Madras High Court
Suresh @ Vazhakai Suresh Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 25.03.2026 Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
and
CRL.MP(MD).No.6379 of 2026
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2023:
1.Suresh @ Vazhakkai Suresh Kumar
2.Suresh
3.Baskar ... Appellants / Accused Nos.
1,2 & 4
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
At Nagercoil
Crime No.1315/2012 ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 in
S.C.No.136 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and
Page 1 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ramesh,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
for Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff
for Accused No.1
Mr.N.Anandha Padmanaban
Senior Counsel
for M/s.APN Law Associates
for Mr.S.Srikanth
for Accused No.2
Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Anto Prince
for Accused No.4
For Respondent :Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL.A.(MD).No.249 of 2023:
Vignesh ... Appellant / Accused No.3
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District
Crime No.1315/2012 ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Page 2 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022
in S.C.No.136 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini
for Accused No.3
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
CRL.A.(MD).No.860 of 2023:
Varun @ Varukumar @ Kosumuttai ... Appellant / Accused No.5
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station, Kanyakumari District
Crime No.1315/2012 ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 in
S.C.No.136 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathir Velu
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Prabhu
Page 3 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
for Accused No.5
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)
These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants against the
following conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against them
vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.2022 in S.C.No.136 of 2018 on the
file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari
District at Nagercoil.
Page 4 of 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023 Charges/Offences Rank of the for which Sentence imposed accused convicted (IPC) Life imprisonment with a fine of 302 r/w 34 120B Rs.5,000/-, in default, to r/w 302 undergo one year rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment for one 148 A1 year (Crl.A(MD).N One month simple o.174 of 2023) 341 imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of 307 Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year Page 5 of 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023 A2 Life imprisonment with a fine of (Crl.A(MD).N Rs.5,000/-, in default, to 302 r/w 34 o.174 of 2023) undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each A3 One year rigorous ((Crl.A(MD). 148 imprisonment each No.249 of 2023), A4 (Crl.A(MD).N One month simple o.174 of 2023) 341 imprisonment each A5 (Crl.A(MD).N o.860 of 2023) The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2.Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2012, during a
festival at Ashtakaliamman temple, the deceased Vijayakumar started
dancing by sneaking into the group of women and A1 is said to have
objected the same and it led to a quarrel between A1 and the deceased. It is
the further case of the prosecution that A6 had a love affair with the
daughter of the maternal aunt of the deceased and the same was questioned
Page 6 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
by the deceased and as a result, there was a previous enmity between A6 and
the deceased. On account of this previous enmity, it is alleged that on
24.08.2012, at about 7.30 p.m., A1 to A14 assembled in front of Bay Watch
Audio Shop run by A6 and had conspired to murder the deceased and his
family members.
2.2. In furtherance of this conspiracy, on 24.08.2012, at about 9.45
p.m., all the accused unlawfully assembled near the house of the deceased
with deadly weapons. A9 to A11 stood guard on the eastern side of the
house, while A12 to A14 stood guard on the western side. A7 and A8
restrained the deceased and prevented his movement. Thereafter A1
attacked the deceased with aruval on his right shoulder, right elbow and
right wrist. A2 attacked with aruval on the fingers of the right hand and
right fore-arm. A3 attacked with aruval on the right hip and right thigh. A4
attacked with aruval on the left hand little finger, left wrist and right side of
the abdomen, chest and below the naval. A6 attacked with aruval on the
right side of the head, rear portion (occipital region) of the head, right cheek
Page 7 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
and left side of the neck. Consequent to this indiscriminate attack on the
deceased, he succumbed to the injuries at the scene of occurrence.
2.3. During the attack, when the father of the deceased (PW1)
intervened, it is alleged that A1 attacked him with aruval and caused
injuries on his left palm.
2.4. P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.25 on 25.08.2022 at about
12:30 a.m. Upon receipt of the said complaint, P.W.25 registered a case in
Crime No.1315 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307
and 302 IPC. The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P32
and the copy of the same was forwarded to the Investigating Officer, P.W.
27. P.W.27, on receipt of the FIR at about 2:00 a.m., proceeded to the scene
of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in
the presence of witnesses, with the aid of street light. The Rough Sketch
was marked as Ex.P34 and the Observation Mahazar as Ex.P35. He
examined P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.11 and other witnesses. At about 3:00 a.m., he
recovered blood-stained earth and sample (unstained) earth from the place
Page 8 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
of occurrence under Mahazar, marked as Ex.P36. Subsequently, at about
3:25 p.m., he recovered a vehicle allegedly left behind by the accused under
Ex.P37. At about 3:45 p.m., he recovered another vehicle used by another
accused. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and
conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at about 7:00 a.m. in the
presence of Panchayatdars. The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P39. He
also recovered the blood-stained clothes of the deceased under Ex.P40.
2.5. During the course of investigation, he examined several
witnesses and on 26.08.2012 altered the case by including Sections 120B,
302 read with 34, 148, 341, 307 and 302 read with 149 of IPC along with
the existing offences, and under Alteration Report was marked as Ex.P41,
which was duly forwarded to the Court. On 29.08.2012 at about 10:30 a.m.,
he arrested the accused persons, namely Suresh @ Vazhakai Suresh Kumar
(A1), Varun Kumar (A5), Vinod (A6), Anand (A7) and Ajay (A8) at
Sottavala Beach. Based on the voluntary confession given by Suresh Kumar
(A1), an aruval (billhook) was recovered. The admissible portion of the
confession was marked as Ex.P42 and the recovery mahazar as Ex.P43.
