BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Crl.A(MD)No.541 of 2022 Kamaraj : Appellant/Sole Accused Vs.

The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.299 of 2009) : Respondent/Respondent/

Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 394(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in SC No. 61 of 2010, dated 24/10/2019 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellant.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Christopher (Legal Aid Counsel)

For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgement of the Court was made by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J This criminal appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.61 of 2010, dated 24/10/2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that two years prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused's brother and PW1 as the brother of the accused teased the sister of PW1, however, it was subsequently compromised by the elders. Thereafter, the accused's family shifted far away from the place of PW1. While being so, on 23/08/2009 at about 10.00 p.m, the accused had quarrel with the deceased Pandiya Raj @ Pandi and pushed him down. Thereafter, he attacked him with stone on his face. Therefore, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot.

3.On the complaint, the respondent Police registered the FIR in Crime No.299 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court and framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused.

4.In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined 18 witnesses as PW1 to PW18 and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16, besides produced material objects MO1 to MO6. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was produced.

5.On perusal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence 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 one year SI. Aggrieved over the same, this criminal appeal is filed.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the so called eye witnesses as projected by the prosecution as PW1 to PW3 and their presence in the scene of crime itself is doubtful and the prosecution failed to prove the charge as against the appellant. PW2 deposed that he did not witness the occurrence and he is only a hearsay witness. Even according to the evidence of PW2, the presence of PW3 is highly doubtful. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on presumption. They also contradicted with each other in respect of the place of occurrence and the time of the occurrence. Another eye witness was examined as PW1 who is the brother of the deceased. Therefore, he is also an interested witness and his evidence is not admissible in law. His evidence is also contradictory in nature. The prosecution also failed to prove the motive for the crime. Even according to the prosecution, the brother of the deceased teased the sister of PW1 two years prior to the occurrence. It was amicably settled between both the families by the panchayadhars. In fact, thereafter they shifted their residence about 40 to 50 kms away from the place of PW1. On 23/08/2009, the accused visited the place of PW1 to attend the marriage function of his Paternal Uncle's daughter. At this juncture, he had seen the deceased and quarreled with each other. Due to wordy quarrel, the