The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the initial verdict under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN J.

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in SC No.163 of 2022, dated 19/02/2024 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellants/A1 to A3.

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the family of the first accused and the deceased family regarding the compound wall and there is also another motive that the first accused suspected the character of his wife having illicit relationship with the deceased namely Velu. Suspecting her fidelity, the wife of the first accused refused to live with him and left for Calcutta to reside with her family. On 14/06/2021 at about 9.30 pm, the deceased as well as PW1 went to invite PW5 to attend a function. The deceased was travelling in a Bajaj Pulsar Bike, whereas PW1 and PW5 followed him on a TVS XL. When they were proceeding near Pappankulam Nalu Mukku Road, in view of the above said motive, A3 wrongfully restrained the deceased and at his instigation, A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with Aruval and caused his death.

3.Based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.320 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 302, 506(ii) and Section 34 IPC against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram, against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC and against A2 for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 302 IPC and against A3, for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and the same was taken on file as PRC No.45 of 2021. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and it was taken on file as SC No.163 of 2022 and thereafter, the same was made over to the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, for disposal.

4.After completing the formalities, since there were prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed the charges under Section 506(ii) IPC against A1 to A3; under Section 341 IPC against A3, under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC against A1 and A2 and under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A3.

5.In order to prove the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW19 and 36 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P36, besides marking 11 material objects as MO1 to MO11.

6.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7.After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli found all the accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated below:-

Conviction against A1 and A2:

Conviction against A3:-