Madras High Court
Mohammed Arabudeen vs The State Represented By on 28 January, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.610 of 2022
Mohammed Arabudeen : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.264 of 2013) : Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgement delivered by the Fast
Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District, in SC No.72
of 2016, dated 24.03.2022 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit
the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Saravanan
(Legal Aid Counsel)
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon’ble R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, in SC
No.72 of 2016, dated 24.03.2022 and consequently to acquit the appellant.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2013, the complainant
was sitting in his provision store at about 11.00 a.m. At that time, he heard the
hue and cry of his sister-in-law. Immediately, he rushed to the house and his
brother also arrived there in a car. At that moment, they found the accused
running towards the southern side holding a knife.
(a) On entering the house, they saw his mother Sabeena Banu lying
dead in a pool of blood. A rope was also found nearby. Bloodstains were noticed
throughout the staircase leading to the upstairs. When they went upstairs, they
found his sister-in-law Jesima Banu with injuries.
(b) On enquiry, she informed that the accused had earlier spoken with
her mother-in-law. Her daughter had informed her about the arrival of the
accused. Thereafter, she noticed the accused coming upstairs with bloodstains on
his body and he requested her to prepare tea. When she went to prepare tea, he
again asked her to bring some water.
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
(c) When she attempted to bring the water, the accused tried to stab her
with a knife. She tried to prevent the attack with her hand, but the accused
stabbed her repeatedly. On hearing that her husband was arriving, the accused
immediately left the place of occurrence and ran away.
(d) Thereafter, her husband took her in a car to the hospital. The
complainant found that his mother had sustained a neck injury and stab injuries
on her hip and the backside of the chest, and she had died at the spot. Except for
the thali chain, the other jewels, namely 47 sovereigns of gold chain, 18
sovereigns of bangles and 6 sovereigns of rings, were found missing. According
to the prosecution, the accused murdered his mother and removed the jewels.
(e) The complaint (Ex.P1) was received by PW17 – Thiru.
Vijayakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.264 of
2013 on the file of Kenikarai Police Station against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 397 IPC. The First Information Report
(Ex.P16) was prepared. The original complaint and FIR were forwarded to the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, and copies were also sent to the
Investigating Officer for further investigation.
(f) PW20 – Thiru. Ganesan, Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram,
took up the case for investigation. He requisitioned the sniffer dog, forensic
expert and fingerprint expert, and visited the place of occurrence at about 12.15
p.m.
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
(g) He prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P19) and Rough Sketch
(Ex.P20) in the presence of the witnesses Raji and Abdul Wahid. He collected
bloodstained earth in cotton (M.O.6) and also a four-feet nylon rope (M.O.7)
found near the dead body of the deceased under a recovery mahazar (Ex.P21).
(h) He also collected bloodstains from the upstairs (M.O.8) in the
presence of the same witnesses under mahazar (Ex.P22). Thereafter, he
conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and
panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P23).
(i) After the inquest, he sent the dead body to the Government
Hospital, Ramanathapuram for conducting post-mortem to ascertain the cause of
death.
(j) Thereafter, he proceeded to Sathya Hospital, examined the injured
Jesima Banu (PW7) and recorded her statement. He also recorded the statements
of other material witnesses and recovered the bloodstained saree and lungi from
the dead body, which were sent in Form-95 to the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanathapuram.
(k) Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW21 – Thiru.
Krishnamoorthy, Inspector of Police. PW21 took up the case for further
investigation and examined the witnesses.
(l) He arrested the accused on 20.06.2013 in the presence of Village
Administrative Officer Thirumoorthy (PW10) and his assistant Ramesh. The
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
accused gave a confession statement (Ex.P25). Pursuant to the confession, the
bloodstained shirt (M.O.1) and pant (M.O.2) worn by the accused were
recovered under recovery mahazar (Ex.P26).
(m) The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody and the
material objects were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court.
(n) Subsequently, he altered the sections of law from Sections 302,
307 and 397 IPC to Sections 302 and 307 IPC through the Alteration Report
(Ex.P27).
(o) He also recorded the further statement of the injured Jesima Banu
(PW7). He examined PW13 – Dr. Govindaraj, who examined the deceased and
issued the Accident Register (Ex.P14). He also examined PW11 – Dr. Kannaki,
who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and
noted the following injuries.
