JUDGMENT :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed u/s. 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in S.C. No. 191 of 2016 on 21.04.2017.

1. This appeal arises against the judgment of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in S.C. No. 191 of 2016 on 21.04.2017.

2. Case of prosecution is that deceased Ayyammal was the sister of A1 and deceased Lakshmi @ Esthar was the sister-in-law of deceased Ayyammal. Both were residing in the same house. De facto complainant is the son of deceased Lakshmi @ Esthar. De facto complainant visited the house of deceased some days prior to the incident to see his mother. At that time, accused came there, asked Rs. 30,000/- as hand loan from the deceased Ayyammal and assured to repay the same within few days. As deceased Ayyammal informed that she was not having money, they demanded jewels and title deeds of property towards obtaining money by mortgaging them. Since the deceased Ayyammal has refused to accede to their demand, accused left the home after threatening her. On 14.10.2014, the de facto complainant was informed about the death of his mother and aunt. He rushed there and found the body of deceased. During investigation, it was found that as deceased was suffering from body pain, she requested the accused for medicine and using such situation, accused gave poison to deceased Ayyammal and Lakshmi which resulted in their death. Thereafter, accused took the jewels and cash of deceased Ayyammal and left the place. On the complaint of PW-1, a case in Crime No. 825 of 2014 on the file of respondent for offences u/s. 302 r/w 392 IPC was registered. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s. 302 and 392 IPC, the case, on committal, was tried in S.C. No. 191 of 2016 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Charges were framed against accused u/s. 302 (2 counts) and 392 IPC.

3. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked 28 exhibits and 22 material objects. None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked.

3.1. PW-1, son of deceased Lakshmi, deposed that PW-2 daughter was given in marriage to A2, 4 days prior to the occurrence he visited the house of deceased Ayyammal to see his mother and at that time, accused came there, demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from deceased Ayyammal. Accused also demanded jewels and title deeds to properties towards mortgaging the same and when the same was refused by deceased Ayyammal, quarrel arose between them and upon being pacified by PW-1, accused left the place after threatening deceased Ayyammal. PW-1 deposed that he was informed by PW-1 over phone on 14.10.2014 about the death of his mother and deceased Ayyammal, that he immediately rushed to the scene and saw the deceased. PW-1 deposed to having enquired PW-2 about the cause of death, PW-2 informing him of she having visited the house of deceased a day before and found the house locked and again she came there the next day i.e. 14.10.2014, found a portion of saree near the bathroom, upon her request, persons nearby came there and opened the bathroom, where they found the body of mother of PW-1 and immediately, they broke open the house and found the body of her mother as also found the jewels worn by deceased Ayyammal missing. PW-1 deposed that he preferred Ex.P1, complaint, suspecting that accused would have caused the death of deceased.

3.2. PW-2, daughter of deceased Ayyammal, deposed that she spoke to her mother in the night of 09.10.2014 over phone, of deceased Ayyammal informing her about demand made by accused, of having enquired A2 over phone as to why he asked money from her mother and warned him not to do so. PW-2 deposed that she spoke to her mother in the afternoon of 13.10.2014 over phone and when she called her mother in the evening she could not contact her since the pho