IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of reliable witness testimony, the significance of establishing motive in criminal cases, and the requirement for conclusive medical evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the impugned judgment passed in S.C.No.213 of 2016, dated 04.02.2020, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur and set aside the same.)

1. The appellant herein is the son of the deceased Seenivasan. The respondents 2 to 5 are the accused, who were tried for the murder of Seenivasan, but acquitted by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appeal against acquittal is preferred.

2. The facts leading to the appeal:-

2.1. The family members of the deceased and the family members of the accused live in same Village, but were not in good terms. Few years earlier to the occurrence, while collecting water from the common tap, quarrel erupted and ended in causing grievous injury to the appellant by the third and fourth respondents, who are husband and wife. The respondents 3 and 4 were convicted in that Criminal Case and each were sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- . They preferred appeal against the conviction and same was pending. While so, whenever the appellant used to pass the respondents, they used to spit at him or pass innuendo comments. The appellant told about this to his father [the deceased]. When the deceased questioned the respondents 2 and 3 why they behave like this, Ramadhoss, the second respondent and the respondents 3 to 5 threatened the deceased with dire consequences.

2.2. The feud later turned into a deadly attack by the respondents 2 to 5 on 11.08.2016 at 06.30 p.m. When the deceased Seenivasan was returning home, the respondents 2 to 5 restrained the deceased Seenivasan and abused him in filthy language. The second respondent Ramadhoss hit Seenivasan on his head with a wooden log. The third respondent Selvaraj hit Seenivasan on his legs with a wooden log. Rameswari, W/o.Selvaraj – fourth respondent hit Seenivasan by hands and their son Rajkumar - fifth respondent kicked Seenivasan and pushed him down. The injured Seenivasan was first taken to a private hospital at Rajapalayam. He was advised to be shifted to the Government General Hospital, Madurai, for specialised treatment. The appellant (P.W.1) and his mother (P.W.2) took him to a private hospital at Madurai and got him admitted. The injured died in the hospital on 13.08.2014 at 02.10 p.m.

2.3. Meanwhile, the first respondent Police on the complaint given by the appellant registered a case against the respondents 2 to 5 in Crime No. 532 of 2016, dated 12.08.2016, for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and took up the investigation. During the investigation, the material collected indicated that the attack on Seenivasan was with intention to cause his death. Hence, charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was added. Later, on receipt of the intimation from Vadamalayan Hospitals (P) Ltd., about the death of Seenivasan, charge under Section 307 I.P.C. altered into Section 302 I.P.C. The alteration report was prepared and sent to the Judicial Magistrate. The body was sent to the Government Hospital for postmortem. The accused were arrested on 18.08.2016 and remanded to judicial custody.

2.4. After completion of investigation, final report was filed by P.W16 – Paul Yesudhasan. Charges against the respondents 2 to 5 / accused were framed as below:-

2.5. To prove the charges, on behalf of the prosecution, 16 witnesses, 22 documents and 2 material objects relied. On the application of the ac