The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case, as demonstrated by the court's reliance on overwhelming evidence to convict the accused for the offense under Section 379 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment of the Learned I Additional Sessions and District Judge, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District, made in S.C.No.161 of 2013, dated 30.09.2019 and acquit the appellants/accused from the charge.)

1. On 21.08.2010, one Sivalingam appeared before the Tiruvottiyur Town Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that his son Ramadoss, who was the owner-cum-driver of the Lorry, bearing Registration TN – 36 – E – 0518, went missing from 17.08.2010.

2. On such complaint, a man missing case in Crime No.562 of 2010 was registered. While so, on 24.08.2010, P.W.1/Dinesh, appeared before the same Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that he was a dealer of supplying Steel/Iron rods. On 17.08.2010, upon getting an order from Tirchy for 15 MT construction iron rods, after procuring the same, he booked consignment through one Moogambikai Lorry Transport, from OM Steels Company, Gummidipoondi, and the consignment was loaded in the vehicle and it left. Thereafter, the consignee informed him on the next day that the consignment did not reach and the consignment along with Lorry was missing. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.763 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. When P.W.17 took up the case for investigation, upon being doubt with one Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, who is the third accused in this case, was picked up by him and thereafter he is said to have made an extra judicial confession, confessing that he himself and the other accused were demanding money from the said Ramadoss, for the purchase of tyres, for which, the said Ramadoss, was asked by them to come near the place called as Rettai Eri, where the three accused and the deceased were sitting together and talking in the cabin of the said Lorry, when all the three accused killed the said Ramadoss by strangulating him by using a nylon rope. Thereafter, the iron rods were stolen and sold by them. Pursuant to the confession statements of the accused, the body of the said Ramadoss was recovered and the other accused were arrested by P.W.17. Thereafter, the case was altered into one under Sections 302, 201, and 379 of IPC, and in view of the unearthing of the new offences, the matter was transferred to the jurisdictional police viz., Puzhal Police Station, where the case was reregistered as Crime No.763 of 2010. Thereafter, the case was taken up for further investigation by P.W.18. Finally, P.W.19 completed the investigation and laid a charge sheet, proposing all the three accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 379 of IPC. The case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, in PRC.No.31 of 2012 and thereafter, upon the appearance of the accused and furnishing of the copies, the case was committed to the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.161 of 2013 and was made over to the I-Additional Sessions and District Judge, Thiruvallur.

3. The Trial Court, after considering materials on record, framed three charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and under Section 201 of IPC., and under Section 379 of IPC. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. Thereafter, to bring home the charges on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.19 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-20 were marked and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced, on behalf of the prosecution. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defense.

4. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to hear the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused and by Judgment dated 13.09.2019, acquitted the accused for the offense under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, and Section 201 of