JUDGMENT :

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 07.06.2010 in S.C.No.89 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur.

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment in S.C.No.89/2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur. The trial Court, by judgment dated 07.06.2010 acquitted the accused/1st respondent. Challenging the acquittal, Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2) is before this Court in this appeal.

2. The prosecution story is as follows:

The deceased Vellaiya Goundar had two wives, Veerammal (deceased in this case) and Ponnammal. Through Veerammal, he had two daughters and a son, namely, Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2) and Murugayee (P.W.-3) and Arumugam. Through Ponnammal, he had a daughter by name Perumayee. Arumugam died leaving behind his widow Saroja and son Selvaraj (accused). While so, it is alleged that on 25.12.2008, Selvaraj (accused) picked up a quarrel with his grandmother Veerammal asking for a share in the property and when she refused, he challenged her saying that he would plough the field and thus take possession. Saying so, Selvaraj (accused) went towards the fields and he was followed by Veerammal. In the fields, a quarrel once again ensued between Veerammal and Selvaraj (accused), in which, it is alleged that Selvaraj assaulted her with a stick and caused several injuries on her resulting in her death. On the complaint lodged by Thangavel (P.W.-1) the son-in-law of Veerammal and husband of Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2), the police registered a case in Crime No.570/2008 under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation.

2.1. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report in P.R.C.No.10/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kulithalai for the offence under Section 302 IPC against Selvaraj. On committal, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.89/2009 and was tried by the Sessions Court, Karur. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.

3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 13 exhibits and one material object. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the allegations against him, but filed a written statement contending that he had gone to the fields with his friend Sathishkumar in the evening and thereafter, he left the fields and was not present, when his grandmother was allegedly done to death. From the side of the accused, two witnesses, Sathishkumar (D.W.-1) and Sivakumar (D.W.-2) were examined. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 07.06.2010 in S.C.No.89/2009, acquitted the accused, aggrieved by which, Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2) preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.700/2010 under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., which was converted into an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and renumbered as Crl.A(MD) No.83/2018.

4. Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. T. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, it is well settled that when two views are possible, the view that favours the accused merits acceptance. In this regard, it may be profitable to allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arulvelu and another v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206].

6. The case of the prosecution rests on the alleged eye-witness account of Thangavel (P.W.-1), Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2) and Murugayee (P.W.-3). The motive for the offence is that, the accused demanded his share of property from his grandmother and that she refused to concede to his demand. Thangavel (P.W.-1), Subbulakshmi (P.W.-2) and Murugayee (P.W.-3) have stated that on 25.12.2008, the accused came to their house, demanded a share in the property from his grandmother and when she bluntly refused, he challenged her by sayi