Page 9 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
Similarly, upon the confession of Vinod (A6), another aruval was recovered
under Ex.P45, based on the admissible portion of his confession marked as
Ex.P44. On the same day at about 6:00 p.m., based on Varun Kumar’s
confession, weapon was recovered. The admissible portions of his
confession was marked as Ex.P46 and the corresponding recovery mahazar
marked as Ex.P47. On 04.09.2012, P.W.27 arrested Suresh (A2) and
Vignesh (A3) at Christopher Bus Stop in the presence of witnesses Kannan
and Gobi. Based on the confession of Suresh (A2) marked as Ex.P48,
another weapon was recovered under Ex.P49. Likewise, based on the
confession of Vignesh (A3), an aruval was recovered under Ex.P50 and the
admissible portion of his confession was marked as Ex.P51. He examined
the witnesses Kannan and Gobi. On 13.09.2012, he sent requisition for
chemical analysis of viscera. On 30.10.2012, he forwarded the blood-
stained clothes for forensic examination. On 09.01.2013, he came to know
that the accused Bhaskar had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate
No.II at Nagerkovil. Thereafter, he got police custody of the said accused
and, based on his confession, recovered an aruval under Ex.P53, the
admissible portion of the confession has been marked as Ex.P52. The
Page 10 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, after
examining further witnesses, P.W.27 was transferred. The investigation was
thereafter taken over and continued by his successor namely P.W.28.
2.6. On 22.03.2014, P.W.28 arrested the accused Venkatesh (A10).
Thereafter, he examined several witnesses, including the Medical Officer
and Forensic Experts. Subsequently, he was transferred from the said post.
His successor, P.W.30, took up further investigation. On 08.02.2014, one
accused “Kannan (A9)” was produced before him by the Village
Administrative Officer, Manikandan, along with his extra-judicial
confession. Based on the said confession, A9 was remanded to judicial
custody. Thereafter, on 26.12.2015 at about 12:15 p.m., P.W.30 arrested A.
14, namely Esack, in connection with Crime No.899 of 2015. During
interrogation, he is stated to have given a voluntary confession admitting his
involvement in the present case. Based on the admissible portion of the said
confession (marked as Ex.P54), six aruvals and two motorcycles were
recovered under mahazar. P.W.30 thereafter examined further witnesses,
including P.W.1. Upon completion of investigation, after collecting all
Page 11 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
relevant materials and examining witnesses, he filed the final report on
23.03.2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, for
offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC.
The case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.13 of 2016. Since the offences were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate
committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil,
where it was taken on file as S.C. No.136 of 2018 and made over to the
learned Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Kanyakumari. Upon
appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished in
compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
2.7. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge framed necessary charges
against the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty,
thereby necessitating trial. During trial, the prosecution examined witnesses
(P.Ws.1 to 30) and marked documents (Ex.P1 to P54) and material objects
(M.O.1 to 6). After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them. The accused denied all such
Page 12 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
circumstances as false. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were
examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and two documents were adduced on behalf
of the defence as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Upon appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge, by judgment dated
13.12.2022, convicted Accused Nos.1 to 5 and acquitted the remaining
accused.
2.8. There are totally 14 accused in this case and the trial Court, on
appreciation of evidence, acquitted A6 to A14 and convicted A1 to A5 in the
manner stated supra.
3. Crl.A.(MD).No.174 of 2023 has been preferred by A1, A2, and A4,
Crl.A.(MD).No.249 of 2023 has been preferred by A3 and Crl.A.(MD).No.
860 of 2023 has been preferred by A5.
4. The main grounds that were raised on the side of the appellants
are:
4.1. PW1 to PW4 and PW6 are blood relatives of the deceased and
Page 13 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023their very presence at the scene of crime is doubtful, since
(i) the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 21.45 hrs., on
24.08.2012 and the complaint (Ex.P1) is said to have been given by PW1 at
00.30 hrs., on 25.08.2012, whereas, it has emerged out in the evidence of
PW1, PW2 and PW3 that the complaint itself was given only at 4.00 a.m.,
on 25.08.2012;
(ii) Almost all the eyewitnesses specifically state that the occurrence
had taken place in front of Durai Bhavanam, whereas, it is clear from the
rough sketch and the observation mahazar that this place is almost 40 feet
away from the place of dead body of the deceased, which was virtually on
the other side of the road and therefore, the place of occurrence is also
questionable;
(iii) PW1 to PW4 and PW5 and PW6 clearly depose that they carried
the dead body of the deceased, which was soaked in blood and all their
clothes were stained with blood, but, however, the investigating officer has
not recovered any clothes of these witnesses to substantiate that they were
actually present at the scene of crime and they had taken the deceased to the
Page 14 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
hospital;
(iv) The statement of the eyewitnesses was recorded by the
investigating officer only on 26.08.2012 and this was admitted by PW27 –
investigating officer during cross-examination and no reasons have been
given as to why there was almost two days delay in recording the statements
of the eyewitnesses;
(v) The statements recorded from the eyewitnesses and almost every
other statements recorded from the other witnesses reached the Court only
on 25.05.2016 and there is absolutely no explanation as to why it took
almost four years for these statements to reach the Court;
(vi) The police station was hardly 3 kms, from the Judicial Magistrate
Court, whereas, the express FIR reached the Court only at 6.00 a.m. on
25.09.2012.
