Madras High Court
P.Sureshkumar vs Jayakannan on 16 June, 2014
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16.06.2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice A.SELVAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice V.S.RAVI Crl.A.(MD)No.29 of 2014 P.Sureshkumar ...Appellant/Defacto complainant/PW1 -vs- 1.Jayakannan 2.Silambarasan 3.Rajamani 4.Lifeboy @ Sathish 5.Nagaselvam 6.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District In Cr.No.342/2011 ...Respondents Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in S.C.No.102 of 2012, dated 31.10.2013 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul and set aside the same and convict the respondents 1 to 5/accused 1 to 5 with the charges levelled against them. !For Appellant : Mr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju for Mr.R.Venkateswaran ^For respondents :Mr.K.Veluchamy for R1 to R5 Mr.T.Mohan for R6 Addl. Public Prosecutor. :JUDGMENT
V.S.RAVI,J The Appellant is the defacto complainant and he has filed this appeal as against the judgment made in S.C.No.102 of 2012, dated 31.10.2013 on the file of Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul, wherein the Trial Judge acquitted all the accused.
2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows:-
2.1 The defacto complainant is the resident of Gopalapuram Village, Veerapandi, Theni District and he is the brother of deceased Poongothai. A1 is the husband of deceased Poongothai. A2 is the close relative of A1. A3 to A5 are close friends of A2. PW1 is the brother and PW2 is the mother of the deceased Poongothai. PW3 is the wife of PW1. PW4 is the sister of PW2. 2.2. Further, When A1 and the deceased Poongothai working in a Mill at Ka.Vilaku, Theni District, they loved and married against the wishes of their parents. A1 and the deceased have worked in Gain Up Mill at Batlagundu. Even after five years of marriage, the deceased Poongothai has not been blessed with a child. Further, the father of PW1 presented 25 sovereigns to deceased Poongothai as Sreethana. On 20.04.2011, the previous day of occurrence, PW1 invited A1 and his wife to his residence for Pongal festival, but the deceased Poongothai replied that her husband causing much trouble and he used to ill-
treat her, as her parents could not present 40 sovereigns of jewels as given to her elder sister and also suspected her fidelity. Further, the deceased Poongothai conveyed that her husband has been making arrangements to marry his sister's daughter as second wife.
2.3 Further, on 21.04.2011 at about 8.00 hours PW2 and PW3 contacted PW1 over phone and informed that the deceased Poongothai has got problem. So, PW1 contacted A1 over phone and A1 replied that somebody entered into his house by breaking open the door and murdered Poongothai. Further, PW1 along with PW2 to PW4 rushed to Poongothai's housed at Dindigul. When they entered into the house, the body of deceased Poongothai has been lying on the bed and she has bleedings from nose and mouth, and nail marks have been seen on her nose and neck. PW1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint at 11.30 a.m. 2.4 Further, Narayanasamy/PW27 Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Dindigul Taulk Police Station received Ex.P1 complaint and registered a case in Crime No.342 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P27 is the First Information Report. Thereafter, PW27 forwarded Ex.P1/complaint and Ex.P27/First Information Report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and handed over the case diary to PW28, Deivam, Inspector of Police for investigation.
2.5 Further, taking up the case for investigation, PW28 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2/Observation Mahazar at 01.00 p.m. on 21.04.2001, in the presence of PW9/Gokulakrishnan and one Sureshbabu. PW28 also prepared rough sketch/Ex.P28 and he also recovered MO5/cigarette lighter and MO6/cigarette butt, under Ex.P3 seizure mahazar attested by PW9 and another witness. Since Poongathai died within seven years of marriage, PW17/Perumal, Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul conducted enquiry. PW17 inspected the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and Panchayatars and recorded their statements. Ex.P10 is the report prepared by PW17. Ex.P11 is the inquest report. Thereafter, PW17 forwarded the body for postmortem through PW26/Tamilarasi. The nighty and chimmies recovered from the dead body are marked as MO4 and MO7 respectively.
2.6 Further, PW15/Dr.Umadevi and another Dr.Balasundarai attached with Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dindigul, on receipt of Ex.P7, requisition for postmorterm, commenced postmortem on the body of deceased Poongothai at 11.30 hours on 22.04.2011. During Autopsy they found the following external injuries on the dead body:-
"1. Multiple small petchial marks each of 0.25 cm X 0.25 cm all over the face.
2. Petchial marks over the neck and upper anterior chest.
3. An abrasion of 0.5cmm x 0.5 cm over the right side of middle nose.
4. An abrasion of 0.25 x 0.25 cm over the right chin in the lower part of the face.
5. Another two abrasions each 0.25 x 0.25 cm over the right side of the neck.
i)6 cm from the ear lobe and 11 cm from the right corner of the mouth
ii) an abrasion 10 cm from the right corner of the mouth and 17cm from the ear lobe.