(i)There were 2 deep cuts on the right side of her
abdomen measuring 4 x 2 cm covered in blood.
(ii)There was a deep cut on her body in the
middle and lower part of her back measuring 4 x 2 cm
covered in blood.
(iii)There was also a long and deep cut on the front
of her neck measuring 10 3 x 4 cm., below the hyoid bone.
The windpipe had been cut. Deep cuts measuring 8 x 3 x
3cm were found on both jaws, which were soaked in blood.
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
On physical examination of her abdomen
revealed a stomach ulcer, Spleen, liver, two kidneys,
uterus, JSCOP Beasts are not good. There was a 5 x 2
cm cut at the base of his body at the beginning of the
blood vessels (Roob mesentry)
and issued postmortem report Ex.P11.
(p) P.W.21 also examined Dr. Meenakshi Sundaram of Sathya
Hospital, who issued the Accident Register (Ex.P12) to the injured Jesima Banu.
On 16.09.2013, he examined the forensic officials and recorded their statements.
After completing the investigation, he filed the final report/charge sheet against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 307 IPC.
3. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanathapuram, took up the case in PRC No.264 of 2013 and issued summons
to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records
were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Since the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the
learned Judicial Magistrate, committed the case records to the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, under Section 209(A) Cr.P.C for further
action.
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram,
received the case records and numbered it as SC No.72 of 2016 and made it over
to the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.
6. On receipt of the records, the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge,
Ramanathapuram, framed the charges against the accused under Sections 449,
302 and 307 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The
accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was
posted for trial.
7.On the side of the prosecution, 21 witnesses were examined as P.W.1
to P.W.21 and 27 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P27. Material Objects
M.O.1 to M.O.8 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was
examined, but one document was marked as Ex.D1.
8. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty and convicted
him for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 449 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment as detailed below:-
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022Conviction Sentence Fine amount
302 IPC To undergo imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.
of life 1,00,000/- in default to
undergo two years SI
307 IPC To undergo imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.
of life 1,00,000/-, in default to
undergo two years SI.
449 IPC To undergo imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.
for life 50,000/-, in default to
undergo two years SI.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
9. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, this criminal
appeal is filed by the appellant on the following many other grounds:-
The motive for the occurrence was not proved. In the absence of any
motive, it cannot be stated that the appellant has killed the deceased and also
caused injuries to P.W.7. Though the prosecution has projected that this is a case
of murder for gain, but rather itself by saying that it is only a case of murder
simpliciter and to have another witness sustained with injuries. In the ordinary
course of nature, no one could venture to commit murder on the other person
without any reason. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he witnessed the accused and
also he found that 47 sovereigns of gold chain, 18 sovereigns of bangles and 6
sovereigns of ring were misplaced and as such, informed that the appellant has
committed the murder only for robbing all the jewels. The investigation also
proceeded on such line as if it is the case of murder for gain. However, the
investigation has been changed and later on, traced and seen to have been
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022available in the compound wall that contradictory version with regard to the
missing of the jewels, which creates a strong doubt on the case of the
prosecution. Such aspect of the matter as to why P.W.1 informed that the
appellant has committed the murder for looting the jewels has not been
thoroughly investigated. Those facts gives an indication that the prosecution has
originally attempted to plan those jewels with a view to make use of the same as
an incriminating circumstances against the appellant, but later on having found
that such an attempt may not strengthen their case has simply dropped the same.
The Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of the accident
registers (Exs.P12 and P13). PW12 cannot be relied on in view of the reason that
the serial numbers mentioned on those documents are different and thereby,
those documents can only be said as concocted materials. The injured witness
P.W.7, when she was admitted in the hospital has informed that some unknown
persons attacked her and she does not know where the the occurrence had taken
place, which is very contradictory to the statement given before the Investigating
Officer and in her evidence before the Court. The appellant is a close relative
and the local resident too. But the victim has not stated the name of the accused
before the Doctor. As per the FIR and observation mahazar, nylon rope found
near the body of the deceased, he should have conducted the investigation so as
to find out in what manner, the said nylon rope has got a link for the commission
of the murder. But during the midst of the investigation, he has dropped his idea
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022and by simply believing the mouth pieces of P.W.1 and P.W.7 and filed the
charge sheet against the appellant. Though the CCTV footages very much
available in the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer has not collected
the same. He called the sniffer dog and finger print experts, when the injured
witness P.W.7 was available. The extra-judicial confession statement given
before PW10-Village Administrative Officer is not believable. The prosecution
has projected the case as if it is a case of eye witness speaking about the
prosecution. When thus being so, the appellant need not to have approached the
Village Administrative Officer (P.W.10) and confessed everything on his own.