4.2. The occurrence had taken place at 9.45 p.m., and the visibility
factor looms large in this case and the prosecution in order to establish the
same examined PW15, who turned hostile and did not support the case of
Page 15 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
the prosecution. Hence, the only other evidence available is that of PW26,
who did not produce any material to show that she was working as the
Executive Engineer in TNEB and she also admitted the fact that she cannot
state decisively as to whether the tube light was burning on the date of
incident. Only to get over this hitch, it is shown in the rough sketch as if the
dead body was lying near the EB post, whereas, the eyewitnesses have
stated that the incident took place in front of Duraibhavanam.
4.3. In the light of the serious doubts raised on the credibility of the
evidence tendered by PW1 to PW4 and PW6, who are close relatives, the
prosecution has not examined even a single independent witness even
though many houses were there as shown in the rough sketch.
4.4. The evidence of PW1, who is said to be the injured witness, is
unreliable since the wound certificate was not even marked by the
prosecution, though it is claimed PW1 had taken treatment with PW18 on
24.08.2012, at 10.45 p.m. Insofar as PW19 is concerned, he was a private
Doctor, who is said to have treated PW1 on 25.08.2012 at 3.40 a.m., and he
Page 16 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
speaks about the sutures in the palm of PW1 and there is absolutely no
indication to show as to who sutured the wound sustained by PW1. Even the
said wound was old wound. Hence, the prosecution has not established that
PW1 had sustained injuries in the same incident, in which case, he cannot
be given the status of injured witness.
4.5. As per the postmortem certificate, the deceased had sustained
nearly 50 injuries out of which, 20 injuries are lacerated injuries, 11 are stab
injuries and the rest are cut injuries. The alleged weapons that were used for
the commission of the crime was neither shown to the Doctor nor to the
eyewitnesses to link the weapons with the crime. Even though the weapons
used are shown as sickle and knife, none of the witnesses speak about the
use of knife and everyone speaks only about sickle.
4.6. The charge was framed and the trial was conducted on the ground
of criminal conspiracy, whereas at the last moment, Section 34 of IPC was
brought in by way of altering the charges and there is no material to show
that there was common intention for the accused.
Page 17 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
4.7. PW29 specifically states in his evidence that the dead body was
taken in a lorry, which was driven by one Ramkumar and his statement was
also recorded by PW29. However, neither Ramkumar was examined nor the
statement of Ramkumar was made available and if really the lorry was used
to carry the body of the deceased, the same should have been seized to see if
there are bloodstains in the lorry matching the blood group of the deceased.
4.8. In the light of the discrepancies, when the trial Court had
extended the benefit of doubt in favour of A6 to A14, the same benefit of
doubt ought to have been extended in favour of A1 to A5 also.
5. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor :
5.1. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, though
the eyewitness (P.W.1) was treated as hostile on account of his inability to
identify the accused before the Court, the explanation offered by him ought
not to be discarded in toto, but requires due consideration. It was further
contended that the examination of the said witness took place after a lapse
Page 18 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023of nearly eleven years from the date of occurrence, and such prolonged
delay reasonably explains his inability to identify the accused in Court.
Therefore, the said circumstance, by itself, cannot be a ground to reject the
prosecution case. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submitted that the delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, per se, render their
testimony unreliable, particularly when their evidence is cogent, consistent,
and finds corroboration from medical evidence.
5.2. It was also argued that the occurrence in question was brutal in
nature, as evidenced by the fact that the deceased sustained more than 40
injuries. The multiplicity and severity of the injuries clearly establish the
manner of assault and the involvement of the accused in the commission of
the offence. Further, it was contended that lapses on the part of the
Investigating Officer, including the non-seizure of bloodstained clothes
from the victim or witnesses, cannot enure to the benefit of the accused
when there exists reliable ocular and medical evidence establishing the
prosecution case. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated that
Page 19 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, particularly when
examined after a considerable lapse of time, are natural and do not affect the
core of the prosecution case.
5.3. Lastly, it was submitted that the acquittal of certain co-accused
cannot be a ground to extend the same benefit to the present accused, when
the available evidence clearly and convincingly establishes their individual
role in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused be confirmed.
5.4. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record and the precedents relied upon by them.
6. Point for Determination:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether thePage 20 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge
warrant interference by this Court?
7. Discussion and finding:
7.1. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that motive is a
double-edged weapon and enmity may be both a cause for the offence and a
ground for falsely implicating the accused. When the evidence of
eyewitnesses is found to be so inextricably mixed—partly reliable and
partly unreliable and the truth is so interwoven with embellishments and
falsehood it is impossible to disentangle one from the other and the entire
testimony becomes unsafe for reliance and the Court is constrained to reject
the evidence in toto.
7.2. From the evidence of P.W.7, it is apparent that there existed prior
enmity between A1, A6 and the family of the deceased, thereby providing a
possible motive for the occurrence. In the present case, both the oral
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence on
record disclose the existence of prior enmity between A1 and the family of
Page 21 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023P.W.1 and the deceased. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased
and his father were allegedly engaged in the illegal transportation and
smuggling of Public Distribution System (PDS) rice. In order to establish
the background circumstances and alleged motive, the prosecution
examined P.W.7. According to his evidence, on 22.08.2012, a temple
festival was conducted at Pattavillai Asthakaliamman Temple, during which
there was an orchestra programme (“Adal Padal”). At that time, the
deceased, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, sneaked into
the area earmarked for women devotees and began dancing. This conduct
was objected to by A1. In response, the deceased is stated to have criminally
intimidated A1, asserting that he was responsible for informing the police
about the illegal ration rice activities and further threatened to cause trouble
to A1’s auto business. The testimony of P.W.7 further indicates that he
subsequently came to know, through newspaper reports, that one Vijikumar
had been murdered by unknown assailants. Thus, the prosecution attempts
to establish motive through the evidence of P.W.7.
