The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant procedural irregularities or unreliable witness testimony can lead to an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court / District Court, Karur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2020, during morning hours, the deceased misbehaved with the maternal uncle's daughter of the accused. Therefore, at about 09.30 p.m. on the same day, the accused came to the house of the deceased and attacked him with a wooden log. As a result, the deceased fell down and got fainted. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, for treatment. He was admitted into the hospital as an inpatient and on 10.07.2020 at about 07.00 p.m., he succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of information from the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, the respondent recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the F.I.R in Crime No.600 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 and 201 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 had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution produced Material Object M.O.1. 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 accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 and 201 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C and they were sentenced to undergo 15 days imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo seven days Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 to A.3 as appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eyewitnesses, however, they are not trustworthy and it is unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of their testimonies. Their evidences are artificial, unnatural and unbelievable one. Though the alleged occurrence had taken place in their presence, they neither attempted to prevent the appellants nor took any steps to rescue the deceased from the hands of the appellants. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and as such, the entire conviction cannot be sustained as against the appellants.

6. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place in Thatco colony, which is stated to be near the house of the deceased. However, the prosecution did not even examine any independent witness to bring the charges to home. Even the lodgement of the complaint is in dispute. According to P.W.1, she had gone to the police station and lodged a complaint, whereas, as per the F.I.R., after receipt of the information from the hospital, the police personnel had gone to the hospital, recorded her statement and had registered the F.I.R. This contradiction is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore,