Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal must be shown to be perverse or erroneous for appellate intervention.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

1.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant, challenging the judgment 22.08.2022 made in S.C.No.59 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, in which judgment, the accused were acquitted of all charges.

2. The respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 were charged for the offences under Sections 148 , 120(b) r/w. 302, 341 r/w. 149, 302 r/w.149 IPC .

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2017, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Gandhi Market Police Station with the following allegations:

(a) On 19.06.2017, at about 7.00 a.m., her husband left the house for work. After approximately two hours, at about 9.00 a.m., a police official came and informed her daughter that her father had died due to cut injuries. Upon receiving the information, she came out and immediately proceeded to the Government Hospital. She further stated that her son, Prabhakaran, was murdered on 07.08.2016 near a public toilet by Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6. During that incident, the accused also attacked her husband, who escaped with serious injuries. The said case is presently pending before the Court. Her husband had often expressed his desire that the persons responsible for the murder of his son be brought to justice. She also stated that her husband had informed her that the accused involved in the murder of their son had been following him. Therefore, she harbored suspicion against Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and suspected that either they or their associates might have committed the offence. She accordingly requested that appropriate action be taken against the accused.

(b) The complaint (Ex.P1) was received by P.W.24, Thiru.Thayalan, Sub-Inspector of Police, and a case in Crime No.794 of 2017 was registered underSection 302 IPC . The FIR (Ex.P15) was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate and copies were forwarded to the higher officials.

(c) On 19.06.2017, P.W.25, Thiru. Sivakumar, Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch (Ex.P16) in the presence of witnesses Mahamuni (P.W.14) and Chandrasekar (P.W.16), and recovered blood-stained soil (M.O.4) and ordinary soil (M.O.5) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P17).

(d) He conducted an inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P18). Thereafter, he sent a requisition for post-mortem examination through a Police Constable.

(e) On the same day, he arrested A1 to A4 and he recorded the confession statement of A1 (Ex.P20) in the presence of witnesses Selvam (P.W.17) and Adaikalam, and pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession, recovered a blood-stained full-hand shirt and weapons, namely, a blood-stained crowbar (M.O.1), a blood-stained billhook (M.O.2), and blood-stained knives (2 numbers) (M.O.3), under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P7).

(f) He also arrested juvenile accused Janardhanan, and A3 on 19.06.2017 and recorded their confession statement and recovered blood stained knife. Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody. All the material objects recovered were sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court through Form-95 (Ex.P19 & Ex.P23).

(g) He received the blood-stained dresses of the deceased (M.O.6 to M.O.10) under Form-95 (Ex.P24). He examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. Based on the confession statement of A1, he came to know that eight persons had conspired together a