Page 22 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
7.3. The learned trial Judge acquitted Accused Nos.6 to 14, holding
that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them even though PW1,
2, 3, 5, 6 clearly deposed that A6 caused murderous assault on the deceased
with aruval and A7-14 holding deadly weapons prevented the deceased from
escape.
7.4. Therefore, this Court is constrained to examine ,scrutinize and
evaluate the remaining part of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 implicating A1-5
with more care, caution and circumspection.
8.Discussion on registration of FIR:
8.1. In cases involving the offence of murder, the prompt and proper
registration of the First Information Report (FIR), including the accurate
recording of the time of receipt of the complaint, constitutes a material
safeguard to the prosecution case. The FIR, being the foundational
document, is expected to reflect a truthful and contemporaneous account of
the occurrence. Any inconsistency or unexplained delay in its registration
Page 23 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023assumes significance and may cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution
version.
8.2. The specific case of the prosecution is that the incident took place
at 9.45 p.m., on 24.08.2012 and the complaint was given at 00.30 hrs., on
25.08.2012. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 establishes the fact that
the complaint was given only at 4.00 a.m., on 25.08.2012. In fact, PW1,
who is the complainant, specifically states atleast on three occasions during
his evidence that the complaint was given only at 4.00 a.m. on 25.08.2012.
Further, P.W.6 has unequivocally admitted in her deposition that, as early as
10:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence (i.e., the night of 24.04.2014), police
officials, including the Sub-Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police, and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, had already reached the scene of
occurrence, examined her , and recorded her statement. P.W.4 also affirmed
the same. This material contradiction with respect to the time of lodging the
complaint remains unexplained. PW2 clearly deposed that when PW1 was
admitted in hospital , she had informed to him about overtact of each
accused and the relevant evidence is as follows:
Page 24 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023“rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ tpndhj;Jk; btl;odhh; vd vdJ mg;ghtplk;
ehd; brhd;nddh vd;why; vdf;F rhpahf “hgfkpy;iy/
tpndhj;Jjhd; tp$pFkhhpd; jiyapy; btl;odhh; vd;gij rk;gt
jpdj;jd;nwh my;yJ mLj;j ehnsh vdJ mg;ghtplk; ehd;
brhd;nddh vd;why; brhd;ndd;/ mij ehd; vdJ mg;gh fhty;
epiyaj;jpypUe;J tPlo; w;F te;jnghJjhd; brhd;nddh vd;why; vdJ
mg;gh kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Uf;Fk;nghJ brhd;ndd;/ ahh;. ahh;
rk;gtj;ij elj;jpdhh;fs; vd vdJ mg;gh vd;dplk; nfl;lnghJ ehd;
brhd;nddh vd;why; brhd;ndd;/”8.3. In such an event, the complaint and the FIR coming into
existence at 00.30 hrs. on 25.08.2012, becomes questionable and it goes to
the root of the matter as to who actually gave the complaint. If the
prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW19, who is the Doctor and who
treated PW1 on 25.08.2012 at 3.45 a.m., what was stated by PW3 that the
complaint was given only after PW1 and PW5 came back from the hospital
has to be taken to be correct.
9. The specific evidence of PW23 is that the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court is hardly 3 kms., from the police station and the express
FIR (Ex.P32) reached the Court only at 6.00 a.m. This clearly coincides
Page 25 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023with the fact that the complaint was given and the FIR was registered at
4.00 a.m. and it reached the Court at 6.00 a.m. In such an event, Ex.P1 and
Ex.P32, which are said to have been registered at 00.30 hrs., on 25.08.2012
becomes highly doubtful. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v.
State of Tamil Nadu has held that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly
when unexplained, affords scope for embellishment and fabrication, and
therefore, such delay must be viewed with suspicion. Applying the above
principles, the contradictions regarding the time of receipt of the complaint,
coupled with the admitted prior arrival of police authorities and recording of
statements, clearly indicate that the earliest version of the occurrence has
not been brought on record. Such suppression materially affects the
credibility of the prosecution case and renders the FIR doubtful and strikes
at the root of the prosecution case.
10. Eyewitness account of the injured eyewitness PW1:
10.1. It is true that in the case of an injured witness, he is placed in a
higher pedastal than any other eyewitness and it is generally reliable, since
he himself has sustained an injury in the course of the same incident. But, in
Page 26 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023the case of injured eyewitness, the prosecution is required to establish three
foundational aspects: (i) his presence at the scene of occurrence; (ii) that he
sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction; and (iii) that he had
the opportunity to witness the occurrence. Apart from that, even in the case
of an injured witness, it must be subjected to careful scrutiny, if
circumstances and materials are available on record to suggest that he may
have falsely implicated the accused persons for some reasons. Useful
reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Indira Devi v.
State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2016 (12) SCC 770.
10.2. PW1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed that at about
9.45 p.m., on 24.08.2012, he saw A1 to A6 attacking the deceased with
deadly weapons indiscriminately and he also gives specific details on the
weapon used and the overt act attributed to each of the accused. He further
states that this incident had taken place in front of Duraibhavanam, where
street light was available. He further states that he was attacked by A1, as a
result of which, he sustained injury on his left palm.
Page 27 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
10.3. It must be first seen as to whether PW1 had really sustained
injury in the very same incident, where his son was done to death. For this
purpose, the evidence of PW18 and P19 assumes significance.
