Madras High Court
Alankarakumar @ Ramesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
Alankarakumar @ Ramesh ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Kariyapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.314 of 2017) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.67 of 2018 dated
17.02.2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court,
Virudhunagar and to set aside the conviction passed against the
appellant/Accused No.1.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)
The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.67 of 2018 on the file of
the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar has filed
this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed
against him in the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2023.
Sentence of law Sentence of Fine
imprisonment
302 of IPC To undergo life Rs.10,000/- i/d to
imprisonment undergo six months
rigorous imprisonment
307 of IPC Ten year rigorous Rs.10,000/- i/d to
imprisonment under to six months
rigorous imprisonment
2.Brief facts of the prosecution case:
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Senthil Kumar, and
the first accused (appellant) were working as building contractors.
Prosecution Witnesses (PW) 1, 2 (Velmurugan – second accused), and PW6
were masons working under them. These workers were engaged by the first
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
accused for construction work at Mudukulathur, where they had been
working for about six days prior to the occurrence. During this period, the
deceased approached the first accused and expressed his difficulty in
completing certain construction work at Kadaladi. At his request, the first
accused permitted PW1, PW2, and PW6 to assist the deceased. Accordingly,
they proceeded to Kadaladi and completed the construction work entrusted
by the deceased. Subsequently, when the workers were preparing to return
to their native place to celebrate Vinayaga Chaturthi festival on 25.08.2017,
they demanded payment of wages from the deceased on 24.08.2017. The
deceased, however, refused to pay the wages, which led to a heated
altercation between the deceased and the first accused. Though PW1
attempted to pacify them, the dispute remained unresolved. Thereafter, all of
them proceeded to Kariyapatti village, where once again a quarrel erupted
regarding the payment of wages. During the course of this altercation, the
first accused challenged the deceased, stating that he would “see him” at
Kariyapatti. Later, at about 11.00 p.m., all of them reached Kariyapatti. In
the meantime, the deceased went to his house, obtained a sum of Rs.3,000/-
from his wife, and paid the same to PW6 towards wages. Thereafter, the
Page 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
deceased, PW1, and PW6 hired an auto driven by PW3 to drop PW6 at
NGO Colony. Subsequently, they assembled near the house of PW9 situated
on Kariyapatti–Kallikudi Road. At that juncture, the first accused arrived
from the opposite direction armed with a sickle (MO1) and attacked the
deceased. When PW1 intervened, he also sustained injuries. Both the
deceased and PW1 were immediately taken to the Government Hospital,
Kariyapatti, and thereafter referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai, owing to the grievous nature of their injuries. Upon receiving
intimation from the hospital, PW21, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to
Kariyapatti Police Station, proceeded to the hospital at about 3.00 a.m. on
25.08.2017 and recorded the statement of PW1, the injured eyewitness.
Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.314 of 2017 initially
under Section 307 IPC, and the First Information Report was forwarded to
the jurisdictional Magistrate and the Inspector of Police (PW24). PW24
took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at about 6.40
a.m. on 25.08.2017. He prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and
rough sketch (Ex.P14) in the presence of witnesses PW9 and PW10. He also
recovered blood-stained earth (MO5) and sample earth (MO6) from the
Page 4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
scene. Thereafter, he examined PW1, PW2, PW6, and other witnesses and
recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 26.08.2017, upon
receiving information regarding the death of Senthil Kumar, the offence was
altered from Section 307 IPC to Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, and the
alteration report was forwarded to the Court. PW24 conducted inquest over
the body of the deceased on the same day at about 8.00 a.m. and prepared
the inquest report (Ex.P16). The body was thereafter sent for post-mortem
examination. PW18 conducted the post-mortem on 26.08.2017 at about 1.00
p.m. and noted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased. During the
course of investigation, PW24 arrested the accused on 27.08.2017 at about
10.05 p.m. at Karsakulam Junction in the presence of the Village
Administrative Officer (PW12) and others. Based on the voluntary
confession of the accused, material objects were recovered. Subsequently,
on 08.09.2017 at about 6.05 a.m., the first accused was secured and
interrogated. Pursuant to his voluntary confession, the weapon of offence
(MO1 – sickle) and blood-stained clothes were recovered. Additionally, a
motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-67-BE-3729 was also recovered
based on his disclosure statement. All the recovered material objects were
Page 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
forwarded to the Court under Form 95, and the accused were remanded to
judicial custody. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer continued the
investigation by forwarding the requisition for chemical examination to the
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. He also obtained the post-mortem
certificate along with the final medical opinion. Further, he collected a
report from the Electricity Department regarding the availability of lighting
at the scene of occurrence. He examined additional witnesses, including
scientific experts, and collected the biological report (Ex.P18) and the
serological report (Ex.P19). Upon completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer laid the final report before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kariyapatti. The case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.5 of 2018.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon taking cognizance, issued summons
to the accused and furnished copies of the prosecution records in
compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the offences were triable
exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed under Section
209 Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Court. Upon committal, the case was taken on
file as S.C. No. 69 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge. The
learned trial Judge, upon appearance of the accused and after furnishing
Page 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
necessary documents, framed charges against them for the alleged offences.
