When a criminal conviction relies on interested eyewitnesses, the failure to establish an underlying motive, coupled with unnatural witness behavior, unexplained procedural delays in filing the report, and contradictions in recovery records, necessitates an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C. No.279 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2023, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The deceased, Ayyapan, was the younger brother of the accused. Since the accused was suffering from health issues, he remained unmarried. However, the deceased entered into a love marriage with P.W.1, and they were subsequently blessed with a child. According to the prosecution, the villagers used to tease the accused for remaining unmarried and allegedly referred him as a barren. This, coupled with the fact that the deceased continued to reside in the family house, created resentment and animosity in the mind of the accused towards his younger brother.

2.2. While so, on 25.09.2017 at about 3.15 p.m., the accused allegedly attacked the deceased with a billhook in the verandah of Vinayagar Temple situated on East Street, Ilayanayinarkulam Vadakkuur Village. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses. On seeing them, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the attack.

2.3. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.17. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.17 registered a case and prepared the First Information Report, which was forwarded to P.W.18, the Investigating Officer. Upon receipt of the FIR, P.W.18 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, examined witnesses, and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem examination.

2.4. P.W.16, the Doctor, conducted the post-mortem examination on 26.09.2017 at about 12.15 p.m. and issued the Post-Mortem Certificate. During the course of investigation, P.W.18 arrested the accused. Pursuant to the voluntary confession said to have been given by the accused, the weapon of offence, namely the billhook, and other material objects were recovered. The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody.

2.5. The Investigating Officer continued the investigation by examining the remaining witnesses and forwarding the material objects for chemical, serological and forensic examination. After obtaining the reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory and the final opinion of the post- mortem doctor, P.W.18 laid the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

2.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C. No.144 of 2017. After furnishing copies of the documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C., since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Subsequently, the case was made over to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and was taken on file as S.C. No.279 of 2019. The learned trial Judge, after securing the presence of the accused, framed the necessary charge. When questioned, the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.7. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and produced M.Os.1 to 12. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same as false. No witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the defence.

3. Upon consideration of