The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The State has preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2019 made in S.C.No.51 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, in and by which the trial Court has acquitted the accused 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 120(B) r/w. 302 IPC. Originally there are four accused, out of which the case against the 3^rd accused was quashed as per the order of the High Court and 4^th accused died pending trial. The accused 1 and 2 are the respondents herein.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 – Muthumizhvannan is the brother of the deceased – Kanthamizh Ilavazhagan. Accused 1 and 2 are friends. Accused 1 and 3 are the sons of A4, who died pending trial. PW1 deposed that there is enmity between the family of PW1 and the deceased family with regard to land. The deceased had illegal intimacy / relationship with the sister of A1. Both families warned them, but they did not accede to. In this regard, a criminal complaint has been lodged against the deceased by A1 before Vaniyampadi All Women Police Station and thereafter, the said case was dismissed.

2.2. There was a marriage proposal initiated to the deceased to convene the marriage on 25.04.2010. While so, A1 warned the deceased saying that the deceased spoiled the life of his sister and if the deceased got married, he will kill him or otherwise, the deceased should pay Rs.1 lakh. PW1’s family continued the marriage process. On 23.04.2010, the deceased went to buy dinner for her mother from Keezhservay to Thittakudi in his motorcycle at 10.00 p.m. The deceased did not return back to home and at about 11.00 p.m. PW1 was informed by many people saying that the deceased was lying in front of one Manickam’s house with cut injuries. Immediately, PW1, his mother and wife rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries at 11.30 p.m. He went to the police station and lodged the complaint – Ex.P1.

2.3. PW3 – Tr.Jothimani deposed that he knew PW1. He knew that there is enmity between PW1’s family and accused family with regard to land. He also deposed that there is an illicit relationship between the deceased and A1’s sister. While he was returning home from Thittakudi on 23.04.2010 at 10.30 p.m., he saw the deceased travelling in his motor cycle towards his house. While so, A1 and A2 waylaid him and A1 tried to assaulted the deceased with billhook on his neck. The deceased prevented the same in his hand and therefore, he received cut in his hands. A2 assaulted the deceased with billhook on his left leg. Then, A1 again assaulted the deceased on his neck and he fell down with his motorbike. A1 and A2 repeatedly assaulted the deceased with billhooks. The deceased died. He saw the occurrence from a distance and due to fear, he did not went near where the deceased was lying dead. Thereafter many people arrived and he informed the same to PW1.

2.4. PW7-Tr.Thandapani deposed that there is a land dispute between PW1 family and the accused family. He knew both of them. He deposed that there is an illegal relationship between the deceased and A1’s sister. On the date of the alleged occurrence at 1.00 p.m., A1 and A2 involved in a wordy quarrel with the deceased. When he tried to get near them, they left the place. He asked the deceased about the same. He told that A1 and A2 threatened him not to marry anyone. In-turn PW7 told the deceased to inform this to PW1. PW7 also informed the same to PW1 about the wordy qu