10.4. PW18 states that on 24.08.2012, at about 10.45 p.m., PW1 and
his son/the deceased came to Kanyakumari Government Medical College
and Hospital. He found that PW1 had sustained lacerated wound in his left
hand measuring 18 x 2 x 3 cms. He further states that PW1 was not
interested in taking treatment as an inpatient and therefore, he was not able
to properly treat PW1. Ex.P18 was marked in this regard where it is stated
that there was an alleged assault by six known persons by means of aruval
and knife near Hindu college and that PW1 was not willing for admission.
10.5. PW19 is a Doctor working in a private hospital named as Sriram
Hospital. PW1 is said to have gone to this Doctor on 25.08.2012 early in
the morning at 3.40 a.m. PW19 in his evidence states that he found the
wound sutured and he gave medicines and thereafter PW1 took treatment as
outpatient. He issued Ex.P20.
Page 28 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
10.6. Neither the evidence of PW18 nor the evidence of PW19 nor the
documents marked as Ex.P18, P19 and P20 establish that PW1 had
sustained the injury in the same incident. It is not even clear as to who
sutured the wound of PW1 and when such suture was done.
10.7. They were not able to say when the injury would have been
sustained by PW1 and it is quite unnatural that PW1 will go to a
Government Hospital on 24.08.2012 at 10.45 p.m., and once again go to a
private hospital on 25.08.2012 at 3.40 a.m. for taking treatment for the same
injury. It must be kept in mind that PW1 went along with the body of the
deceased to PW18(first doctor) and if really PW1 had complained about the
injury, considering the seriousness of the incident, certainly a wound
certificate would have been prepared by PW18. This Court wanted to
ascertain as to when 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW18 and PW19 were
recorded and when they reached the Court. On going through the original
records, it is seen that the 161 statements recorded from PW18 and PW19
do not even bear the date, whereas in all other 161 statements including that
Page 29 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
of the postmortem Doctor, specific dates are available and these 161
statements had reached the Court only at the time of filing the final report
on 25.05.2016.
10.8. It is pertinent to note that wound was old one and same is clear
from the following contents of Ex.P20 and evidence of PW19:
“////////// ehd; tH’;fpa m/rh/M/20 rhd;wpjHpy; me;j fhaj;jpd;
taJ kw;Wk; epwk; Fwpgg; pltpy;iy vd;why; rhp/ mjdhy; me;j fhak;
vg;nghJ Vw;gl;lJ vd;W Fwpgg; pl;L brhy;y ,ayhJ vd;why; rhp/
Kjd;Kjyhf vd;dplk; Rak;g[yp’;fk; rpfpr;irf;F tUtjw;F Kd;g[ Rkhh;
3 ehl;fSf;F Kd;g[ Tl mtUf;F ,e;j fhak; Vw;gl;oUf;fyhk;
vd;why; rhp/ me;j fhak; ve;j Ma[jj;jhy; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;oUf;Fk; vdJ
rhd;wpjHpy; brhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhp/ //////”
10.9. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence to establish that
P.W.1 sustained injuries on 24.08.2012 during the course of the alleged
assault on his deceased son, this Court is unable to accept that he is an
injured witness.
10.10. More significantly, P.W.22, the doctor who examined and
Page 30 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
treated P.W.1, has categorically opined that the injury noted was old wound.
This medical opinion finds further corroboration in Ex.P20, wherein it is
explicitly recorded that the injury was not recent. The contents of Ex.P20,
read in conjunction with the testimony of P.W.19 and P.W.18, clearly
indicate that the injury cannot be temporally connected to the occurrence in
question. Further, P.W.1 has attributed the involvement of a particular
number of accused, which appears to be exaggerated . Hence, the learned
trial judge has not accepted his version regarding serious overtact caused by
A6 upon the deceased’s stomach and hip. In such circumstances, the
version of P.W.1 that he sustained injury while intervening in the
occurrence, allegedly inflicted by A1 with an aruval, becomes highly
doubtful and remains unsubstantiated by medical evidence. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to establish that PW1 had sustained the injury in the
same incident when his son was done to death. Accordingly, this Court finds
no material to treat P.W.1 as an injured witness, and his evidence cannot be
accorded the evidentiary weight ordinarily attached to such a witness and
Consequently, his evidence cannot be accepted as forming a sound basis for
conviction.
Page 31 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
11. Eyewitness account of PW1 to PW4 and PW6:
11.1. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court
finds that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, who are projected as
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, suffer from material discrepancies and
inherent improbabilities. A crucial infirmity in the prosecution case is the
suppression of the earliest version of the occurrence. Such suppression
assumes considerable significance, as it raises a legitimate doubt regarding
the true genesis of the prosecution case and adversely affects the credibility
of the witnesses examined subsequently. Further, the alleged occurrence is
stated to have taken place during night hours. The prosecution has not
satisfactorily established the source of light or the circumstances under
which the witnesses could have clearly identified the assailants. This
omission renders their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful.
Additionally, the inconsistencies in their depositions, when read in light of
the surrounding circumstances, create serious doubt as to whether these
witnesses had, in fact, witnessed the occurrence at all. In such
Page 32 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
circumstances, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 are not natural
witnesses, but have been introduced at a later stage and planted as witnesses
with a view to artificially strengthen the prosecution case. Accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to place reliance on their evidence. The testimonies of
P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 are liable to be rejected as unreliable and insufficient to
sustain a conviction.
