In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed against the respondents 2 and 3, by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai District in S.C. No. 153 of 2011.

2. The appellant herein is the defacto complainant. Shun of unnecessary details, the necessary facts which are relevant for the effective disposal of the instant Criminal Appeal are that, PW-1/defacto complainant and the first accused are the sons of deceased, Karaikandan. The second accused is the wife of the first accused. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute between the brothers, namely PW-1 on one side and the first accused on other side. While so, on 24.07.2010, PW-1 demanded a sum of Rs.700/- being the accused share of common expenditure, from the second accused, in the absence of her husband/first accused. Enraged by the act of PW-1, on 25.07.2010, at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased and the PW-1 were standing in front of their house, the first accused had rushed to the scene of occurrence along with his wife/second accused, with a wooden log, and both of them had abused and attacked PW-1. When the deceased intervened and attempted to pacify both of them, the first accused assaulted the deceased on his forehead indiscriminately and the second accused attacked the deceased on his face. As a result, the deceased fainted and was immediately taken to Thiruvannamalai General Hospital, where he was referred to Puducherry General Hospital for further treatment. However, when the deceased reached the hospital, the doctors declared that the deceased died on the way.

3. Thereafter, PW-1 gave a police complaint against both the accused on 25.07.2010 at about 15.30 hrs, before the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-11). Upon receipt of the complaint, an F.I.R. was registered in Crime No. 282 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 323, 307 IPC. Subsequently, PW-11 forwarded the same to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, as well as to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer (PW-12), after receiving a copy of the F.I.R. went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses. He had also recorded the confession statement of both the accused, and an alteration report was sent to the Court, for altering the charges from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. Thereafter, PW-12 also recovered the weapon, and forwarded it to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. After recording the statements of the postmortem doctor and the other witnesses, he eventually laid the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution relied on as many as 13 witnesses and 21 documents to prove their case. The trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges, and as a result, the accused were acquitted and set at liberty. Assailing the said order, the PW-1/defacto complainant/son of the deceased and brother of the accused, has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.

5. Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/PW-1/appellant would vehemently submit that since PW-1 is an injured witness and the occurrence was during daylight, his testimony has to be given due credence, particularly when no other materials were elucidated to discredit the trustworthiness of the evidence of PW-1. It is further contended that the Trial Court, by exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of the doubt, has disbelived the PW-1's evidence. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the learned Trial Judge are perverse and that there is no possibility to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge and to allow this appeal, thereby finding the accused guilty of charges under Sections 323 and 302 IPC.

6. In support of the submission of the appellan