The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, thereby
necessitating trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution
examined PW1 to PW24, marked Exs.P1 to P19, and produced Material
Objects (MO1 to MO6) through relevant witnesses. After completion of the
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 circumstances. No defence witnesses were
examined, nor any documents were marked on the side of the defence.
However, the first accused submitted a written statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that the deceased, along with PW2 and others,
had undertaken certain construction work at Kadaladi and were staying
there. According to him, on the relevant day, the deceased and others
proceeded towards Aruppukottai, and thereafter he returned to Kariyapatti
and went to his house. He denied any involvement in the alleged
occurrence. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
learned trial Judge acquitted the second accused of all charges. However,
the first accused (appellant) was found guilty and convicted by impugned
Page 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
judgment for the offences charged, and was sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with other sentences as stated
above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
3.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the First
Information Report is a fabricated document and lacks credibility. In
support of this contention, reliance was placed on the Accident Register
(AR) entries, which contains the earliest version of the occurrence. It was
submitted that a perusal of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 reveals material contradictions.
In Ex.P7, it is recorded that the injured/deceased was assaulted by unknown
persons and had himself gone to the hospital for treatment at about 11.55
p.m. on 24.08.2017. However, Ex.P8 indicates that PW1, the injured
eyewitness, was brought to the hospital by the police at about 1.00 a.m.,
with an allegation that he was attacked by unknown persons with a knife.
According to the learned counsel, these discrepancies between the two
earliest medical records create serious doubt regarding the prosecution
Page 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
version. It was further argued that if, as per Ex.P8, PW1 was brought by the
police, then the subsequent claim that the Sub-Inspector (PW21) received
intimation from the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 is not
acceptable. This, according to the defence, suggests suppression of the true
genesis of the occurrence and the earliest version of the incident. On this
premise, it was contended that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of
PW1, who is the sole injured eyewitness. Since the prosecution case
substantially rests upon his evidence, the case would fall within the
categories of unreliable or partly reliable witnesses as laid down in Vadivelu
Thevar v. State of Madras. It was argued that the learned trial Judge failed
to properly appreciate this principle and erred in placing reliance on the
testimony of PW1 to convict the appellant. The learned counsel further
submitted that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1 vis-
à-vis the testimonies of the police officials, particularly PW17, PW21, and
PW24, with respect to the registration of the case and the sequence of
events during investigation. These contradictions, according to the defence,
strike at the root of the prosecution case. It was also contended that the trial
Court committed a grave error in acquitting the second accused while
Page 9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
convicting the first accused, despite the fact that both eyewitnesses
attributed similar overt acts and speak about the presence of both accused.
In the absence of any clear distinction or separable evidence, such selective
conviction is legally unsustainable. On the cumulative effect of these
discrepancies, the learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction
under Section 302 IPC is liable to be set aside. It was also contended that
the finding regarding the alleged assault on PW1 cannot be sustained.
Without prejudice to the above submissions, the learned counsel advanced
an alternative argument on the nature of the offence. It was submitted that
even as per the prosecution case, the occurrence arose out of a dispute
relating to non-payment of wages. The evidence indicates that the quarrel
originated at Kadaladi and continued at Kariyapatti. It was argued that the
appellant had, at the request of the deceased, deputed his workers to
complete the deceased’s construction work, giving priority to deceased’s
work compromising his work at Mudukulathur. In such circumstances, the
deceased was under an obligation to settle the wages, which he failed to do.
