The court ruled that specific acts of A1 and A2 resulted in grievous injury and death; acquittal of others was justified due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness reliability in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

P.VELMURUGAN, J

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by P.W.6/Guna challenging the order of acquittal dated 19.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore @ Chidambaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 had an illicit relationship with Sarala, the wife of the de-facto complainant, P.W.1 Shanmugam. About four months prior to the occurrence, Sarala eloped with A1. When A1 later returned to the village, the villagers questioned and scolded him, which resulted in prior enmity. On 06.06.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., due to the said enmity, A1 along with A2 to A11 came to Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudur Maduvangarai Village, in a tractor belonging to A3 and a two-wheeler. They were armed with iron pipes, soda bottles, stones and other weapons. A1 went to the house of P.W.1 Shanmugam and abused P.W.2 Malarkodi in filthy language, stating that he would live in the village along with Sarala. When the deceased Backiaraj intervened to pacify the quarrel, A1 attacked him with a glass bottle on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him. At that time, A2 attacked the deceased on the head with a knife. The deceased fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he later succumbed to the injuries. When P.W.2 Malarkodi attempted to prevent the assault, A3 and A4 attacked her on the head with an iron pipe and soda bottle, causing injuries. Further, one Shankar tried to prevent the assault, he was also attacked by the 5th accused by a wooden log attached to a spade, causing injuries. A6 to A10 threatened P.W.2 Malarkodi and P.W.3- Shankar with dire consequences by showing weapons. A11 attacked P.W.2 and P.W.3 with stones. Hence, P.W.1 Shanmugam lodged a complaint with the Annamalai Nagar Police Station. Based on the complaint, the first respondent– Police registered a case against the accused persons (respondents 2 to 12 herein) in Crime No.149 of 2011 on 07.06.2011 for the offences under Sections 148, 294(b), 342, 324, 506 (Part-II) and 307 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, as the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, the offence was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chidambaram. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C.No.10 of 2012 and, after complying with the requirements under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., since the offences were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, upon receipt of the records, took the case on file as S.C.No.271 of 2012 and made over the same to the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, for disposal in accordance with law. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge found a prima facie case and framed charges against the accused as follows:

(i) Against A1 - 148, 294-B, 324, 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC

(ii) Against A2 - 148 and 302 IPC

(iii) Against A3, A4, A5 and A11 - 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC

(iv) Against A6 to A10 - 148, 506(ii) and 302 r/w 149 IPC

3. During the course of trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, totally 17 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 17, and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14, besides four Material Objects (M.Os). were exhibited.

4. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to the respondents 2 to 12 / accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary