Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.118 of 2011, dated 02.03.2012, on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court (FTC No.1), Salem.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein is the father of the deceased. The deceased and the 3^rd respondent/A2 are husband and wife and they had two children. The 2^nd respondent/A1 is the friend of the deceased. The deceased and the 2^nd respondent/A1 were working in a Factory called Alamelu Chemical Factory and became friends. In that way, while the 2^nd respondent used to visit the house of the deceased, developed intimacy with the 3^rd respondent/wife of the deceased. When the deceased came to know about the same, he warned his wife/3^rd respondent and also informed to the Panchayathar/P.W.4, who in turn conducted Panchayat and warned the 2^nd respondent not to repeat the same. Hence, the 3^rd respondent left the matrimonial home along with the children and was staying in her parental house. Though the deceased asked the 3^rd respondent/A2 to come and live with him, the 3^rd respondent/A2 refused to come. Since the deceased was an obstacle to their illegal intimacy, both the accused/2^nd and 3^rd respondents hatched a plan on 09.10.2010 at 7 P.M. in the Mettur R.S. Bus Stop to kill the deceased and in order to carry out that plan, on 11.10.2010 at 11 p.m., in the land belongs to one Palaniappan, the 2^nd respondent/A1 threw a large stone on the head of the deceased as a result, the deceased died due to the injuries. P.W.3 who passed through the occurrence place, found the body of the deceased and informed to the appellant who in turn rushed to the occurrence place and found the body of the deceased and lodged a complaint against the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the appellant, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.227 of 2010 against the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur, and the same was taken on file in P.R.C. No.9 of 2010. The learned Magistrate, after completion of formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.118 of 2011 and made over to the Additional District Sessions Court (FTC No.1), Salem, for disposal. After completing the formalities, since the learned Additional District Sessions Judge found prima facie case against the private respondents, framed the charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against the 2^nd respondent/A1 and for the offence under Sections 302 read with 120(B) IPC as against the 3^rd respondent/A2. After framing of charges, since the private respondents/accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty, summons were issued to the witnesses.

4. During trial, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, totally as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and 21 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.21, besides, 17 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.17.

5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witness. The accused denied the same as false. On the side of defence, 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3, besides 3 witness documents were marked as Exs.X.1 to X3.

6. After completion of trial and upon hearing of the arguments advanced on either