The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affect the evidence's overall credibility.

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, in Special SC No.39 of 2012, dated 22/04/2022 and consequently to acquit the appellants/A1 and A3.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raghupathi and the deceased Suresh are relatives and belong to SC community and they approached PW9-Loganathan for their avocation. There is a dispute over the land between PW9-Loganathan and others. In view of the motive, on 20/05/2010 at 12 'O' Clock, A1 with iron pipe, A2 with sickle and A3 with pichuvakathi (small curved knife) went to the roof shed at Lakshathoppu by TATA Sierra Car No.TN-67-X-7677 belonging to A2 and wrongfully trespassed into the roof shed. A1 assaulted the deceased Suresh with an iron pipe near his left ear and on the back of his head, causing bleeding injuries, due to which Suresh fell to the ground. Thereafter, A3 cut the vocal cord of the deceased Suresh with a pitchuvakathi (a small curved knife), causing his death. PW17 Raghupathi witnessed the occurrence with the aid of a torch light.

3.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the defacto complainant, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC. After completing the investigation, since the deceased belonged to SC community, the Section was altered from 302 IPC to under Sections 120-B , 447, 307, 302 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Act, the the respondent Police laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and the same was taken on file in PRC No.28 of 2022. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and it was taken on file as SSC No.39 of 2012 and thereafter, the same was made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, for disposal.

4.After completing the formalities under the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there were prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused persons, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA), Act against A1; under Sections 447 , 302 r/w 34 and 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act against A2 and under Sections 447 , 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against A3. Before framing charges, A4-Santhanam filed a petition in Crl.M.P No.506 of 2012 in SC No.39 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, to discharge him from the case and the same was allowed, on 30/07/2012 and so, he was discharged from the case.

5.After framing charges against A1 to A3, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, totally 21 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW21 and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7.

6.After completing examination of the prosecution side witnesses, when the accused namely A1 to A3 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied the same as fal