-examination which is inadmissible in evidence and also erred in relying upon the evidence of PW.7 VAO whose evidence cannot be believed in the absence of any eye-witness and erred in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. He submitted that PW.1 was the brother and PW.2 was the father and PW.3 was the cousin of PW.2 and PW.4 was also another brother of the deceased. All of them did not support the prosecution. As a matter of fact, these persons were also examined before the Judicial Magistrate PW.8 under Section 164 Cr.P.C and their statements given before the Judicial Magistrate did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove that the appellant attacked the deceased and the deceased died due to that, the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant on the ground of recovery and also on the admission of PW.1 to the Doctor that the deceased was assaulted by one known person. He therefore submitted that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 did not support the prosecution case and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have relied upon their statement and the statement given in Ex.P.31 and also ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PW.3 given in cross-examination. He further submitted that though PW.3 was treated as hostile, in the cross-examination, he has stated that he told the police during investigation that the appellant attacked the deceased with wooden log. He submitted that the admission of PW.3 in cross-examination that he informed the police during investigation that the appellant attacked the deceased with a wooden log, cannot be taken as substantive evidence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2014-1-LW (Crl.) 213 in the matter of Bala and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Jamnamarathur Police Station, Vellore District. He therefore submitted that in the absence of any evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ough