(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of Cr.P.C to call for the Judgment dated 11.06.2025 made in S.C.No.110 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.110 of 2022 dated 11.06.2025, on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 are brothers and A.3 is a friend of A.1 and A.2. A.1 fell in love with the younger sister of the deceased and married her without the consent of her family. After the marriage, they were living separately. Due to this, there was continuous enmity and no cordial relationship between A.1 and deceased's family.

3. While being so, on 25.04.2021, at about 11.15 a.m., when the deceased and his family members were returning to their house after taking bath, some by two wheeler and others by walking, near a goat shed, the accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and scolded him in filthy language. They picked up a quarrel with him and A1 went to his house and brought a knife and stabbed the deceased on his left thigh, thereby severing a major artery, causing a fatal injury and heavy bleeding. The other two accused also attacked the deceased with a wooden log on his head. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Lalgudi, where he was declared brought dead due to excessive blood loss. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.290 of 2021 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.17 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The prosecution produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.5. 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 accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and they were sentenced to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, A.3 as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as A3 and even according to the case of the prosecution, he is only a friend of A1 and A2. It was contended that the statement was recorded in the hospital and the F.I.R was registered in Crime No.290 of 2021, which was marked as Ex.P7. However, P.W.7, the wife of the deceased, deposed that she came to the police station and lodged a written complaint, which was received by P.W.6 and marked as Ex.P.6. The earliest version of the complaint, which was given at the hospital by P.W.7 itself was suppressed by the prosecution, as it would affect the entire case of the prosecution.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused also sustained injuries, which were suppressed by the prosecution. This fact was categorically admitted by P.W.7 and P.W.17 and there was no explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused. Only one stab injury was found in the left thigh of the deceased, which was the cause of the death. The Doctor who conducted postmortem deposed that only one injury was found in the dead body on the left thigh of the deceased, which had caused damaged the femoral artery, resulting in excessive bleeding and death.

8. According to the other prosecution witnesses, the appellant and A2 attacked the deceased on his head and chest with a wooden log. However, no injury was found on the dead body of the deceased except one stab injury that too on the left thigh of the deceased. The appellant had no motive and did not cause any injury to the deceased. He had absolutely no knowledge of any intention on the part of A.1 to do away with the life of the deceased. In fact, even according to the case of the prosecution, initially they had quarreled with the deceased and thereafter A.1 went to his house to bring the knife. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove any charge as against the appellant herein.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is arrayed as A3 and is a close friend of A.1 and A.2, who are brothers. A.1 married the sister of the deceased, which was not accepted by the deceased's family. Therefore, when the deceased and his family members were returning home after taking bath in another house situated nearby, all the accused with the intention to do away with the life of the deceased attacked him. Initially, the deceased was assaulted with wooden logs and thereafter A.1 stabbed him. The confession statement of A.1 led to the recovery of wooden log with bloodstains. Hence, the appellant had also attacked the deceased with wooden log and as such, the trial Court rightly convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. On the date of the alleged occurrence, when the deceased and his family members were returning to their home after taking a bath in another house situated nearby, A1 to A3 came there and wrongfully restrained the deceased. They used abusive language and scolded him. They also picked up a wooden log lying nearby and attacked him on his head and chest. Thereafter, A.1 went to his house and brought a knife with the intention to do away with the life of the deceased and stabbed him on his left thigh.

12. The specific allegation as against the appellant is that he wrongfully restrained the deceased along with other accused persons and attacked the deceased with a wooden log. The wife of the deceased had deposed as P.W.7. The relevant portion of her deposition is extracted hereunder:





13. According to her, all the accused persons had attacked the deceased with a wooden log on his forehead and chest. Thereafter, A.1 had gone to his house and brought a knife and had stabbed the deceased. The sister of the deceased had deposed as P.W. 8. She also corroborated the evidence of P.W.7. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

14. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy deposed as P.W. 2. He found only one injury on the dead body of the deceased, that too, a stab wound on his left thigh measuring 0.5 X 3 cms. The deceased died due to excessive bleeding from the stab injury, since it had cut the femoral artery. Except the stab wound, no other injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. In particular, there were no injuries on the forehead or chest of the deceased.

15. According to P.W.7 to P.W.10, all the accused persons initially attacked the deceased with a wooden log and thereafter A.1 went to his house and brought a knife and stabbed the deceased on his left thigh. However, this version is not corroborated by postmortem report or the deposition of the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the deceased.

16. Even as per the case of the prosecution, when the entire family was returning home after taking a bath in their old house situated in a nearby street, all the accused persons wrongfully restrained the deceased and attacked him with a wooden log. However, no one prevented the accused persons from attacking the deceased. That apart, there was recovery of only one blood stained wooden log. Though P.W.7 to P.W.10 stated that all the accused persons had attacked with a wooden log, the prosecution recovered only one blood stained wooden log. Moreover, there is no corresponding injury as per the deposition of P.W.7 to P.W.10.

17. The postmortem report was marked as Ex.P3. It reveals that an incised wound measuring 0.5 X 3 cms was present on the left thigh and on pressing the wound, dark red blood oozed out. The death was caused due to excessive bleeding resulting from the severing of the femoral artery in the left thigh.

18. Admittedly, there was no enmity between the appellant and deceased's family. Merely because the appellant is a close friend of A1, he has been implicated as an accused. The Doctor who examined the deceased deposed as P.W.5. He found only one stab injury on the left thigh and declared that the deceased was brought dead. The accident register was marked as Ex.P5. There were no injuries on the head or chest of the deceased attributable to an attack with a wooden log.

19. Therefore, the overt act alleged as against the appellant was not proved by the prosecution, since there is no corresponding injury to support the same. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring the charges to home and miserably failed to prove the charges as against the appellant.

20. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.110 of 2022 dated 11.06.2025, on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment, dated 11.06.2025 made in S.C.No.110 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in connection with any other case. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.