The judgment underscores the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, emphasizing the unreliability of evidence when establishing charges.

JUDGMENT :

G. K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.75 of 2019 dated 20.04.2022 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kaur.

2.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and his brother are running a bakery business and own bakeries at Ayyarmalai, Irumbuthipatti and Kosur. A.2 is the cousin brother of A.1 and A.3 is the uncle of A.1. A4 and A5 are known associates of A.1. While being so, the deceased had requested A.1 to give him a two wheeler, which was refused by A.1. Consequently, a quarrel arose between A.1 and the deceased. About one month after the said incident, the deceased went to the shop of A.1, poured petrol in front of the shop, and set fire, threatening A.1 with dire consequences. He further threatened that he would pour petrol on the shop and set fire to close down the entire business. The deceased was already involved in theft and robbery cases and was a habitual offender. He frequently went to prison. Therefore, A.1 was afraid of the deceased and informed A.2 to A.5 about the threats made by him. Subsequently, a panchayat was convened, during which the deceased assaulted A.1 and A.1 was forced to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the deceased.

3.Therefore, A.1 along with other accused persons, intended to do away with the life of the deceased. All the accused conspired together on 06.01.2019 and went to the house of the deceased and informed him that the issue would be settled through negotiation, and invited him to come to the rice godown near Ayyarmalai. Thereafter, A.1, A.4 and A.5 went there to the said place with weapons in a two wheeler owned by A.4. A.3 along with A.2 went to the place of occurrence in another two wheeler. During the negotiation, the deceased demanded money from the accused, which led to a quarrel. Thereupon, A.2 caught hold of the deceased and A.1 attacked him with an aruval on his head.

4.At that juncture, the wife, sister and brother-in-law of the deceased came to the scene of occurrence and raised an alarm. Immediately, A.2 released his hold and took a stone and hit the deceased on the head. When the deceased attempted to escape, A.3 to A.5 surrounded him and prevented him from moving away. Once again, A.2 attacked the deceased with an aruval on his head and hands. In the said incident, A.2 also sustained injury. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared as brought dead. On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.12 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 364, 341, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

5.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. The prosecution produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.16. The Court had marked witness document as Ex.C.1. On the side of the accused, they had examined D.W.1 and no documents were marked. 6.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.3 to A.5 from all the charges and found A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.1 and her son as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 & A.2 as appellants have preferred the present appeal.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that except P.W.1, all other eye witnesses turned hostile, though they are blood relatives of the deceased. Further, P.W.1