The failure to establish motive and the unreliability of eyewitnesses render the prosecution's case unproven, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. These appeals are filed to call for records and set aside the judgment and conviction of the Lower Court in Sessions Case in S.C.No.22 of 2021 dated 23.09.2025, on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi.

2. Both appeals have been filed by A1 and A2 & A3 and hence, this Court is inclined to pass a common judgment.

3. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

3.1. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. The allegation made in the complaint made by P.W.1 is that about one month prior to the alleged occurrence, the deceased Vimalraj had illegally trespassed into the house of the accused persons at mid night 01:30 a.m. Due to that, the accused persons had quarreled with the deceased. Thereafter, on 13.10.2019 at about 02:00 a.m., the deceased Vimalraj is said to have fired the auto of the A1 which was parked close to his house. On this motive, at about 08:30 a.m. A2 and A3 along with another juvenile accused had gone to the house of the deceased to question about the earlier occurrence. Since the deceased was not in the house, they have asked P.W.1 to repair their auto and also threatened her that if the deceased did not repair their auto, they would damage their house and kill the deceased. Thereafter, at about 11:00 a.m. the accused persons have found the deceased in a drunken state lying at Chinnakannupuram Anthoniyar Church.

3.2. On seeing the deceased, A2 to A7 had abused the deceased and assaulted him causing injuries and had dragged him on the floor. Since the deceased became unconscious, they had taken him to the house of A1 and again all the accused have attacked the deceased and caused injuries to him. Thereafter, in order to conceal the body of the deceased, A1 and A3 along with the juvenile accused had taken the deceased in an auto to the house of the deceased and laid him in the back side of the house and they informed PW1 that they found the deceased in a drunken state so that they brought him to the house. Thereafter, the deceased Vimalraj was found to have already died.

4. Hence, a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 and the same was registered in Crime No.410 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201, 506 Part II of IPC against the A1 and two other persons. Thereafter, the station officer who is in-charge of the respondent police station had started the investigation and prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch. Also, he had prepared inquest report and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Subsequently, the respondent took up the investigation and filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

5. To bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.28 and marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36 and produced material objects which were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of the appellant, no witnesses were examined and no documents or material objects were produced.

6. There was a total of seven accused persons, and the learned Trial Judge, after conducting a full-fledged trial and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, convicted the appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay each a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 7 years and also to pay each a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC. They were also convicted and senten