The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and discredited circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(C.V. Karthikeyan, J.)

(PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, dated 09.10.2013 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.)

The first accused Selvi in S.C.No.131 of 2012 who had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment by judgment, dated 09.10.2013, by the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

2. It must be stated that totally eight (8) accused faced trial before the trial Court and apart from this appellant /A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 were also convicted for the substantial offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The 8th accused was a juvenile offender.

3. Questioning that conviction and sentence, A4, A5 and A7 had filed Crl.A.(MD)No.332 of 2013 and A6 had filed Crl.A.(MD)No.61 of 2014. By a common judgment dated 25.05.2015, the conviction and sentence had been confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, A3, A4 and A5 had independently filed Criminal Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They had been acquitted of all the charges. A6 had also filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and though it is pending, A6 had been granted bail. A2 had died and therefore, the charges had abated. There is no information about A7.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant /A1 was the wife of the deceased. It is contended that she had developed an intimate relationship with A2. It is further contended that in furtherance of the said relationship the accused had conspired to commit the murder of the deceased and accordingly, on 27.07.2011 in the early morning at 2.00 a.m., it is stated that all the eight accused had entered into the house of A1 and the deceased and had committed the murder of the deceased.

5. In this connection, P.W.1 Lakshmi, the mother of the deceased had given a complaint which was marked as Ex.P.1. On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.17 Sub Inspector of Police at Usilampatti Town Police Station had registered FIR in Crime No.440 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 302 IPC. In the said FIR, the appellant-Selvi and A2-Karikalan were named. The FIR was registered at 03.30 a.m., on 27.07.2011 and had been received by the Judicial Magistrate at 05.20 a.m., on the same day/ 27.07.2011. On conclusion of investigation by P.W.18 Aundiappan, Inspector of Police, final report was filed before the District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatty and taken cognizance as PRC.No.21 of 2011. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court at Madurai. It was taken on file as S.C.No.131 of 2012 and made over to the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai for trial.

6. The following charges were framed against the accused:

(i) against A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC;

(ii) against A2, A3, A5, A6 & A7 for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC;

(iii) against A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 & A7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC;

(iv) against A4 for the offence punishable under Section 449 r/w.120(B) IPC.

7. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to prove the charges. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P37 documents. The prosecution also produced M.O.1 to M.O.52 material objects.

8. On conclusion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the incriminating portions were put to the accused. Their statements were recorded. The accused did