JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

This appeal against acquittal is preferred by the de-facto complainant, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, who was alleged to be murdered by the respondents 2 to 5 on the early hours of 13th June, 2010.

2.Thirupathi, the husband of the appellant Mahadevi was done to death on

13.06.2010, at 00.30 hours, near the Pond of Vallampatti Village. About the incident, the first information was given by the appellant to the Ettayapuram Police, naming 4 persons as assailants. The Ettayapuram Police, in turn, registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. against those 4 persons and took up the investigation. Final report was laid against Mareeswaran, Suresh @ Sureshkumar, Velmurgan and Maharajan for offences under Sections 341 and 302 of I.PC. The case was committed to Court of Session and taken on file as S.C.No.

115 of 2011.

3.The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused under Sections

341 and 302 of I.P.C. To prove the charges, 18 witnesses, 23 exhibits and 8 Material Objects were relied by the prosecution. On appreciating these evidence, the trial Court acquitted all the 4 accused, vide its judgment dated 26.08.2011 on the ground that there is much contradictions with regard to date of occurrence, there is inordinate delay in F.I.R. reaching the Court, the motive incident is an improvements and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.

4.Not being satisfied by the order of acquittal, the appellant herein, who is the de-facto complainant, examined as P.W.1, initially, preferred Revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.947 of 2011 before this Court against acquittal. Later, the same has been converted as Appeal in view of the subsequent amendment in Code of Criminal Procedure and renumbered as Crl.A.(MD)No.142 of 2015.

Gist of the grounds raised in the Appeal against acquittal:

5.In this appeal, it is contended that, the trial Court erred in discarding the evidence of P.W.1 by appreciating minor discrepancies in her testimony, which are not fundamental to the facts of the case. The trial Court failed to take note of the fact that this witness is a rustic witness and not able to recollect the exact date of occurrence, one year after the occurrence. Before the incident, on 11.06.2010 the deceased had a wordy quarrel with the first accused for not printing his name in the temple festival notice and for not inviting him for the festival and honour him. On 12.06.2010 the deceased picked quarrel with one Krishnasamy and his wife (parents of A-3) regarding the same issue and assaulted them. These two incidents were the motive for the accused persons to gather at the house of the deceased on 12.06.2010 half past midnight and called him out from the house, chased the deceased towards the Village Pond and attacked with stick indiscriminately. While so, the error of P.W.1mentioning 12.06.2010 as Saturday instead of Friday, which is very trivial contradiction and same not fundamental, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused persons.

6.The trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution case in its entirety and has hurriedly concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive. In a case of direct evidence by eyewitness for occurrence of crime, motive does not play a vital role. By referring the inquest report, which cannot be treated as a substantive evidence, the trial Court erred in believing the defence theory that the deceased quarrelled with the Villagers, who came to participate in the Kabaddi competition and they chased him and done to death. Thus, by improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused leading to miscarriage of justice.

7.The trial Court erred in holding there was inordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Court. In fact, the occurrence took place during the midnight and wee hours of 13.06.2010. The F.I.R. forwarded to