The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and lack of credible witnesses, emphasizing the need for substantial reasons to overturn such judgments.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.206 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli allowing this appeal and to set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2020 and convict the respondents 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with 302 and 109 r/w. 302 I.P.C, 1860.

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused / respondents 2 to 4 in the judgment dated 30.11.2020 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.206 of 2004 by acquitting the respondents 2 to 4 from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120(B) and 109 I.P.C, 1860. The appellant herein is the wife of deceased Iyyappan who has been examined as P.W.4 in the trial Court in S.C.No.206 of 2004, she had preferred this Criminal Appeal, against the order of acquittal, under Section 372 Cr.P.C, 1973.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. One Iyyapan, husband of the appellant, was done to death on 23.03.2004. A case was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C, 1973 and later, altered into Sections 302 read 120(B) and 109 I.P.C, 1860. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Iyyapan, was an important witness in a criminal case which was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli against the accused Nos.2 and 3. Due to the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 anticipated an unfavourable result in their favour and therefore, they had previous enmity against Thiru.Iyyapan.

2.2. On 15.03.2004, in a tea shop, Accused Nos.1 to 3, hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Thiru.Iyyapan. In that conspiracy, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 induced accused No.1 to do away Iyyapan (deceased) and on such instigation and abetment, on 22.03.2004, when the deceased-Iyyapan was attending a marriage, the first accused in order to complete the plan made Iyyapan to consume alcohol. When he became unconscious, the first accused with intention to commit murder, took him in a two wheeler to north of Mavadi south of Salaipudhur and attacked him with Iron rod and inflicted injuries and thereby, caused his death. The Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A3. This was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C.No.19 of 2009 and copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the offence against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. The case was taken by the Principal Sessions Court in S.C.No.206 of 2004 and the Principal Sessions Judge made it over to the III Additional Sessions Judge on 15.02.2005. After receipt of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the first accused under Sections 120(B) read with 302, 109 read with 302 I.P.C and against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 120(B) read with 302 and 109 read with 302 I.P.C. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the III Additional Sessions Judge, conducted trial.

2.3. To prove the case of the prosecution, 20 witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 were marked and Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.10 were produced. After full trial, since the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused from the above charges.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the victim, on the following grounds:

(i) The judgment of the lower Court is against law, weight of evidences and probabilities of the case and hence, liable to be set aside.

(ii) The lower Court ought to have believed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.21 and convicted the respondents 2 to 4.

(iii) The lower Court ought to have accepted the evidence of exhibit P.1 to P29 and convicted the respondents 2 to 4.

(iv) The lower Court