This led to a sudden quarrel between the parties. In the course of the said
Page 10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
altercation, and in the heat of passion, the appellant is alleged to have
attacked the deceased. The incident was not premeditated but occurred on
account of a sudden provocation arising out of the wage dispute. Therefore,
the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC but would, at best, be
covered under Section 304 Part I IPC. Accordingly, it was prayed that this
Court may alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I
IPC and reduce the sentence, taking into consideration the absence of
criminal antecedents and by applying the reformative theory of punishment.
4.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon a careful
examination of the records and evidence on file, submitted that the present
case is one of a clear and premeditated murder, coupled with a deliberate
attack on PW1, the injured eyewitness. It was contended that the
prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt without any
material infirmity. PW1, being an injured eyewitness, has deposed in a
cogent, consistent, and reliable manner regarding the occurrence and the
specific overt act attributed to the appellant. His testimony clearly
Page 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023establishes the murderous assault inflicted upon the deceased as well as the
attack on him when he attempted to intervene. The said ocular evidence
stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the presence of the
accused at the scene of occurrence has been consistently spoken to by other
prosecution witnesses, whose testimonies lend further assurance to the
version of PW1. The chain of circumstances, including the recovery of the
weapon of offence (MO1 – sickle) pursuant to the confession of the
accused, has also been duly proved and rightly relied upon by the trial
Court. Insofar as the alleged discrepancies in the medical records (Accident
Register entries) are concerned, it was contended that such minor
inconsistencies do not go to the root of the prosecution case and cannot
outweigh the reliable testimony of an injured eyewitness. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor specifically opposed the alternative plea of the
appellant for conversion of the offence to one under Section 304 Part I IPC.
It was submitted that the facts clearly demonstrate that the act of the
accused was not the result of a sudden quarrel or grave and sudden
provocation. According to the prosecution, though there was an earlier
Page 12 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023dispute relating to payment of wages at Kadaladi, the parties had thereafter
dispersed and reached Kariyapatti. At that stage, the appellant had sufficient
time for reflection. Instead of acting in the heat of passion, he went to his
house, armed himself with a deadly weapon (MO1 – sickle), and thereafter
returned to the scene and attacked the deceased in a calculated and
intentional manner. It was further submitted that the conduct of the
appellant also attacking PW1, who intervened, clearly demonstrates his
intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Thus, the element of premeditation and intention is evident from the
sequence of events. In view of the time gap between the earlier quarrel and
the actual occurrence, the plea of sudden provocation is untenable. The
prosecution therefore contended that the case does not fall within any of the
Exceptions to Section 300 IPC and consequently, there is no scope for
altering the conviction to Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC. Accordingly, it
was submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the
evidence in proper perspective and correctly convicted the appellant under
Section 302 IPC. There are no mitigating circumstances warranting
interference with the conviction or sentence, and the appeal is liable to be
Page 13 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023dismissed.
5.This Court carefully considered the rival submissions made on
either side, perused the entire materials available on record.
6.The question in this case is whether the prosecution has
established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant is sustainable or not?
7.Discussion on the reliability of the injured witnesses:
7.1.It is well settled that the evidence of an injured eyewitness
stands on a higher pedestal and is entitled to great weight, unless
compelling reasons exist to discard the same. This Court re-captualate the
following guidelines issued by the latest Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court to appreciate the evidence of injured witnesses and
eyewitness reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 355.
“26.When the evidence of an injured eye-
witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal
principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be
Page 14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
kept in mind:”
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the
time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted
unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the
evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness
would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely
implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist,
their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in natural
conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should
be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the
whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution
version must be taken into consideration and
discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory
with passage of time should be discarded.
“27.In assessing the value of the evidence of the
Page 15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
eyewitnesses”, two principal considerations are whether,
in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe
their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such
situations as would make it possible for them to witness
the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there
is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their
evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses
themselves or established by other evidence tending to
improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of
their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which
a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases
where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined
on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea
or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with
that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case
and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be
taken into account while assessing the value of the
prosecution evidence.