6. Another abrasion over the left side of the neck, 11 cm from the left corner of the mouth and 7 cm from the left ear lobe.
7. An abrasion encircle around the lower 1/3 of neck size 32 X 2 cm uniform - 11 cm from the chin and 8 cm from the right ear lobe, 4 cm from the thyroid cartilage, 10 cm from the left ear lobe, and 3 cm above the Sternal notch.
8. Multiple small petichiac marks over the neck and upper anterior chest wall each 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm."
2.7 PW16, Hamida Begam, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory has given Ex.P9 viscera report stating that the articles such as stomach, intestine, liver and kidney have been examined and poison has not been detected in any of the items. The hyoid bone preserved at the time of autopsy has been sent to the Department of Forensic Science Laboratory at Madurai Medical College Hospital, Madurai for examination as per Ex.P.21 requisition given by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. PW21/Dr.Selvaraj analysed the hyoid bone and issued Ex.P22 Certificate with the opinion that hyoid bone is intact. On the basis of Ex.P9 viscera report and Ex.P22 hyoid bone certificate, PW15 has given Ex.P6 final opinion stating that deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to compression of air passage.
2.8 Further, PW28/Investigation Officer arrested A1 at 18.30 hours on 21.04.2011 and at that time he gave a confession statement voluntarily and that has been recorded in the presence of PW18/Subramani, Village Administrative Officer, and Thiru.Karuppan Village Assistant and PW18 also signed in the confession statement of A1. Admitted portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.P31. On the basis of the facts disclosed by A1 in his confession statement, PW28 altered the Sections of the FIR from 174 Cr.P.C. to 147 and 302 IPC and submitted the Express Alteration report marked as Ex.P29 through PW22, Krishnan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, to the concerned Magistrate.
2.9 Further, pursuant to the information disclosed by A1 in his confession statement, PW28 proceeded to Viralipatti arrested A2 at 21.00 hrs on 21.04.2011. The admitted portion in the confession statement of A2 is marked as Ex.P30, wherein he has disclosed that the jewels taken from the body of the deceased Poongothai have been concealed in the tools box of his share auto bearing Registration No.TN 57 W 8451. A2 identified the said Auto and handed over Thali Chain weighing about 6 sovereigns (MO1) another Kalmugappu chain weighing about 3 sovereigns (MO2) and one pair of ear studs weighing about 1 sovereign (MO3) and the above said jewels and the share Auto Rickshaw have been recovered under Ex.P15 Mahzar and the same has been attested by PW18 and PW19. Three photographs of the above said Auto is produced as MO9 series. At the time of arrest A2 has got certain injuries on his left and right hand. So he has been sent for medical treatment through PW25 Head constable/Rajalingam. PW14/Rathirpriya, provided treatment to A2 and issued Ex.P4 would certificate. It is mentioned in Ex.P4 that the second accused has been brought for treatment at 3.30 hours on 21.04.2011 and he has got human bite on his left and right ring fingers and the injuries are classified as simple in nature.
2.10 Further, PW28, proceeded to the Auto Stand near Batlagundu Police Station at 00.30 hours on 22.04.2011 and arrested A3 and at that time A3 also gave voluntary confession statement recorded in the presence of PW19 and PW20. The admitted portion in the confession statement of A3 is marked as Ex.P32, wherein he has disclosed that if he has taken to the place, he will identify the pillow used to press on the face of the deceased Poongothai. The said pillow has been recovered under Ex.P33 seizure mahazar in the presence of PW19 and PW20.
2.11 Further, the chance prints available at the occurrence place and specimen finger prints of accused lifted have been sent for expert opinion. PW24 Thiru Selvaraj Thomas, Inspector of Police, Finger Print Expert has produced Ex.P23 Finer Print intimation letter, Ex.P24 Final Report. Ex.P34 Reasoning Sheet and chance print with opinion and Ex.P35/thumb impression slip of accused sent by the concerned police. PW24 has stated in his report/Ex.P34 that chance print lifted from the Steel Bureau is identical with the right thumb impression of Silambarasan/A2.
2.12 Further, continuing the investigation PW28 examined witnesses and recorded their statements and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against A1 under Sections 147, 120(b), 302 r/w 109 IPC and against A2 to A5 under Sections 341, 147, 120(b) and 302 r/w 149 IPC.
3. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and relied on 35 exhibits besides 9 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused have been questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied them as false. Neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been marked on the side of the defence, except Ex.D1.
