The court upheld eyewitness credibility despite their familial ties, affirming substantial evidence was presented by the prosecution to support the conviction under I.P.C.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.16 of 2019 dated 30.07.2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2018, at about 08.00 p.m., due to property dispute, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, abused her in filthy language, and threatened her husband with dire consequences. On 17.04.2018, at about 06.45 a.m., when the husband of the de facto complainant was on his way to the police station to lodge a complaint against the accused, the accused wrongfully restrained him, assaulted him with a wooden log, and abused him in filthy language. As a result, the victim sustained grievous injuries on his right ear and the back of his neck. Thereafter, the accused fled from the scene of the crime.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.136 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P1 to P13. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove Ex.P.1, the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant. She was examined as P.W.1 and categorically deposed that although she gave the complaint orally, the scribe who reduced it into writing was not examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. All the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses.

7.Further, P.W.1 also admitted that she had not witnessed the occurrence when the accused quarrelled with Muthukannu, demanding his due amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, and that the deceased had warned the accused not to disturb the de facto complainant. The other eyewitnesses who were allegedly present at the time of occurrence did not take any steps to prevent the accused from attacking the deceased. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is false, and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges. 8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that it is a daylight murder. The accused assaulted the deceased indiscriminately on his head with a wooden log, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The wooden log was produced as Material Object No.1. Though the eyewitnesses are relatives of the deceased, they are all witnesses of sterling quality, and their genuineness cannot be doubted in any manner. They deposed cogently and are trustworthy witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and the same does not warrant any interfer