(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C/ 419 of BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order of acquittal rendered in judgment dated 27.11.2024 made in S.C.No.158 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai by allowing this Criminal Appeal.)

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the State as against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.158 of 2018, wherein, the respondent herein was accused, faced charges for the offence under Sections 294(b), 502(ii) and 302 of IPC, and the trial Court acquitted the accused from all the charges. As against the acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the State.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Pillappan, was working in a Hotel at Madhakupatti and he usually stayed at Madhakupatti. The accused Kannan was doing tailoring work and he very often asked the deceased Pillappan to bring liquor and both of them used to drink liquor very often. While so, on 28.09.2016 at about 10.00 p.m, when the deceased Pillappan was sleeping in the Madhakupatti bus stop, the accused Kannan came there and asked him “why are you lying here” and asked to give money for consuming liquor. When he refused to give money, the accused abused him with absence words and dragged him by holding his legs and dashed his head on the cement slab, whereby, the Pillappan sustained injuries on his neck, back arms and shoulders. Further the accused assaulted the deceased with wooden log and caused injuries and also threatened the said Pillappan not to reveal the said incident to any body otherwise he would kill him. On that date, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital at Sivagangai at about 21 hours, where he died. The accused Nos.2 and 3, concealed the above said offence and thereby FIR has been registered as against all the accused and thereafter, the investigation officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and collected materials and thereafter, filed final report. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court discharged the accused Nos.2 and 3 through an order dated 27.11.2024 and the charges under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 of IPC were framed against the sole accused Kannan.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution they examined PW.1 to PW.19 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex. P.24 and also marked Material Objects M.O.1 to 4. On the side of the defence/accused no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced.

4. After completion of evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C, and he denied the evidence and thereafter, the trial Court after hearing both sides acquitted the accused from the charges against him.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal the State has preferred the appeal.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant would submit that the accused has been charged for the offences under Sections 294(b) 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. According to the prosecution case, the accused assaulted the deceased by demanding money on 28.09.2016 at about 10.00 hours. While the deceased was sleeping at Madhakupatti bus stand he demanded money for consuming alcohol and the same was refused by the deceased thereby, assaulted him and thereafter they had taken the deceased in an auto and left him at his residence Dhuruvampatti. The accused also threatened the deceased not to disclose the incident to anyone and thereafter, the deceased was admitted to the Paganeri Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sivagangai Government Medical College cum Hospital. Unfortunately, he died on 29.09.2016 at about 09.00 p.m. Based on the statement of the deceased FIR has been registered in Crime No.184 of 2016 on the file of the Madhaugpatti Police Station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506 (ii) of I.PC. After investigation, offences were altered to under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. To prove the case of the prosecution they examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked. The trial Court discharged the A2 and A3.

               6.1. The complaint lodged by the deceased amounts to dying declaration. The prosecution witness P.W.1, who is the eyewitness in respect of the dropping the accused in the house of the deceased has categorically deposed about the accused who dropped the deceased in the house of P.W.1 and once the accused dropped the deceased in his house it is for them to explain about the injuries sustained by him and though the evidences of other witnesses clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however the trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused. Therefore the judgment of the acquittal passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that based on the false case the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected to this case. However, the appellant/ police without conducting proper investigation filed final report and after full trail the trial Court acquitted the accused from all the charges. Though the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked, there is no eyewitness in this case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the motive between the deceased and the accused and no sufficient and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused, thereby the trial Court after elaborate discussion acquitted the accused from all the charges and hence there are no grounds to allow his appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. This Court heard the both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is a case of the State appeal, filed by the State as against the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court. Before the trial Court the respondent accused has been charged for the offences under Sections 294(b) 506(ii) and 302 of IPC.

10. In order to prove the case of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.19 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked. No witnesses were examined on the side of the defence.

11. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. This case is arising out circumstantial evidences. As per the prosecution case, the accused assaulted the deceased at Madhakupatti bus stop. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused assaulted the deceased at Madhakupatti bus stop. However as per the evidence of P.W.2 on 29.09.2016 at about 09.30 a.m when he was in house, the first accused along with two persons dropped the accused in the house and his father was unconscious. When he enquired about the same, he stated that three persons assaulted him. At the time nobody where there and thereafter he informed his grandmother and thereafter his mother and grandmother came there and taken the deceased to the Paganeri Government Hospital and thereafter deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai where he died. PW.2 and P.W.3 deposed that they have not witnessed the vehicle in which his father was last brought by the accused and whether he new the accused previously and how he identified the accused have not been established by the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased was admitted in the hospital at Paganeri but, the treatment particulars from the Paganeri Government Hospital have not been obtained by the prosecution/investigation officer and they are no records to show that the deceased sustained injuries at the time of admitting in the hospital at Paganeri.

12. As per the prosecution, the accused assaulted the deceased with wooden log and also dashed the head of the deceased in the cement slab. In Ex.P1- Complaint, there was no mention about the assault made with the wooden log and the complaint itself created serious doubt as the hand writing are over space in the first page and in the backside it was written without any space and there is no signature of the complainant found in the complaint. Per contra, only thumb impression alone was obtained. Though F.I.R has been registered on 29.09.2016 the same had reached the Court only on 01.10.2016. When the complainant was in hospital, how the investigation officer could identify the place of occurrence and how he drawn the sketch have not been explained by the prosecution. As per Accident Registers Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6 there is no mention about the injuries sustained in the spinal card of the deceased, particularly, P.W.11 -Doctor has stated that no external injury was found on the body of the Pillappan when he was taken Madurai Hospital to Sivagangai Government Medical College Hospital. P.W.15 opined that he died due to auspicious due to injury in the spinal card injury. Even as per the postmortem report there was no evidence that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the spinal card.

13. These are all the major discrepancies in the prosecution case and thereby the prosecution failed to prove the charges as against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there is no chain of link to prove the charges as against the accused. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case prosecution has not established the chain of circumstances without any snatch. Further prosecution failed to prove the motive between the accused and the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly analysed the evidence and acquitted the accused from the charges. This Court has not find any reason warranting interfere with the reasoned judgement of the trial Court.

14. Though the trial Court has discussed about the statement recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C, based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court has acquitted the accused and not solely by placing reliance on the statement Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court ought not to have discussed about the statement recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. without any contradiction elicited through the examination of the witnesses. It is well settled law that as far as the appeal against the acquittal is concerned, the Court has to see strong and valid grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, in the case on hand there are no valid grounds to interfere with the trial Court judgment.

15. In view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merits in this appeal. Accordingly this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.