In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on weak circumstantial evidence fails to support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed by Accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide judgment dated 31.10.2019 in S.C.No.99 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

2. As facts pleaded and submissions made are the same, these three Criminal Appeals are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this Common Judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4........

(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.12.2014 at about8.30 p.m., all the accused were proceeding in a motorcylce bearing Regn.No. TN28-AM-7204, to go to an isolated place for consuming liquor; that they saw a TVS-50 Super XL Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN28-AE-1055 parked in the road; that they also saw the deceased and PW4 near the bike having oral sex and when they went near them, PW4 ran away and they caught hold of the deceased; that when they enquired from the deceased, he told them that he was married and had children; that when the accused asked the deceased to call his wife with an intention to rape her, the deceased called his father [PW1] to send his wife to his house situated in his agricultural land; and that thereafter all the accused along with the deceased, consumed liquour.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that while the accused and deceased were going to the agricultural land passing though a layout called 'Padayappa' Garden plot, the deceased raised hue and cry and the accused apprehending that the deceased would expose them decided to do away with the deceased; that A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and banged his head on the tree; that A1 pressed and strangulated his neck using a lungi and the other accused also joined him in strangulating the deceased; that all the accused took the bike of the deceased and fled away from the scene of the occurrence; and that when the wife and other relatives of the deceased went in search of the deceased, they found the dead body of the deceased in an abandoned Spinning Mill and suspecting that he was done to death, PW1-father of the deceased, lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] before the respondent Police, on 16.12.2014 at about 10.00 a.m.

(iii) PW14, the then Inspection of Police received the complaint and registered the FIR [Ex.P22] in Cr.No.517 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC; he thereafter went to the scene of the occurrence where the body was found and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P24] and the Rough Sketch [Ex.P23]; he seized the bloodstained earth [M.O.4] and the earth that was not bloodstained [M.O.5] under the Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P25] in the presence of the witnesses; he conducted an inquest at about 12.45 p.m., and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P26]; he thereafter sent the body for postmortem, which was conducted by PW12, who had issued Ex.P17-postmortem certificate; he seized the dress materials of the deceased and sent it to the Court under Form-91; and thereafter, he made a requisition to the Court to send the articles for forensic science examination.

(iv) On 28.12.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., PW8, the Village Administrative Officer of Kalyani Village, brought A3-Ravichandran, belonging to Nochipatti Village, along with the extra judicial confession [Ex.P4] given by him and PW14 arrested the accused at about 10.15 a.m., in the presence o