IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that an accused cannot be convicted based on suspicion alone, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment dated 21.06.2023, in S.C.No. 90 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Theni.

1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2023, passed in S.C.No. 90 of 2016, by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni,

2. The Trial Court framed a charge against the appellant, as detailed below:

3. By judgment and order dated 21.06.2023, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as detailed below:

The period of sentence already undergone was directed to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The prosecution case is as under:

4.1. The deceased Chellapandi had illicit intimacy with the appellant/accused Kalimuthu's wife, namely, Muthu. On coming to know about the same, the appellant/accused had reproached his wife, due to which, the appellant's wife left the matrimonial home and went to her parental home along with her children. Hence, the appellant/accused nurtured enmity against the deceased and had premeditated to kill him.

4.2. In order to execute his intention, on 26.08.2015, at 08.00 p.m., the appellant/accused had taken the deceased Chellapandi to the de facto complainant Chellathai's (P.W.1) banana farm, which is situated close to a Government Tasmac Shop and had made him to consume liquor and while the deceased was in intoxication, the appellant had assaulted him with a wooden log (M.O.4) and thereafter, pushed him into a small water tank near a Well and immersed his head into the pool of water, due to which, Chellapandi died of immersion drowning. Initially the case in Crime No. 325 of 2015, on the file of the respondent – Police Station, was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. However, during the course of investigation, the case was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C.

4.3. After examining various witnesses and collecting reports from the experts, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No. 7 of 2016, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur, under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant.

5. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Theni District, in S.C.No. 90 of 2016 and was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni, for trial. The Trial Court framed a charge against the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No. 2, supra.

6. When questioned, the appellant pleaded "not guilty". To prove the case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and marked fifteen exhibits and four material objects. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and did not come forward to give any plausible explanation. No witness was examined from the side of the appellant nor any document marked.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by judgment and order dated 21.06.2023, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him, as detailed in Paragraph No. 3 supra. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal.

8. Mr.M.Maran, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Originally, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Since the accused was not known at that time, the rel