In criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions in witness testimony, failure to examine independent witnesses in public-place offences, and the lack of essential corroborative evidence necessitate the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the conviction judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed in S.C.No.83 of 2020 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ponneri.

2. In the aforesaid case, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

3. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are as follows.

4.1 On 10.10.2018, the deceased (husband of P.W.1, Suriya) and his relative (appellant/accused) went to a wine shop at Ezhil Nagar. While consuming liquor, the appellant/accused allegedly demanded that the deceased, being employed, should purchase liquor for him daily. This led to a quarrel, following which, the deceased started leaving the company of the appellant/accused. While the deceased was crossing the bus stop around 04.00 p.m., the appellant/accused shouted at him, reiterating his demand. When the deceased did not respond, the appellant/accused became enraged, picked up a wooden log (M.O.1) lying nearby, and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased across his body. Out of pain, the deceased raised an alarm, attracting by-standers. However, the appellant/accused threatened them and fled the scene. Upon being informed of the incident by one Ragukumar (P.W.2), nephew of the deceased, P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence and took the deceased in an auto-rickshaw to nearby Akash Hospital. After receiving first aid, he was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for further treatment, where he was admitted as an inpatient.

4.2 On 11.10.2018, at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.1 (wife of the deceased) lodged a complaint before the respondent/Police. Based on the complaint, P.W.13 (Sub Inspector of Police), registered a case in Crime No.393 of 2018 (Ex.P8) for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) of IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.14 (Inspector of Police), who visited the scene of occurrence at 8.45 a.m. and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Exs.P2 & P3) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.7. Thereafter, P.W.14 examined P.W.1 and the eyewitness, P.W.2, and recorded their statements. He further recorded the statements of P.W.3 (Srinivasan) and questioned the hearsay witnesses, P.W.4 (Jagannathan, brother of P.W.1) and P.W.5 (Sivakumar). During the course of the investigation, P.W.14 (Investigating Officer) maintained surveillance and after identifying the appellant/accused Nagappan, arrested him at 12.00 noon on the same day and he had further in the presence of P.W.8 (Baskar) and one Murugan, P.W.14 recorded the voluntary confession statement of the appellant/accused (Ex.P10). In the said statement, the appellant/accused volunteered to take and handover the weapon used in the offence. Consequently, the appellant/accused led the Police to the location and identified the wooden log (M.O.1), which was then recovered by P.W.14 under a cover of mahazar (Ex.P11). After bringing the appellant/accused to the Police Station and completing the requisite formalities, P.W.14 produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Ponneri, for judicial remand. The wooden log (M.O.1), was subsequently produced before the Court under Form 95 (Ex.P12).

4.3 While the investigation was going on, P.W.14 received information that the dec