Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, thereby convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C .

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute regarding the administration of a temple between the deceased and accused. Further, a dispute arose between them with regard to construction of a compound wall around the temple premises. In the year 2011, the deceased assaulted one Arunachalam/10^th accused, which resulted in enmity between the two groups. Further, the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused. Due to the said motive, all the accused conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased. While being so, on 05.09.2014, at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused came there in an auto and waylaid him. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and 11 discriminatively assaulted him with sickles, causing his death on the spot. On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.331 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C . After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report 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.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8.On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 before the trial Court.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.2 and A.3 alone guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under of . Aggrieved by the same, A.2 and A.3 as appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, the unnatural conduct of P.W.3 and P.W.4 creates suspicion with regard to their very presence in the scene of crime. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint. However, she did not write the complaint herself and categorically admitted during her cross-examination that she explained the occurrence to a third party and read the complaint before lodging it to the respondent police. After registration of F.I.R, it was sent to the Court with delay of 6 hours, for which there is absolutely no proper explanation by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014. The statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded after 8 days from the date of occurrence. Subsequently, their statements were sent to the Court only after a period of one year and that too along with the final report. There is no explanation by the prosecution for the huge delay in sending the statements to the Court, which creates doubt over the credibility of the case of the prosecution. Despite this, the Trial Court convicted the appellants. The statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C were recorded from P.W.3 and P.W.4 only on 13.09.2014 ie, after a delay of 8 days from the date of occurrence. They are supp