The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to an initial acquittal; however, the Appellate Court found conclusive evidence establishing guilt, warranting reversal of the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

P. Velmurugan J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the de-facto complainant against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in S.C.No.295 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017 acquitting the private respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 of all the charges framed against them, namely, under Sections 294 (b), 302, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act , 1998 against the second respondent/first accused and under (b), 324, 302 r/w 34 & of the , 1998 against the third respondent/second accused, respectively.

2. The first respondent Police laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi against the private respondents/accused, based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased and the case was registered in Crime No.209 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 294 (b), 302, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the first accused and underSections 324 , 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 & of the , 1998 against the second accused, which was taken on file in PRC No.28 of 2017. The learned Magistrate, after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal District & Sessions Court, Villupuram, since the offence under Section 302 was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Accordingly, the Principal District & Sessions Court, Villupuram has taken the case on file in S.C.No.295 of 2017 and the same was made over to the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi for disposal in accordance with law. The learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, on going through the materials, framed the charges against the accused under (b), 324, 302, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 and of the , 1998. When the charges were read over to the private respondents/accused, they denied the same as false. Therefore, the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge posted the case for trial and sent summons to the witnesses.

3. During the trial, in order to substantiate the above said charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 19 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 18, besides 3 material objects were exhibited as MOs.1 to 3. After examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses, when the private respondents/accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. However, on the side of the respondents/accused, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

4. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court found the private respondents/accused not guilty of any of the offences charged and acquitted them by stating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the de-facto complainant has filed the present appeal. For convenience, the private respondents/accused will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in this judgment.

5. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2017 at about 04.30 P.M., when the de-facto complainant Sivagami, pointing out the disputed problem existing between the two families over the place, asked the first and second accused as to why they were building the compound wall in their place without leaving any alley, the accused uttered obscene words on her and stated that they were building the compound wall only