The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must provide credible and consistent evidence to sustain a conviction; acquittal upheld due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M.Jothiraman J.

The defacto complainant / PW1 has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2019 made in S.C.No.107 of2015 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Sriperumbudur, in and by which the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents 1 to 5 herein, arrayed as A1 to A5, who are charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 342 and 302 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code .

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 – Tr.Elumalai is the father of the deceased. On 06.09.2014, A2 quarrelled with him stating that PW1’s son had taken photographs in cellphone while A2’s second daughter was taking bath in the bathroom. A2 informed to PW1 that he will bring relatives to conduct Panchayat. Accordingly, A2 brought 5 members and made quarrel with PW1. PW1 sought apology and informed them that his son did not commit any mistake. Even though PW1 admitted his son’s mistakes and sought apology, the respondents / accused had assaulted PW1 and also threatened him with dire consequences.

2.2. PW2-Tr.Murugesan is the uncle of the deceased. The deceased went to PW2’s house. PW2 brought the deceased to PW1 on 07.09.2014. PW1 called the respondents to conduct panchayat, but they postponed the panchayat by saying that village elders are not available in the village.

2.3. On 07.09.2014 night at 2’O clock, the deceased left his house in his motor bike to attend nature’s call at Vannankuttai. PW1 informed the deceased to go along with the company of PW2, but the deceased left from the house at 3.00 a.m. in the night. The deceased returned back in his bike to his house screaming that 5 persons had waylaid and chased him. PW1 called “108” Ambulanace and one doctor arrived in the ambulance. In front of his house, the doctor administered glucose by way of drips to the deceased and thereafter took the deceased to Sriperumbudhur Government Hospital, where the deceased had given statement stating that the respondents 1 to 5 / A1 to A5 poured petrol on him and set him ablaze.

2.4. Thereafter, the deceased was referred to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai. While the deceased was in Sriperumpudhur Government Hospital, two Inspectors of Police came to the hospital and obtained statements from the deceased. While the deceased was taking treatment in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai, two policemen came and obtained statement from the deceased. PW1 went to Sriperumbudhur Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. On 09.09.2014 at night 1.15. a.m. deceased died. He has laid another complaint under Ex.P2 on 09.09.2014.

2.5. PW2-Tr.Murugesan, who is the brother-in-law of PW1 deposed that the deceased gone to PW2’s house due to anger on 06.09.2014 and the same was informed to him by PW1. Since the deceased went to the house of PW2 due to some family issues, PW2 took the deceased to PW1’s house on the next day i.e., 07.09.2014 and left him in PW1’s house and he stayed in PW1’s house since he was not feeling well. The deceased informed to PW1 that he was leaving the house to attend nature’s call and in the early morning on 08.09.2014, the deceased returned back to his house screaming that somebody poured petrol on him and set him ablaze. They called “108”Ambulance and took the deceased in the ambulance. While travelling in the ambulance, the deceased told to PW2 that A1 to A5 waylaid him, poured petrol and set him ablaze. They admitted the deceased in Sriperumbudhur Government Hospital and thereafter, police arrived to the hospital, enquired the same and thereafter, the deceased was referred for further treatment to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.

2.6. PW