11.2. All the eyewitnesses consistently state that the incident took
place in front of the house called Duraibhavanam, which is owned by one
Kalyanasundaram. In the rough sketch marked as Ex.P34, this house is
shown as S.No.10 and it is clearly away from the place, where the dead
body is found. Surprisingly the resident of the house Kalyanasundaram was
not examined by the prosecution. The EB post is not found near
Duraibhavanam and the dead body is found right under the EB post. This
discrepancy has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Hence, the
exact place where the incident took place is also doubtful.
Page 33 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
11.3. PW1 to PW6 specifically state that the body of the deceased was
lifted by them and it was placed in a lorry and was taken to the hospital.
They all admit that the dead body was soaked in blood and in all their
clothes there was bloodstain. In such an event, the most intelligible action
that is expected from the investigating officer is to seize the clothes of all
the eyewitnesses or atleast one or two of the eyewitnesses. This would have
clearly corroborated the eyewitness account which otherwise is very shaky
on account of the time when the complaint was given and about the place of
occurrence.
11.4. It must be kept in mind that PW1 is the father of the deceased.
PW2 to PW4 and PW6 are also the children of P.W.1 and all of them are
interested witnesses. It is not as if the Court cannot rely upon the eyewitness
account just because they are related to the deceased. However, when a
doubt arises as to the credibility of their evidence, the Court has to
necessarily look for corroboration from an independent source.
11.5. On going through the rough sketch and the observation mahazar,
Page 34 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
it is seen that there were several houses in the vicinity and in an incident of
this nature, obviously many would have heard the cries of the deceased and
would have seen the occurrence and the investigating officer has chosen not
to record the statement of any of the independent witnesses.
11.6. If really PW1 to PW4 and PW6 are the star witnesses in this
case, since they are the eyewitnesses, the Court will expect that their
statements be recorded at the earliest point of time and it reaches the Court
at the earliest as per the mandate under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This would have atleast given credence to the case of the
prosecution and to lean in favour the eyewitness account. Unfortunately
Insofar as PW2 is concerned, the statement has been recorded on
26.08.2012 and it has reached the Court only on 25.05.2016 at the time of
filing the final report. Insofar as PW3 is concerned, the statement has been
recorded on 26.08.2012 and it has reached the Court on 29.08.2012. Insofar
as PW4 is concerned, the statement has been recorded on 26.08.2012 and it
has actually reached the Court on 25.05.2016 when the final report was
filed. The statement of PW6 was recorded on 26.08.2012 and it has reached
Page 35 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
the Court only on 25.05.2016 when the final report was filed and also
PW1’s statement has reached the Court only on 29.08.2012.
11.7. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the
investigating officer PW27 as to why there is so much of delay both in
recording the statements as well as the same reaching the Court.
11.8. Surprisingly the prosecution attempted to show PW5, who is the
son-in-law of PW1 as an eyewitness in this case, but none of the other
eyewitnesses have even mentioned his name when the statements were
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, his very presence in the scene
of crime is highly doubtful.
11.9. In the light of the above discussions, serious doubts arise as to
whether PW1 to PW4 and PW6 would have really seen the occurrence in
the light of the above lapses that have been pointed out. Therefore, in the
absence of any corroboration from an independent witness, it will not be
Page 36 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
safe to convict and sentence the accused persons based on the evidence of
these eyewitnesses.
12.Discrepancy regarding the availability of light and the
weapons used for commission of crime:
12.1. The occurrence had taken place at 9.45 p.m., on 24.08.2012. A
careful perusal of the rough sketch and observation mahazar, shows that
there is one EB post. Whether the light was burning on the fateful day is
attempted to be proved by examining PW26 and PW15. PW15 has turned
hostile and therefore, it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW26
establishes the availability of light. PW26 was the person, who had issued
the certificate Ex.P33. In the said certificate, it has been stated that
electricity was available on 24.08.2012 in the area. This certificate nor the
evidence of PW26 establishes as to whether the tube light was burning on
the fateful day. Normally, the witness is examined from the local
Municipality or the Corporation since they are the ones who maintain the
street lights. PW26 was not able to confirm as to whether the tube light was
burning on the given day. This assumes a lot of significance since multiple
Page 37 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023accused are said to have committed the offence and the so called
eyewitnesses should have been in a position to see these accused clearly. In
the absence of the same, the benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the
accused.
13. The next issue is regarding the weapons used and the injury
sustained by the deceased. The postmortem certificate shows that the
deceased had sustained nearly 50 injuries, out of which, 20 were lacerated
injuries, 11 stab injuries and the rest are cut injuries. It is quite unfortunate
that the weapons used for commission of crime was not shown to the Doctor
and to the eyewitnesses while recording their evidence. All the eyewitnesses
speak about the deceased being attacked with aruval (sickle) and none of
them talk about the knife, whereas, what has been recovered by the
prosecution is both knife and sickle and there is no accountability on the
part of the prosecution to establish the usage of knife in the commission of
the crime. Further, the serologist report does not conclude that it
corresponds to the blood group of the deceased. Thus, the forensic linkage
between the weapon and the alleged offence is missing. In view of the
Page 38 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023same, the benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the accused persons.
14.Charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B r/w 302
altered after the completion of evidence by including Section 302 r/w 34
IPC:
14.1. There is no doubt that a trial Court has very wide powers to alter
the charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C till the final judgment is pronounced.
However, it has to be seen as to whether the evidence that has been recorded
ultimately makes out an offence with respect to the altered charge.
