The insufficiency of circumstantial evidence is crucial for acquittal in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

These appeals are directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.218 of 2011, dated 21.09.2023, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2011 at about 2.15 p.m., when the de-facto complainant came home for lunch, he found his mother lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He immediately raised an alarm and P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence and found that she was dead. She had sustained stab injuries on her neck, and the bureau had been broken open. It is further alleged a gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns and a gold biscuit weighing 20 grams were missing from the bureau, with a total value of about Rs.75,000/-.

3. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered by the Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police Station in Cr.No. 222 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 of IPC.

4. During the investigation, it was revealed that there are two accused persons, and both are friends. The sister of the second accused is married to one Kutty, who resides at Madasamy Kovil Street, Thalavaipuram. Therefore, the second accused very often visits her house. While he was visiting on 30.04.2011, he noticed the deceased's house and informed the first accused about the situation. Thereafter, they decided to commit theft in that house, which is located at Chettiyarpatti Indra Nagar, Jeyasakthi Nagar. Subsequently, on 04.05.2011 at about 12:15 p.m., both of them came to the scene of occurrence on a bicycle belonging to the second accused, carrying a knife. After removing their shirts, they trespassed into the deceased’s house and asked for water. When the deceased prevented them from entering the house, both accused pushed her down, and the first accused stabbed her on the neck. Thereafter, they broke open the bureau and looted a five-sovereign gold chain, a cover containing the medical records of the deceased’s daughter-in-law, and gold biscuits weighing 20 grams. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court. The trial Court framed the charge under Sections 449, 302 r/w 392 and 392 of IPC.

5. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The prosecution has produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.16.

6. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 392 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred these present appeals.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No. 1097 of 2023 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No. 720 of 2024 submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove any of the charges, nevertheless, the trial Court mechanically convicte