The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. Challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 28.06.2012 passed in S.C.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore District, the appellant/de facto complainant/PW1 has preferred the above appeal.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 PW1—Dayanidhi, who is the brother of the deceased Dinakaran, deposed that his brother Dinakaran loved A1 and married her five years prior to the occurrence; A1 was already married and begot a female child through her first husband, but, she did not beget any issues through Dinakaran; Dinakaran was working as a lorry cleaner and used to go outstations and return to the house once in ten days; likewise, on 13.09.2008 at 7.00 a.m. when Dinakaran visited his house, he (PW1) demanded Rs.10,000, which he gave him by borrowing the same from third parties, in turn, Dinakaran informed him that he would return the money by collecting from A1 and left his house around 1.30 p.m.; PW1 awaited till 19.09.2008 for the arrival of Dinakaran; since Dinakaran did not return, PW1 went to A1’s house and enquired about him; A1 and A2 informed that Dinakaran left on the same day; since he (PW1) could not find out his brother Dinakaran even after searching him in several places, he (PW1) lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).

2.2 PW2—Malliga, who is the mother of Dinakaran, deposed similar to the version of PW1.

2.3 PW3—Chinnaiyan and PW4—Karthik, deposed that they knew Dinakaran and heard about his death.

2.4 PW5—Amudha, deposed that she knew A1 and A2; on 13.09.2008 around6.30 p.m., when she was in her aunt’s house, she saw that Dinakaran was talking with A1 and A2; thereafter, she saw the wordy quarrel took place between A1 and A2 and Dinakaran and also saw A1 assaulting Dinakaran; after some time, she heard the sound of an auto richshaw; fearing for her life, she did not go out of the house; she narrated the same to her aunt at 11.00 pm., for which, her aunt informed her that not to disclose the same to anyone, since the accused persons are rowdy people.

2.5 PW6—Prema, neighbour of A1 and A2, deposed that she heard the sound of the auto richshaw in the nights hours.

2.6 Similarly, PW7—Selvi, deposed that she was an auto richshaw standing in front of A1’s house at 18.00 hours on 13.09.2008.

2.7 PW20—Udayakumar, Head Constable, deposed that on 14.09.2008 at 11.15 hours, he received information from the Railway Officials that a male dead body was found in the railway track between Thalangai and Walajapet, pursuant to which, he registered a case in Crime No.318 of 2008, prepared the FIR and forwarded the same to Tahsildar, Walajapet.

2.8 PW21—Elangovan, Constable Grade-I, deposed that as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he recovered the body and sent the same to Government Hospital and kept for three days; since the body was not claimed by anyone, the body was buried with the help of municipality scavengers; before the burial, postmortem was conducted at the Government Hospital by PW18.

2.9 PW18—Dr.Brindha, who conducted autopsy on the body of Dinakaran, issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P10), wherein, it has been stated as follows:

“Body of a male moderately built in supine posture.

External injuries:

Lower abdomen is avulsed and opened and isterstines are herniated out. Both lower limbs in the lower hip is separated off from the rest of the lower limp. There is a fracture of the upper 1/3rd of left lower limb.

Multiple blisters are seen over the upper chest arm.

Internal examination:

Hyoid bone – Intact Right lung and left lung in the process of decomposition.

Heart – em