Obviously the charge of criminal conspiracy was not made out and
therefore, the trial Court itself had acquitted the appellants for charge under
Section 120B r/w 302 IPC. However, it proceeded to convict the appellants
for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The test under Section 34 IPC is
to see whether the act done by more than one person cumulatively had been
done in furtherance of a common intention of all such persons. Therefore,
there must be evidence to show that each of the accused had the common
Page 39 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
intention to do the act jointly. In order to determine whether there was a
common intention, it can be inferred objectively from the conduct displayed
in the course of commission of the crime. The subjective element in
common intention therefore should be proved by the objective test. It is only
then one accused can be made vicariously liable for the acts and deeds of
the other co-accused. A group of 14 accused had assembled in the scene of
occurrence for commission of crime and the Court was not able to find that
there was neither criminal conspiracy nor common intention for A6 to A14,
who were all acquitted from all charges and the same yardstick will apply
for the other accused persons also. Thereafter, the Court must only see if the
remaining accused can be punished for the individual overt act committed
by them. Certainly, the element of common intention while relying upon
Section 34 will not come into play in such a case. This is one more vital
factor, which missed the attention of the trial Court.
14.2. According to the evidence of P.W.2 and other prosecution
witnesses, the house of P.W.2 is bounded by a compound wall of about six
feet in height, and the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of more
Page 40 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
than 80 feet from the said house. It is the specific case of P.W.2 that upon
noticing the accused armed with weapons, he retreated into his house.
Thereafter, the deceased and P.W.1 are stated to have proceeded towards the
western side. Subsequently, P.W.2 and the sisters are alleged to have
followed them and witnessed the assault on the deceased as well as on P.W.
1.This version, when examined in the light of the physical features and
topography of the place of occurrence, appears highly unnatural and
improbable. The evidence on record indicates that from the house of P.W.
1/P.W.2, there exists a row of physical obstructions, namely a compound
wall, followed by a lorry shed, and thereafter a sewage channel, beyond
which, at a distance exceeding 80 feet, lies the alleged place of occurrence.
In the absence of any evidence that the accused chased the deceased and
P.W.1 up to that particular spot and assaulted them in the immediate vicinity
of the witnesses, the claim of P.W.2 and others that they have seen the
occurrence becomes doubtful. The conduct attributed to P.W.2 namely,
initially retreating into the house upon seeing armed assailants and
thereafter venturing out to follow them and witness the occurrence does not
appear to be natural or probable. The presence of P.W.2 at the scene of
Page 41 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
occurrence becomes highly doubtful. Consequently, his version of
witnessing the alleged assault on the deceased and P.W.1 suffers from
inherent improbabilities and lacks credibility.
14.3. In the light of the above discussions, this Court finds it difficult
to accept the prosecution case that all 6 accused simultaneously assaulted
the deceased while the remaining accused prevented his escape.
Significantly, the learned trial Judge has acquitted some co-accused, despite
specific overt acts attributed to them by the very same eyewitnesses. One of
the accused has also been acquitted on the ground of lack of identification.
In such a scenario, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and PW6, being indivisible
and tainted by inconsistencies, serious doubts arise as to whether PW1 to
PW4 and PW6 would have really seen the occurrence in the light of the
above lapses that have been pointed out and this Court is unable to
segregate the credible portion from the unreliable part of their evidence in
respect of A6 and A1-5 when both are attributed specific overtacts and also
finds much difficulty to selectively rely upon it insofar as the present
appellants are concerned and this Court finds no sufficient material to
Page 42 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
sustain the conviction of the accused, and the benefit of doubt must
necessarily be extended in their favour. In the present case, in view of the
material inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence of PW1 to PW4
and PW6 , the existence of prior enmity assumes significance in favour of
the defence. The plea of false implication, as advanced on behalf of the
appellant, appears to be probable. Accordingly, the entire testimony of such
witnesses is liable to be discarded as untrustworthy. Therefore, in the
absence of any corroboration from an independent witness, it will not be
safe to convict and sentence the accused based on the evidence of these
eyewitnesses under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. For the same reason, this
Court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that the acquittal of co-accused is a not ground to acquit
the remaining accused.
Page 43 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
15. Lapse on the part of the investigating officer:
The specific evidence of PW1 to PW6 is that the body of the deceased
was taken in a lorry by them and their cloths are bloodstained and the said
lorry carried the blood soaked body of the deceased, but, however, both
lorry and bloodstained cloths of witnesses were not seized, and subjected to
test by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory to detect the blood and see if it
matched with the blood group of the deceased. If the investigating officer
had atleast made this attempt and established that the dead body was
boarded by the witnesses and carried in lorry, it would have certainly helped
the prosecution to an extent to corroborate the eyewitness account and
failure on the part of IO , to seize and subject to test by the Forensic
Sciences Laboratory to detect the blood in the lorry, cloths and the an
unexplained delay in recording and forwarding the eyewitness to the
occurrence creates serious dent in the prosecution case.
16.Brutality of the Crime Cannot Substitute Proof:
16.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended
that the deceased had sustained more than 45 cut injuries and that the
Page 44 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023brutality of the attack unequivocally establishes the guilt of the
accused/appellants.
