JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 01.03.2019, in S.C.No.262 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai.) Common Judgment P.N. Prakash, J. 1. These criminal appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2019, in S.C.No.262 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. The appellants stood charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. By judgment and order dated 01.03.2019, the Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as detailed below:- Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months. 4. The prosecution case is as under: 4.1. Selvaraj (A1) and his wife Panju (A2) are Dalits and they hail from Panniyaan Colony in Usilampatti. The deceased Ilayaraja and his brothers Marnadu (P.W.1) and Boomi @ Boominathan (P.W.2) are also Dalits and they also hail from the same village. Ilayaraja was married to one Alaguthai (P.W.5) and on account of his addiction to liquor, his wife Alaguthai (P.W.5) got separated from him and lived in her parental home. After separation from his wife Alaguthai (P.W.5), Ilayaraja was residing with his mother in the same village. 4.2. It is alleged that Ilayaraja used to get drunk and create ruckus in front of the house of Selvaraj's (A1's) mother (not examined) in the village. Therefore, it is alleged that on 03.12.2013, around 07.00 p.m., Selvaraj (A1) hit Ilayaraja with a crowbar (M.O.1) on his right shoulder and his wife Panju (A2) hurled a stone at his testicles and caused injuries to him. Thereafter, Ilayaraja went home and on 09.12.2013, Ilayaraja complained of pain in his testicles and so, he was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where, he was declared dead at 12.20 noon. 4.3. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Marnadu (P.W.1), brother of Ilayaraja, a case in Chekkanorani Police Station Crime No.445 of 2013 was registered on 09.12.2013 at 14.30 hours against Selvaraj (A1) and his wife Panju (A2). 4.4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Sugumar (P.W.11), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P4) and rough sketch (Ex.P8). 4.4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Sugumar (P.W.11), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P4) and rough sketch (Ex.P8). Inquest was conducted over the body of Ilayaraja and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P10. 4.5. Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8) performed autopsy on the body of Ilayaraja and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P5) and final opinion (Ex.P6). In the postmortem certificate (Ex.P5), the following antemortem injuries have been recorded: “1. A dark coloured contusion 10cm x 8cm noted on outer aspect of right shoulder. On dissection: The underlying bones found fractured and dislocated with surrounding area of bruising. The intermuscular plane and joint cavities filled with dark coloured fluid blood. 2. A dark colour contusion with areas of peeling of skin measuring 30cm x 20cm noted on front and inner aspect of upper 2/3rd of right thigh. On dissection: The underlying tissues and vessels found contused. The interstitial plane in the muscle were filled with 200 ml of fluid blood. 3. An oblique dark colour contusion measuring 26cm x 12cm noted on front of abdomen, extending from outer aspect of upper part of right side of abdomen to public region. On dissection: The underlying muscles and vessels were contused. 4. Scrotum enlarged, measuring 15cm x 12cm x 10cm and was also contused. On dissection: Each side of the scrotum cavity contains 50ml of fluid blood. Both the testis were contused.” 4.6. After obtaining the viscera report (Ex.P14), Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8) has given his final opinion (Ex.P6) as under: “The deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries 20-24 hours prior to autopsy.” 4.7. The accused were arrested on 09.12.2013, at about 06.15 p.m., and based on their confession, crowbar (M.O.1) and stone (M.O.2) were recovered. 4.8. After examining various witnesses and collecting various reports from the experts, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No. 16 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti, under Sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against the appellants. 5. On appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session i.e., the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.262 of 2014, for trial. The Trial Court framed a charge against the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.2, supra. 6. 5. On appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session i.e., the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.262 of 2014, for trial. The Trial Court framed a charge against the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.2, supra. 6. When questioned, the appellants pleaded "not guilty". To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 2 material objects. