The court reaffirmed that specific overt acts are crucial for conviction in homicide cases, while witness reliability, particularly regarding tutoring, significantly impacts the assessment of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G. K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.153 of 2014, dated 30.01.2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C .

2.The case for the prosecution is that on 24.01.2013, the deceased teased the girls who had come to the temple function at Boothalinga Temple in Boothapandi. As a result, enmity arose between the deceased and the accused. On the same day, at about 09:15 p.m., the deceased narrated the incident to P.W.7 and informed him to arrange a compromise with the accused. Therefore, P.W.7 called the accused to come for a compromise. A.1, along with A.2 to A.5, arrived at the scene of the crime in an auto, armed with deadly weapons such as knives and a wooden log. Immediately after getting out of the auto, A.1 brutally attacked the deceased and also assaulted P.W.2, causing injuries. A.2 to A.5 obstructed the injured persons. Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died in the hospital.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.29 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341, 302 and 324 of I.P.C . After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under , 148, 302 read with 149, 307 and 341 read with 34 of .

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Ex.P1 to P17. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.2 to A.5 and found A.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C . He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of . He was also sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A.1.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was a delay in lodging of the complaint. The alleged occurrence took place on 24.01.2013 at about 09.30 p.m., and the complaint was lodged at about 02.30 a.m., on 25.01.2013, the next day. In fact, the distance between the alleged scene of the crime and the police station is only 1 km. However, the prosecution failed to explain the delay.

7.P.W.1 categorically admitted that he was tutored by the police, and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon to support the case of the prosecution. There are contradictions between the eyewitnesses. The prosecution failed to examine the call detail records of P.W.7, who only called the accused to come for a compromise. P.W.8 also categorically deposed that there was a possibility of an electric power cut at the time of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the accused were not even identified by any witnesses.

8.Furthermore, the person who suffered injury due to the occurrence, deposed as P.W.2, and turned hostile. No one supported the case of the prosecution for the charge under Section 307 of the IPC . Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the deadly weapons and also failed to establish the motive for the occurrence