4. Having considered the materials available on record, the trial court acquitted all the accused. Challenging the said judgment, the defacto complainant has come forward with the above appeal.
5. Brief averments made in the memorandum of appeal and also the submissions made on behalf of the defacto complainant by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows:
5.1 The Court below ought to have convicted the first respondent/A1 as the plea of alibi pleaded by him has been rightly disbelieved by the Court below, by relying upon the medical evidence, as to the time of death which falls within the time of the presence of the accused in the house.
5.2 The Court below ought to have convicted the respondent No.2/A2 as the injury found on him, have been sustained by the biting of the deceased, and the same has been proved by the medical evidence and Ex.P4 and the explanation offered by the accused is unacceptable.
5.3 The Court below ought to have convicted the respondent No.2/A2 as the chance finger print taken on the bureau at the house of the deceased is tallied with the sample finger print of him. For rejecting that circumstance, the reason given by the Court below is untenable and unsustainable. 5.4 The Court below ought to have held that even though the motive regarding demand of dowry and the desire of the accused No.1 to marry his close relative, as no child is born between the deceased and himself is not established with relevant evidence, but there is evidence regarding the torture and harassment caused to the deceased by the respondent/accused No.1 prior to the occurrence and the same has been amply spoken to, by the witnesses PW1 to PW4.
5.5. The Court below ought to have held that apart from the said motive spoken by witnesses PW1 to PW4, the other motive, suspecting the fidelity of the deceased by her husband, respondent/accused No.1, herein has been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.
5.6 The Court below ought to have held that as per the evidence on record and even the statement of A1 given to the RDO, the deceased and the accused have been lastly seen together that they have taken food together at 9.30 p.m. and they went to bed at 11.00 p.m. and A1 left the house at around between 04.00 a.m. to 04.30 a.m. to go to Chennai along with his co-staffs for his company matter. As per the medical evidence the time of death, does fall within the said time. Hence, the said circumstance is a vital one and the same has not been considered by the Court below in a proper perspective. 5.7 The Court below ought to have held that the respondent No.1/A1 has conveniently chosen the day for committing the murder of the deceased so as to make it the same as a murder for gain taking advantage of his office preplan to go to Chennai along with his co-staffs for his office matters by leaving the house in the early morning between 04.00 to 04.30 a.m. as it is evident from the records that A1 himself has given a statement before the RDO that 17 sovereigns of gold jewels kept in the bureau has remained there itself and further, it is pertinent to note that the gold bangles worn by the deceased also found remained with her and the valuable items such as laptop, cell phone of the deceased, TV and etc., have not been stolen and remained in the house and the said circumstances prove that there has been no murder for gain. The same has not been considered by the Court below and its finding is unsustainable and untenable and liable to be reversed.
5.8 The Court below ought to have held that it is evident from the records that the windows or the doors of the house have not been broken open either during the stay of A1 in the house in the night or after he has left the house in the early morning and till the deceased has been found dead, and the circumstances establish that the gaining entry into the house for others is impossible except the respondent/accused herein.
5.9 The Court below failed to see the circumstance that the respondent/A1 heard the news at about 07.30 a.m. to 7.45 a.m. that his house has been kept open and his wife has also been found dead, but he has not informed the same to the family members of the deceased at once and further his parents came to the place of occurrence around 08.00 a.m. but they have not made any attempt to lodge the complaint and likewise the accused NO.1 also arrived to the spot around 09.00 a.m. but he has also not made any attempt to lodge the complaint and only after arrival of the family members of the deceased at about 11.00 a.m. PW1/appellant, has lodged the complaint. That shows the conduct of the accused/A1 which is against him and the same has not been considered by the Court below and hence, its finding is untenable and unsustainable. 5.10 The Court below ought to have held that the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1 is trustworthy and believable. For rejecting the same, the reason assigned by the Court below is untenable and unsustainable. 5.11 The Court below ought not to have held that there is a delay in lodging the complaint having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case.
6 Per contra, the the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/A1 to A5, has stated that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and there is no nexus between the accused and the crime. There is a delay in lodging the complaint and the Court below has furnished sustainable and tenable grounds for acquitting the accused and hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the sixth respondent, and also the counsel appearing for both parties.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides, and also carefully gone through the materials on record.
9. The points arise for our consideration are:-
i) Whether the judgment passed by Trial Court by acquitting the accused is sustainable?
ii) Whether the appeal has to be allowed for the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and also for the reasons and grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal?
10. Discussion, Analysis and Findings:-
PW1 has categorically admitted in his evidence that he lodged the complaint as Ex.P1 on 21.04.2011 at 11.30 a.m. before the police regarding suspicious death of his sister namely, the deceased Poongothai. Further, PW1 has admitted in his evidence that he is practising as advocate for the past 10 years and the deceased Poongothai is the second sister of PW1 and she has married the first accused due to a love affair against the wishes of the parents and family members of the Poongothai and therefore she went out of the house and married the first accused during the year 2007. Further, he has admitted that both worked together in several places namely Mumbai, Calcutta and Theni and his parents disliked the love marriage of his sister with A1, as they belong to a different community. Further PW1 has categorically admitted in his evidence that A1 is the husband of the deceased Poongothai and A2 is the uncle of A1 and A3 to A5 are A1's relatives. Furthermore, PW1 has admitted that he has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 suspecting the first accused for the death of his sister. Further, PW1 has admitted in his evidence that A1 and his sister deceased Poongothai have lived together for 4. years in Mumbai and Calcutta and during that time there has been no connection in between their family and PW1's family. Further PW1 has admitted that he cannot specifically point out the details about the jewels given to the deceased Poongothai.
11. Further PW2 has admitted that the deceased Poongathai has studied B.Tech. in RVS College, Dindigul and she has married A1 out of love. PW2 has stated in her evidence that A1 has tortured the deceased Poongothai by asking some more jewels and also A1 has attempted to marry his sister's daughter, as the deceased Poongothai has not got any child for past 5 years, and Poongothai informed about it through phone. However, these facts have not been stated by PW1 at the time of lodging PW1 complaint. Hence it is seen that PW2 has exaggerated the complaint as A1 has married her daughter without her wish and A1 belongs to a different community and she herself has not accepted the love marriage of her daughter. PW2 has stated, that the deceased Poongothai has got no issues for five years. Therefore, A1 has tortured Poongothai so as to marry his sister daughter as second wife. However, the prosecution has not pointed out the details of the said sister or the daughter of the sister whom A1 has attempted to marry for the second time. Further PW2 has accepted that Revenue Divisional Officer has examined herself and others. However, PW17, the Revenue Divisional Officer has given a report that there is no dowry harassment. Further PW2 has admitted in her evidence that when A1 and Poongothai have gone to Punjab for doing work, PW2 and her husband gave party and then only, they went to Punjab.
12. Further, PW3 has admitted that PW1 is the husband of PW3 and she has stated that on 20.04.2011 Poongothai has contacted PW2 through phone and informed about the harassment caused by A1. But, it is seen that it is only an hearsay evidence.
13. PW4 has admitted that PW2 is her sister and Poongothai has contacted her through phone at 10.00 p.m. and informed her about the problem and torture caused by A1 and she has told her that they would come by next day in the morning. However, Poongothai has expired during the night time itself. Further PW4 has admitted there is no cordial relationship between A1 and PW1's family members. In such circumstance, this Court has to analyse the evidence of PW1 to PW4 with caution and care.
14. Further PW5 has stated that she knows the deceased and she has worked as a maid servant in the first accused house. However, she has not stated about any dispute or problem or torture caused by A1 to the deceased Poongathai.
15. Further, PW6 has stated that PW5 only informed about the deceased Poongathai lying in the bed with the doors of the house kept wide open at 07.30 a.m. in the fourth month of 2011 and he has also informed about the said details to A1 and the Dindigul Taluk Police official has arrived at the scene of occurrence at 08.15 a.m. itself. However, it is found from Ex.P1/complaint that only by 11.30 a.m., PW1 has lodged a complaint before the police and police have started investigation after lodging the first information report.
16. Further, PW9 has stated about the recovery of MO5 and MO6 as per Atatchi Ex.P3 and about observation mahazar Ex.P2. Further the said material objects have not been connected to the present case by the prosecution by producing material records or evidences.
17. Further, PW11 has stated that he is working as General Manager of Gain Up Mill and A1 has been employed as General Manager and the deceased Poongothai has been employed as Assistant General Manager. On 21.04.2011 Jeyakannan, namely A1, and PW11 have travelled in a car to Chennai and at that time at about 7.30 a.m. Jeyakannan has received a cell phone call about the death of his wife. Therefore, they have returned to A1's house. PW12 has also stated he is working in Gain mill as driver. On 21.04.2011 he has driven the car in which Jeyakannan and others travelled and after receipt of information, they have retured to Jeyakannan house by 10.00 a..m. Based upon the said details only A1 has stated that he has gone to Chennai on 21.04.2011 on office work. After hearing about the said news, he has returned to the house.