16.2.However, criminal jurisprudence cannot be swayed by societal
sentiments or emotional considerations. Courts are duty-bound to adjudicate
cases strictly on the basis of legally admissible evidence and settled
principles of law, uninfluenced by public opinion or emotional reactions. In
this regard, this Court remains guided by the golden principles reiterated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the
Hon’ble Thiru. Chief Justice V.S.Chandrachud, reaffirmed the observations
of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vivian Bose that the shocking nature of a crime must
not induce an instinctive or emotional reaction leading to disproportionate
or uncritical scrutiny of facts and law. The adjudicatory process must remain
anchored in an objective evaluation of evidence, uninfluenced by the gravity
or brutality of the allegation.It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Conviction cannot be founded on surmises, but must rest on legally
admissible, reliable, and cogent evidence. The prosecution is required to
Page 45 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the severity of the injuries
cannot, by itself, form the basis for conviction when the foundational
evidence is unreliable. The Court must decide on the basis of evidence on
record, and not on the nature of the offence or on sentimental
considerations.
16.3.In the present case, the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.6 suffer from
serious infirmities, lack credibility, and are attended by inherent
improbabilities. More importantly, P.W.1 and other witnesses have admitted
that the names of the accused were disclosed only upon the instructions of
P.W.2 (brother of the deceased). In such circumstances, the parrot-like and
mechanically consistent version of all the eyewitnesses does not inspire
confidence; rather, it gives rise to a reasonable inference of tutoring or a
pre-arranged version. This assumes significance particularly in the absence
of independent corroboration, especially when, as per the prosecution case
itself, several relatives had assembled at the house on account of a family
marriage function. Further, the unexplained delay in the registration of the
FIR, the doubts surrounding the recording of eyewitness statements under
Page 46 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the delay in forwarding the same to the Court cause
serious dent in the prosecution case. Hence, in the present case, the inherent
improbabilities in the prosecution version go to the root of the matter and
render the eyewitness testimony unreliable. In such circumstances, the
brutality of the attack alone cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt.
Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that the brutality of the attack, evidenced by
multiple injuries, by itself establishes the culpability of the
accused/appellants in the absence of cogent, reliable, and legally admissible
evidence.
17.Conclusion:
17.1. In the present case, the existence of prior enmity between the
deceased and the appellant is an admitted fact. It is equally borne out from
the record that the conduct of the deceased had caused disturbance to the
female members in the temple festival in an inebriated condition prior to the
occurrence on 22.08.2012 and the same was questioned by A1. While
motive can operate both as a ground for commission of the offence and for
Page 47 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023false implication, the latter assumes significance when the prosecution
evidence itself is doubtful. In such peculiar circumstances, it would be
unsafe to place reliance on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. It is the
prosecution case that P.W.1 (father of the deceased), P.W.2 (brother of the
deceased), and other alleged eyewitnesses were present together at the place
of occurrence. However, their conduct, as projected, appears inherently
unnatural and raises serious doubt regarding their presence at the
scene.While it is a settled principle that different individuals may react
differently in a given situation, certain basic human reactions such as raising
an alarm are expected. The incident, as alleged, was not a minor altercation
but an indiscriminate and brutal attack carried out by more than six
assailants armed with weapons. In such circumstances, it is but natural for
those present, particularly sisters and brother, to raise hue and cry or make
some attempt to intervene. It is highly improbable that P.W.1, an aged
person, alone attempted to intervene in the occurrence, while the other
eyewitnesses who are comparatively younger, including the son and
daughters of P.W.1remained passive spectators without raising any alarm or
attempting to prevent the assault. Hence, the conduct of witnesses is wholly
Page 48 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023unnatural and does not inspire confidence and hence, such evidence cannot
be relied upon without corroboration. Further, none of the independent
witnesses from the surrounding area, who could have naturally witnessed
the occurrence, have been examined. This omission assumes significance in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, the prosecution has
failed to recover bloodstained clothes of injured eyewitnesses or other
material objects namely lorry in which the deceased was taken to hospital,
etc connected with the crime. There is also an unexplained delay in the
recording and forwarding of statements of PW1-6 to the Court. Though P.W.
1 attempted to give a detailed, almost graphic account of the injuries
attributed to each accused, he was unable to properly identify the some of
the assailants before the Court. This inconsistency further undermines his
credibility. Moreover, the injury attributed to P.W.1 has been described by
P.W.10 (Doctor) as an old injury, thereby creating additional doubt about his
presence at the scene. More importantly, P.W.4 and other witnesses have
admitted that the names of the accused were disclosed only upon the
instructions of P.W.2’s relative (brother of the deceased). This circumstance
further weakens the credibility of the prosecution version. The prosecution
Page 49 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023has also failed to establish the recovery and use of weapons in a credible manner. The
alleged extra-judicial confession of one of the accused and case against A6 to 14 have
not been accepted by learned trial judge and the learned trial judge rejected major portion
of evidence of injured witness and eye witnesses and acquitted A6 to 14 and the finding
regarding the place of occurrence are not supported by reliable evidence.
17.2. In view of the cumulative effect of these infirmities, namely, the
unreliable testimony of the eyewitnesses, lack of corroboration, suppression
of the earliest version, doubtful identification, and prior enmity, this Court
holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused are entitled to acquittal
by extending the benefit of doubt. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow
the appeal and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in S.C.No.136 of 2018 dated 15.12.2022 under
Section 302 IPC.
Page 50 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
17.3. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed on the following
terms:
(i) the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kanyakumari at Nagercoil
in S.C.No.136 of 2018 dated 15.12.2022 is set.
(ii) the appellants are acquitted from all the charges.
(ii) the appellants are directed to be released, unless their detention is
required in any other case.
(iii)The bail bond, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. Any fine
amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K,J.]
15.04.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
pal/RR
Page 51 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court),
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kottar Police Station,
Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Page 52 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
pal/RR
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT made in
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.174, 249 and 860 of 2023
Dated:15.04.2026
Page 53 of 53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis