The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where all elements must connect the accused to the crime without gaps.

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram, the appellant/PW3/wife of the deceased has preferred the above appeal.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 PW1—Rangaramanujam, Village Administrative Officer, deposed that on 16.04.2013, he along with his Assistant Balakrishnan, proceeded on his two-wheeler towards Manjaikuzhi; when they reached Thideerkuppam near the land belonging to Shek Abdula (PW6), they noticed a huge crowd gathered there; on reaching the spot, they found bloodstains on the earth and observed a closed newly dug pit; he (PW1) instructed his Assistant to slightly dig the pit, upon which, they noticed two fingers protruding from inside; thereafter, they closed the pit and proceeded to Parangipettai Police Station at about 10.30 a.m., where, he lodged a complaint (Ex.P1); he also informed his higher official viz. Tahsildar (PW8), over the phone; subsequently, the Tahsildar (PW8) arrived at the place of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. and the Inspector of Police also came to the spot; in his (PW1) presence, the pit was dug open and a male dead body was found and taken out; the body was in a naked state and had a head injury; the forensic officials also arrived at the scene and sniffer dogs were brought to the place; on enquiry with the general public, it was ascertained that the deceased was one Raja, who was working as an Advocate Clerk; PW8 prepared the mahazar statements and thereafter, sent the body for postmortem examination.

2.2 PW2—Suresh, deposed that on 16.04.2013, at about 11.00 a.m., while he was travelling in his two-wheeler, he noticed people running in P.Mutlur village; on enquiry, he (PW2) came to know that a male body had been found in a pit; he went to the spot and identified the body as Raja, who was the son of his paternal uncle; he immediately informed the brother of Raja viz. Kannan (PW4) over the phone.

2.3 PW3—Valli, wife of the deceased Raja, deposed that her husband, Raja, was working as an Advocate Clerk under Mr.Pakkirisamy; she knew the accused; the accused approached her husband for obtaining a bail order and gave money for the said purpose; as there was a delay in obtaining the bail order, the accused came to their house two or three times and demanded return of the money from her husband; her husband informed the accused that he would repay the amount, however, the accused threatened her husband by stating that, if the money was not repaid, he would face dire consequences; the said incident happened two days prior to the occurrence; on the day of occurrence, her husband had gone to the Court and did not return home; on 16.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon, through PW4, she came to know that her husband’s body was buried in a pit; she immediately rushed to the place and identified the naked dead body as that of her husband; after about a week, the police enquired her and she identified the handkerchief (M.O.1).

2.4 PW4—Kannan, brother of Raja, deposed that on 16.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon, he received information from Suresh (PW2) that the body of his brother Raja was buried in a pit; immediately, he (PW4) along with PW3, his parents and villagers, went to the spot and saw that his brother’s body was taken out from the pit; he noticed an injury on the head of Raja, swelling on the throat and a bone fracture on the right leg; he identified the body before PW8; PW4 further deposed that the accused gave a sum of Rs.8,000/- to his brother for obtaining a bail order; thereafter, the accused demanded return of the said amount and he (PW4) advised Raja