18. Further, PW13 has also stated that Jeyakannan has informed him about the death of Poongathai on 21.04.2011 at 7.30 a.m. PW15 has stated that she is working as Doctor in Dindigul Government Hospital. PW15 has very specifically stated that the 7th injury could have been caused only by an object like rope, wire or chain and she has also given an opinion as well. It is not the case of the prosecution that an object like rope, wire or chain has been used by the assailants and no material objects also, recovered regarding that aspect by the prosecution. Further, on a careful perusal of the Doctor's evidence, it is found that her evidence is not clear and cogent about the crime alleged to be committed by the accused.
19. Further, PW17/the Revenue Divisional Officer has informed that the death of the deceased Poongathai has not happened due to dowry harassment and also filed report. PW18, Village Administrative Officer evidence is also not clinching with regard to confession statement of A1.
20. Further, PW19 has stated that he has signed only in the confession statement, namely in Ex.P14, in the police station. PW21, namely the postmortem doctor has stated that the hyoid bone is intact as per the certificate in Ex.P22 and normally when nose has been blocked and breath has been blocked, there is no chance for hyoid to break. PW24 finger print experts has stated that A2 finger print tallied with the chance finger prints lifted from the scene of occurrence. However, the Trial Court has rightly pointed out that soon after the death of Poongothai, A2 as a relative visited her house and available there for some time. So, there has been every possibility for A2 to affix his finger print on the steel bureau which has been subsequently lifted as chance print.
21. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/A1 to A5 has relied upon the following judgment;-
2012(2) MWN (Cr.) 305 (DB ) (Sathishkumar v. State), wherein it is clearly held as follows:-
"Specimen finger prints. Obtained from Accused without obtaining due orders from concerned Magistrate - Not proper.
Non-furnishing of Opinion-sheet and Reasoning Report of finger print expert to accused - Seriously prejudiced valuable rights of accused - Fatal to prosecution case."
In the present case also, it is seen that A2 has not been served with the said relevant record copies. Further the various requirements of the Section 27 can be summed up as follows:-
(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
(2) The fact must have been discovered.
(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act. (4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.
(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
In this case also, it is found that the counsel for the accused raised valid objections regarding the confession statements and the Material objects recovered by the prosecution, and the prosecution has not furnished any convincing explanation. Further, PW27, Sub Inspector of Police has stated that complaint has not been lodged as per Ex.P1 by implicating A1 and complaint has not been lodged as against parents of A1 also.
22. Further on a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of prosecution whiteness are not clinching and trust worthy. Further, in the following judgments reported in
i) 2013(2) MWN (Cr.)222(SC) (Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam) it is held as follows:
"Burden though lies on Accused to prove his innocence, burden on prosecution much greater to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt"
ii) (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 726 (Bhalinder Singh Alias Raju v. State of Punjab), it is held as follows:
"Circumstantial evidence - Held, on fact, circumstances not sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused."
iii AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2002 (State of Rajasthan v. Wakteng), it is held as follows:-
"18. Above being the position, the High Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the respondent. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed."
iv) 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 10 (DB) (Srikanth & others v. The State, rep . by Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station), it is held as follows:-
"Motive part of prosecution case, therefore, not acceptable- Recovery effected pursuant to confession allegedly given by accused in police custody, cannot be given much importance - No cogent evidence to connect accused to crime
- Prosecution miserably failed to establish its Case. Conviction set aside."
In the present case also PW5, PW19 and PW20 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile witnesses, and further, on a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is found that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
23. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Those circumstances would be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with their innocence.
24. The Lower Court has rightly taken into consideration the motives projected against the accused, last seen theory, extra judicial confession statements of A1 to A3 and the consequent recovery, finger print expert report and injuries sustained by A2 and after giving tenable and sustainable reason, has come to the conclusion the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and nexus between the crime and the accused. The reasons given by the Trial Court for not accepting the case of the prosecution is acceptable. PW1 to PW4 are the relatives of the deceased Poongothai and there is strained relationship between the family of A1 and the deceased Poongothai's family due to love marriage. In such circumstances, their evidence must be looked into with much caution and care. If such evidences have been taken into consideration with much care and caution, it is found that there evidence are not clinching and cogent to establish the guilt of the accused in the crime alleged to have been committed in the present case.
25. In a murder case like the present one, right from the date of the First Information Report and upto the stage of trial, there is no consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also materials on record, with regard to the complicity of the accused in the above mentioned crime. Further, the discrepancies and contradictions as pointed out on behalf of the accused, are material and can be held to go to the root of the case.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and no tangible motive has been established for the accused to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The doubts have not been clearly explained by the prosecution in any manner and thus, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents 1 to 5.
27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed in S.C.No.102 of 2012, dated 31.10.2013 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul is confirmed.
To
1.Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.