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same and did not come forward to give any plausible explanation. No witness was examined from the side of the appellants nor any document marked. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by judgment and order dated 01.03.2019, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed in Paragraph No.3 supra. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused have filed the present appeals. 8. Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 9. Even according to the prosecution, Ilayaraja was a drunkard and used to create trouble in the village to everyone. In fact, Alaguthai (P.W. 5), wife of Ilayaraja, has stated that her husband Ilayaraja used to get drunk and create problems with their neighbours, including the appellants herein. However, she (P.W.5) has stated that the appellants challenged that they would kill her husband Ilayaraja, if he continues with his ill-behaviour. She (P.W.5) has further stated that on account of frequent domestic quarrels, she got separated from her husband Ilayaraja and went to her parents' house and later, learnt that her husband Ilayaraja had passed away. 10. As regards the incident that is said to have taken place on 03.12.2013, we have the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Marnadu (P.W.1) and Boominathan (P.W.2). 10. As regards the incident that is said to have taken place on 03.12.2013, we have the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Marnadu (P.W.1) and Boominathan (P.W.2). These two witnesses have inter alia stated that their brother Ilayaraja used to get drunk; he was living with their mother as his wife Alaguthai (P.W.5) got separated from him; on 02.12.2013, one Panchammal had died in the village and so, on 03.12.2013, they both had gone for her funeral and while they were retuning home, they saw their brother Ilayaraja standing in front of the house of Selvaraj's (A1's) mother and shouting; at that time, they saw the appellants, Selvaraj and Panju, hitting Ilayaraja with a crowbar (M.O.1) and stone (M.O.2); they intervened and separated them; Ilayaraja did not want to go to the hospital immediately, however, when pain became unbearable, he went to the Government Hospital, Chekkanorani and got medical treatment for four days; on 09.12.2013, around 11 in the morning, he (Ilayaraja) complained of pain in his testicles and so, he was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, by 108 Ambulance, where he was declared dead at 12.20 noon. Thus, even according to the evidence of Marnadu (P.W.1) and Boominathan (P.W.2), the incident had taken place on 03.12.2013 around 07.00 in the night. No police complaint was given either immediately or thereafter. According to these witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2), Ilayaraja took treatment in the Government Hospital, Chekkanorani, but, the prosecution has not placed any material to support this assertion. Had Ilayaraja taken treatment at the Government Hospital, he would have informed the doctor that the injury sustained was on account of an attack by known persons, in which event, it would have become a medico legal case. 11. Dr.Natarajan (P.W.8), Postmortem Doctor, in his crossexamination, has stated that the contusions found in the body of Ilayaraja would have been sustained due to a fall also. He has further stated that had medical treatment been given immediately to Ilayaraja for the injuries sustained, he would not have died. Superadded, there is no medical evidence to show as to when Ilayaraja would have probably suffered the injuries noted in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P5). 12. Periyasamy (P.W.3), a neighbour, who is said to have seen the incident on 03.12.2013, has stated that Ilayaraja took treatment in a private hospital after the incident. But, for that also, there is absolutely no evidence. 12. Periyasamy (P.W.3), a neighbour, who is said to have seen the incident on 03.12.2013, has stated that Ilayaraja took treatment in a private hospital after the incident. But, for that also, there is absolutely no evidence. That apart, he (P.W.3) has further exaggerated the incident by saying that Selvaraj (A1) squeezed the testicles of Ilayaraja, which is not even the prosecution case. Marnadu (P.W.1) and Boomi @ Boominathan (P.W.2) were not living with Ilayaraja and they were living elsewhere. Even according to them (P.Ws.1 and 2), their brother Ilayaraja was living with their mother separately. In such view of the matter, the evidence of Marnadu (P.W.1), Boomi @ Boominathan (P.W.2) and Periyasamy (P.W.3) does not inspire our confidence for sustaining the conviction of the appellants. 13. In fine, the criminal appeals are allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, by judgment and order dated 01.03.2019, made in S.C.No.262 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. Bail bonds and sureties executed by the appellants shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.