The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which in this case was not met due to evidence inconsistencies and unexplained delays.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.76 of 2019, dated 22.07.2022, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and accused are brothers and that there was a dispute between them with regard to the share of their ancestral property. While being so, on 12.08.2017 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was sitting in the bridge nearby Vannangkaruppur Temple, the accused forcibly pushed him down, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the bridge and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi. Thereafter, he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, where he died on 20.08.2017 at about 04.15 a.m. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.83 of 2017 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. After the demise of the deceased, the respondent altered the offences under (b), 323, 506(ii) and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the first accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo two months of Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court acquitted the second accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the first accused.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 12.08.2017 at about 18.30 hours, but the F.I.R was registered only on 14.08.2017 at about 21.00 hours. There was a delay of two days in reporting the alleged occurrence to the respondent police, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. That apart, the F.I.R, which was registered on 14.08.2017, reached the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court only on 20.08.2017 and the said delay was not explained by the prosecution. Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, where he was given first aid and thereafter he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment. The wife of the deceased had deposed as P.W.1 and she stated before the Doctor at the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, that the deceased had fallen down from the bridge and sustained an injury on his neck since he was under the influence of alcohol. The accident register was marked as Ex.P2, which is the earliest document. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of IPC as against the appellant.

6.The prosecution examined P.W.4, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. He deposed that after the occurrence, someone informed about the said occurrence to the wife and younger son of the deceased over the phone. Therefore, the younger son of the deceased, who deposed as P.W.2, could not have been an eye witness to the occurrence. Even assuming that P.W.2 was an eye witness to the occurrence, he did not even whisper about the presence of P.W.4, who is stated to be another eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Hence, all