Circumstantial evidence must present a complete, consistent chain to establish guilt; lack of viable evidence or motive negates the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.19 of 2017, dated 06.11.2025, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District. thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 34 read with 302 of I.P.C .

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was running a chicken stall and also engaged in the lorry business. 1-1/2 months prior to the occurrence, the deceased had gone to Theeyanur Village for a programme along with P.W.11, P.W.12 and P.W.13. After attending the program, while they were returning to Paramakudi, nearing the Government Hospital bus stop near Kattuparamakudi at about 01.00 p.m., the car belonging to the deceased was rear-ended by another car driven by A.1. A.1 was accompanied by A.6 in the said car.

3.Immediately, the deceased got out of his car and questioned A.1 about why he had rear-ended his vehicle. Even then, A.1 did not apologize and a quarrel ensued between them. During the quarrel, A.1 and A.6 threatened the deceased with dire consequences. They also threatened that they would not spare him and would kill him. Even after this incident, the deceased was intimidated by A.1 whenever they encountered each other.

4.While being so, on 23.11.2015 at about 09.30 p.m., when P.W.20 and P.W.21 were travelling from Paramakudi to Theeyanur Village in a two-wheeler, they saw 6 or 7 persons standing near a petty shop, with A.2 among them. They heard a conversation in which the group was discussing plans to kill someone. On their return from Theeyanur Village at 10.40 p.m., they saw a Tata Indica Vista car, owned by the deceased, being followed by A.2 along with two others in a motorcycle, holding knives in their hands. They also had an iron rod on the side of the bike. Three other individuals were following in another two-wheeler and all of them went behind the deceased's car.

5.On 24.11.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., P.W.6 found the deceased lying dead with multiple injuries near his car at Adhi Dravidar Colony. A complaint was immediately lodged by P.W.1.

6.Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.140 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 120-B, 109, 114, 341, 201, 212, 34, 302 of I.P.C read with 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 . After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court and charges were framed as against A1 to A3 for the offences under , 148, 120(B), 302 of IPC , A2 for the offences under , 148,120(B) and 302 of , A4 and A5 for the offences under , 148, 120(B), 341, 302 r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, A7 for the offences under Sections 201 , 212, 120(B), 34 r/w 302 of , A8 and A9 for the offences under Sections 212 , 120(B), 34 r/w 302 of and A10 to A12 for the offences under Sections 34 r/w 302, 114 r/w 302 of . Thereafter, the charges were altered by the Trial Court as against Al and A3 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 148, 341 and 302 of , A2 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 148 and 302 of , A4 and A5 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 148, 302 of and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, A7 for the offences under Sections 120(B). 302 r/w 34, 212 and 201 of , A8 and A9 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 302 r/w 34 and 212 of and A10 to A12 for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 114 r/w 302 of .

7.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.31 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.55. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.25. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

8.On perusal of the o