BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CRL.A(MD)No.79 of 2021 Ragurajan ... Appellant/P.W.1 .Vs.

1.The State, represented through The Inspector of Police, C3, S.S.Colony Police Station (Crime), Madurai.

(In Crime NO.683 of 2015) ....Respondent/Complainant

2.Ilayaraja

3.Muthu @ Muthu Kumar

4.Malarkodi ... Respondents No.2 to 4 /Respondents 1 to 3 PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 r/w Section 29 of Criminal Amendment Act against the order of acquittal made in S.C.No.552 of 2016, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of learned IV Additional District Court, Madurai by erroneously acquitting the accused from the offences under Section 120(b), 302 r/w 397 r/w 34 of IPC.

For Appellant : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondent-1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Addl.Public Prosecutor For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy For Respondent-3 : Mr.T.Sugadev for Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent-4 : Mr.B.Viswanathan

JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J AND R.POORNIMA.,J This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal made in S.C.No.552 of 2016, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of learned IVth Additional District Court, Madurai by erroneously acquitting the accused from the offences under Section 120(b), 302 r/w 397 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The above Criminal Appeal is preferred by P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased Lakshmi Devi. The case of the prosecution is that Lakshmi Devi, a resident of Arul Nagar, Kalyanasundaram Street, Pattukkottai was found dead on 25.07.2015 in her house by the nearby resident and on the information of her son who is the first informant, an FIR in Crime No.683 of 2015 came to be registered by the respondent Police. P.W.18 taken up the investigation and in the light of the fact that the jewels and wearing apparels of the deceased was found missing, investigation was intensified regarding regular visitors of Lakshmi Devi’s house.

3.A3-Malarkodi, being one of the regular visitor was arrested on 1.8.2015 and from her, some of the jewels of Lakshmi Devi was recovered based on her confession in the presence of witnesses, that was followed by 2 other accused. Note by Ilayaraja suspeced to be a suicide note written by him out of remorse, committing the crime, was also recovered along with cash of Rs.8,000/- which is the sale proceed of the jewels.

4.The Court of Sessions framed charges under Section 120(b) against three accused and charge under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC against A3, charge under Section 449 of IPC against accused 1 and 2, charge under Section

302 r/w Section 109 against A1 and charge under Section 302 of IPC against A2 and charge under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. To prove the case, the prosecuction has examined 18 witnesses and marked 21 exhibits and 12 Material Objects. One Kesavan was examined as Court Witness and the Lodge Registers maintained were marked s Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Prosecution case primarily centers around the confession statement and recovery of material objects from the accused persons, whereas, there is no conclusive evidence to believe the case of prosecution in respect of recovery, since the witnesses for recovery are highly doubtful. The evidence of son and daughter of the victim was not of much help for the prosecution case, since they were not living with the deceased, particularly, yet another son of the deceased was not even examined by the prosecution, who had left his mother few months before her death due to misunderstanding with her mother. Apparently, there is no needle of suspicion against the missing son and the prosecution did not care of examining the son of the deceased by name Suresh. Hence for want of evidence, the trial Court had acquitted all the three accused from the charges. Being aggrieved, P.W. 1, son of the deceased had preferred the ab