The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and
prayed for allowing the appeal by setting the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent State submitted that the present case is based on direct eye-
witness evidence. There is also an injured witness, who was examined as P.W.7.
Further, P.W.1, who came to the house after hearing the alarm raised by P.W.7,
saw the accused running away from the house with a knife. P.W.2 also saw the
accused soon after the occurrence with bloodstains. P.W.6 likewise stated that
immediately after the occurrence, the accused was seen with a knife and
bloodstains.
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
10.1. P.W.7, the injured witness, who is an important witness in this
case, has clearly spoken about the occurrence. The confession, arrest and
recovery have also been duly proved. Though the motive was not spoken to by
any of the witnesses, since the case rests on eye-witness testimony, proof of
motive is not essential.
10.2. Further, at the time of the occurrence, the jewels were not found
on the body of the deceased and were subsequently recovered near the
compound wall. Though no specific complaint was made alleging that the
accused committed murder for gain, it cannot be stated that the accused had not
committed the murder with such intention.
10.3. It is further submitted that the ocular evidence is fully supported
by the medical evidence, and when the evidence is cumulatively considered, it is
also corroborated by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before
the Village Administrative Officer, thereby strengthening the prosecution case.
Therefore, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and
there is no merit in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased, has clearly stated that on
the date of occurrence, i.e., 18.06.2013, he heard an alarm raised by his sister-in-
law. Immediately, he and his brother rushed to the spot. On entering the house,
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
they found their mother lying in a pool of blood with injuries and his sister-in-
law lying upstairs with severe injuries. She was immediately taken to the
hospital. P.W.1 and his brother also noticed that only one gold chain was found
on the neck of the deceased and that the other chains, bangles and ring were
missing. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint.
13. Though the prosecution projected that the accused committed the
murder for gain, on the ground that a major portion of the jewels were missing
from the body of the deceased, the Investigating Officer, who conducted the
inquest on the body of the deceased, has recorded in the inquest report that
though the complainant had informed that the jewels were looted by the accused,
in Ex.P23 (Column No.9) it was stated that the jewels were found near the
window. Therefore, the accused was not charged for the offence of robbery.
14. P.W.7, the injured witness, has categorically stated that the
accused is her relative, being the son of her father-in-law’s younger brother. On
the day of occurrence, when the accused came to the house, she went upstairs
without suspecting him. Thereafter, she heard an alarm raised by her mother-in-
law and noticed that the accused had cut the neck of her mother-in-law. The
accused then removed the jewels of the deceased and ran away. When she
attempted to chase him, the accused stabbed her repeatedly. After she became
unconscious, the accused fled from the place. Later, after hearing the sound of a
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
car, she came to know that some of the jewels were missing, though she was not
aware of the exact number of jewels missing.
15. In this case, except P.W.7, no other witness directly witnessed the
occurrence. However, P.W.6 saw the accused at the place of occurrence with a
knife, and P.W.8 also stated that he saw the accused with bloodstained clothes.
16. The evidence of the above witnesses is further supported by the
Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P17) and the Serology Report (Ex.P18).
The dresses were recovered based on the confession statement of the accused. A
pale yellow coloured jeans pant with dark brown stains (Item No.6), a grey
coloured shirt with white stripes having brown stains (Item No.7) and a rusty
metal knife with a wooden handle measuring about 30 cm in length with dark
brown stains were recovered. The biological report stated that the blouse and
lungi recovered from the body of the deceased were also stained with blood. All
the above items were found to contain human blood, and the rope, blouse, lungi
and pant were found to contain ‘B’ group blood.
