The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any doubts require acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence and clear witness accounts.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. PW1/defacto complainant has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District in S.C. No.201 of 2017, acquitting the respondents 2 and 3/accused 1 and 2 for the offences under 120(B), 302, 302 r/w. 201 and 302 r/w. 109 IPC.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 - Mariyammal is the sister of the deceased. A1 is the wife of the deceased. A2 is the paramour of A1. On 30.03.2016, the deceased returned to home after completing his work, had his dinner at 9.00p.m. and he had gone to his bed. After some time, the deceased was vomiting and calling PW1, his sister. She came out from her room and reached the room where A1 is residing. When PW1 asked A1 why his brother was shouting, for which A1 replied that he was in drunken mood and shouting and told that if he sleeps well, he would be alright and also told PW1 to go to bed.

2.2. On the next day on 31.03.2016, when PW1 woke up from the bed and came out, she saw that the deceased was lying on a matt, suffering from fits. Hence PW1 called others for help and brought the deceased to the Government Hospital, Tirupattur. Doctors informed that her brother was already died. They brought the body of the deceased to home and then, as per their customs, they buried the body of the deceased.

2.3. PW1 further deposed that after completion of 40 days ceremony, A1 had gone to her parents’ home. On 05.06.2016 at 4.00 p.m., A1 returned with his children to her matrimonial home. At about 9.00 p.m. on the same day, PW2 who is the son of the deceased had come to PW1 and told that some male person was talking with his mother / A1. PW1 went to her brother’s / deceased room wherein she saw A2 was talking with A1, but A1 asked PW1 why she had come there and told her to go out. PW1 came out from that place / room, locked the doors, came to the first floor and brought Tvl.Egaraj, Murugan, Praveen, Prem, Divyanathan and Sagayamary to the third floor, opened the doors and had shown A2 to all. When they enquired, A2 told that he was called by A1 and hence he came. A2 informed that they murdered the deceased, for that A1 gave him Rs.15,000/- to purchase poison. They caught hold A1 and A2, brought them to the police station and PW1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. PW1 also gave statement under Section 164 CrPC – Ex.P2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur.

2.4. PW2- Daniel is the son of the deceased and A1. He deposed that his father died on 31.03.2016 at 6.00 a.m. A day before his death, his father came home after completing his work at night and after changing dress, he had dinner. At that time, A1 took a bottle from the slab, poured something in a 7up Bottle and gave to the deceased. When PW2 and his sister / PW3 asked A1 what did she mix, A1 told them that their father was suffering from stomach pain and hence, she gave medicine. After drinking the same, his father was suffering from loose motion and he had thrown the things which are all near to him on A1 and asked “what did she give”, “what did she give”. But A1 did not say anything and she started to wash the clothes of his father. Then A1 sent PW2 and his sister / PW3 to bed to sleep. On the next day morning, when he woke up, he saw his father was suffering from fits and his uncle Murugan, Yogaraj and his brother and others, brought his father / deceased to hospital, but they returned only with the dead body of his father.

2.5. Three months later, A2 started to come to his house and when he came, A1 make the kids to sleep at upstairs and told that they should not come out and also threatened them that some ghost was there