An appellate court shall not interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or the conclusion reached by the trial court is outside the realm of a 'possible view' based on the materials on record.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)

The appellant/defacto-complainant in S.C.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni @ Periyakulam has filed this appeal challenging the judgement of acquittal in the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2021.

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and to set aside the impugned judgement of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam dated 14.12.2021 in S.C.No.13 of 2017 and to convict the 1st respondent for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case:

2.1. The appellant is the son of the deceased, namely Ponnuthayee. There existed a long-standing dispute between the appellant’s family and the accused’s family regarding issue of Muthalamman Temple. The said dispute had been brewing for several years and is alleged to be the motive for the occurrence.

2.2. On 14.05.2016 at about 11:30 a.m., when the appellant and his mother (the deceased) were grazing cattle, the accused came to the place of occurrence on a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN22 AM 0947 and picked up a quarrel with them and, in the course of the same, assaulted the deceased by hitting her on the chest with his hand and kicking her on the stomach. As a result of the said assault, the deceased sustained injuries and died.

2.3. Thereafter, the appellant informed his father and other family members and lodged a complaint before the respondent police. On receipt of the complaint on 14.05.2016, a case was registered in Crime No.129 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. The First Information Report was forwarded to the Inspector of Police (P.W.13), who took up the investigation.

2.4. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch, and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. He then sent the body for post-mortem examination through P.W.8, a police constable, with a requisition to P.W.11, the post-mortem doctor.

2.5. After completing the post-mortem, the Investigating Officer continued the investigation, and arrested the accused at about 5:00 p.m. on the same day, remanded him to judicial custody, examined the remaining witnesses, and obtained the chemical analysis and forensic reports. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C. No. 21 of 2016 on 25.08.2016, furnished copies of the documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and, since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Court.

2.7. The case was thereafter taken on file as S.C. No. 13 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Charges were framed against the accused, and when questioned, the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.

2.8. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P12, and produced M.O.1. After the completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The accused denied the same as false and stated that the deceased died as she was butted by a buffalo, and that the said fact was suppressed. According to him, a false case was foisted due to the lingering enmity relating to the temple dispute.

2.9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, by judgment dated 14.02.2021,