The testimony of related eyewitnesses is legally reliable if found consistent, cogent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. A co-accused who actively facilitates a lethal assault by restraining the victim shares common intention and is equally liable for the resulting homicide.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J.)

1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in SC No.112 of 2020, dated 18/04/2022 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellants/A1 and A2.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Veerapandi was the son of the defacto complainant namely Punitha. A1 married Bhavani, who is the daughter of Punitha, four years prior to the occurrence. They are living separately due to family dispute. The deceased put into distress as his sister Bhavani life is put into trouble by A1. Due to which, there was enmity between A1, A2 and Veerapandi. That on 06/06/2020 at about 10.00 pm, at the place of East Ramanathapuram Murugan Temple, Maruthanikulam, Dindigul, the deceased questioned A1. In pursuance of which, A2 abused the deceased in filthy language and subsequently A1 stabbed the deceased Veerapandi with billhook on his left neck, back of the neck, right and left hands and right shoulder indiscriminately, caused injury leading to death. A2 caught hold of the deceased, abused him in filthy language and wrongfully restrained him from proceeding. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries and was taken to Dindigul Government Hospital. He was later admitted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he succumbed to injuries, on 07/06/2020 at 07.15 pm.

3. Based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.1138 of 2020, dated 07/06/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and the same was taken on file as P.R.C No.32 of 2000. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul and it was taken on file as SC No.112 of 2020, for disposal.

4. After completing the formalities, since there were prima facie materials to frame the charges against the appellants, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC against A1 and under Sections 294(b), 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC against A2.

5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18, besides 4 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO4.

6. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2, but no document was marked.

7. After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul found A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment; and A2 was found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple impriso