17. Further, the confession, arrest and recovery have also been proved
by the prosecution. The defence projected a different version that since the
complainant had married a girl belonging to another community, due to previous
enmity someone else might have murdered his mother. Another theory was also
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
projected that unknown persons had committed robbery and murder. However,
no evidence was produced in support of these claims. The ocular evidence is
fully supported by the medical evidence, thereby strengthening the prosecution
case
18. P.W.12-Doctor who treated the victim girl found the following 19
injuries:-
1. A cut injury measuring 4 cm × 2 cm on the right costal
margin.
2. A stab injury measuring 2 cm × ½ cm on the lower left
side of the abdomen, situated 8 cm lateral from the midline.
3. A cut injury measuring 4 cm × 2 cm on the left costal
margin, situated 12 cm lateral from the midline.
4. A cut injury measuring 4 cm × 1 cm on the upper part of
the right arm, 6 cm below the axilla.
5. A cut injury measuring 4 cm on the thenar eminence of the
right hand.
6. A lacerated injury on the right forearm, 3 cm below the
elbow.
7. A lacerated injury measuring 5 cm × 2 cm on the
posterior aspect of the left forearm.
8. A cut injury measuring 1 cm × ½ cm on the left upper
arm.
9. A cut injury measuring 1 cm × ½ cm on the left side of the
chest, below the breast.
10. A cut injury measuring 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the upper
part of the left little finger, with tendon cut.
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
11. A cut injury measuring 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the left
middle finger.
12. A cut injury measuring 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the left ring
finger.
13. A cut injury measuring 2 cm × 0.5 cm on the left side of
the neck, seen behind the ear in the mastoid process region.
14. A cut injury measuring 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm below the outer
end of the left eyebrow.
15. A stab injury measuring 3 cm × 0.5 cm on the back of the
neck.
16. A cut injury measuring 3 cm × ½ cm on the left side of
the neck.
17. A stab injury measuring 3 cm × 1 cm on the posterior
chest.
18. A cut injury measuring 3.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the back of
the head.
19. A cut injury measuring 1 cm × ½ cm below the above
injury.
19. P.W.11 issued the Accident Register (Ex.P12), wherein it is mentioned
that P.W.7 sustained multiple stab injuries. P.W.11 further deposed that she
found sharp-edged deep cut injuries on the body of the deceased. According to
her opinion, the deceased would have died due to the injuries sustained on the
neck and other parts of the body. Though the Investigating Officer recovered a
nylon rope, no corresponding injury caused by a rope was found on the body of
the deceased.
15/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
20. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at about 11.00 a.m.,
and the FIR came to be registered immediately at about 11.30 a.m. On the very
same day, without any delay, the FIR was also received by the learned Judicial
Magistrate. Therefore, there is no delay in registering the FIR. It is also not in
dispute that the accused, the injured witness, the deceased, and P.W.1 are
relatives.
21. It has not been proved that there existed any previous enmity
among them so as to falsely foist a case against the accused. It is true that the
prosecution has not proved the motive. However, P.W.7 has stated that she used
to visit and meet her mother-in-law, and it is not known what transpired between
the deceased and the accused. In the present case, the prosecution mainly rests
upon the testimony of P.W.7, who is an injured witness. Therefore, the non-
proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution has
established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1953) 1
SCC 5, wherein paragraph No.17 reads as follows:
“Motive is a relevant fact under the Evidence Act (Section 8).
It is an important element in a chain of presumptive proof where the
evidence is purely circumstantial, but it may lose importance in a
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022case where there is direct evidence by witnesses implicating the
accused. In a case such as the present where the prosecution
evidence itself shows that the relations between the deceased and
the appellants were cordial, the absence of an apparent motive,
though not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, may
reasonably be regarded as a fact in favour of the accused. We think,
therefore, that the attempt to prove a motive against any of the
appellants has failed.”
23. Upon careful and proper appreciation of the entire materials
available on record, both oral and documentary, this Court finds that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence, and no grounds are made out to interfere with
the conviction and sentence.
24. In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(G.K.I., J) (R.P., J)
28/01/2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
er
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
To,
1.The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.610 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
er
Crl.A(MD)No.610 of 2022
28/01/2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:11 am )