7.1.In this case PW1 is the injured eyewitness. PW1, in his
evidence, has cogently and consistently narrated the sequence of events
commencing from the dispute at Kadaladi up to the occurrence at
Page 16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
Kariyapatti. His testimony reveals that a quarrel arose between the deceased
and the appellant in connection with payment of wages, during which the
appellant not only abused but also criminally intimidated the deceased. The
evidence further discloses that after leaving Kadaladi, all parties reached
Kariyapatti. Even thereafter, the appellant continued to threaten the
deceased, by making a phone call also which aspect finds corroboration
from the testimony of the auto driver (PW6). This circumstance lends
support to the prosecution case regarding motive. PW1 has further deposed,
in a clear and unambiguous manner, that the appellant attacked the deceased
with a sickle (MO1). When PW1 attempted to intervene and rescue the
deceased, the appellant also assaulted him, causing grievous injuries. The
manner of assault, as spoken to by PW1, indicates that even after the
deceased fell down due to the initial attack, the appellant continued his
assault, and also inflicted injuries on PW1. This conduct clearly establishes
the intention. This Court finds that the testimony of PW1 inspires
confidence and is free from material contradictions. His evidence stands
duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor (PW18) has spoken
about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and PW1, and has
Page 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the occurrence.
Further, the prosecution has established the recovery of the weapon of
offence (MO1 – sickle) and the bloodstained clothes of the appellant
pursuant to his confession. The serological report (Ex.P19) confirms that
human blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found on the
recovered material objects, including the clothes of the appellant. These
scientific materials constitute strong incriminating circumstances
connecting the appellant with the crime. This Court finds no material
inconsistency or discrepancy so as to discredit the testimony of PW1. This
Court further finds that no material has been elicited by the defence, either
through effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by
adducing independent defence evidence, to discredit the consistent version
of PW1, the injured eyewitness. The chain of events as spoken to by PW1
remains intact and unshaken. Further this Court also finds no such
exceptional circumstances are made out to disbelieve PW1. In view of the
above, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.1.
Page 18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
8.Discussion on the discrepancies on the AR Copy:
With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant concerning discrepancies in the Accident Register (AR) entries,
this Court finds no merit in the same. Entries in the Accident Register are
primarily intended for medical treatment and not for recording a detailed or
accurate account of the occurrence and the evidence of doctor who recorded
the statement in the accident registered copy can neither be used for
contradiction or nor for any other purpose.
8.1.The purpose of the Accident Register copy is clearly stated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:
P. Babu v. State of A.P., (1994) 1 SCC 388 B. Bhadriah v. State of A.P.,
1995 Supp (1) SCC 262
6. .. It is a matter of common knowledge that such entry in the injury 5. .. The casual way of filling
certificate does not necessarily amount to a statement. At that stage the up the column in the medical
doctor was required to fill up that column in a normal manner and it was certificate does not in any
not the duty of the doctor to enquire from the injured patient about the manner amount to recording a
actual assailants and that the inquiry would be confined as to how he statement of the injured witness
received the injuries namely the weapons used etc8.2.The said principle has been followed by the Hon’ble division
Bench of this Court in numerous cases including the judgment reported in
2021 5 CTC 305. Therefore, minor discrepancies in such entries cannot be
treated as material contradictions so as to affect the core of the prosecution
case.
Page 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
9.Discussion on the delay in registration of FIR:
The occurrence took place at about 11.00 p.m. on 24.08.2017, and
both the injured witness and deceased were immediately taken to the
Government Hospital, Kariyapatti, and thereafter referred to the
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, considering the seriousness of their
condition. Upon receipt of intimation from the hospital, the Sub-Inspector
proceeded to record the statement of PW1 at about 3.00 a.m., and the FIR
was registered thereafter and promptly forwarded to the Court. Considering
the distance between the hospital and the police station, as well as the
medical exigencies, the time taken cannot be construed as an inordinate or
unexplained delay. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the
prosecution version is consistent, cogent, and supported by both ocular and
scientific evidence. The objections raised by the appellant on the account of
the delay in registering the case does not create any reasonable doubt so as
to discredit the prosecution case.
Page 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
10.Discussion on the delay in sending FIR to the Magistrate
Court:
Insofar as the contention regarding delay in forwarding the First
Information Report to the Court is concerned, it is the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that though the FIR was registered at about
6.00 a.m. on 25.08.2017, it reached the Court only at about 1.30 a.m. on
26.08.2017, creating suspicion. This Court is unable to accept the said
contention. It is well settled that mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the
Magistrate is not, by itself, a circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution
case, particularly when the occurrence and the registration of the case are
otherwise established through reliable evidence. In the present case, PW1
has clearly deposed regarding the lodging of the complaint, and there is no
ambiguity or doubt with respect to the genesis of the occurrence. Even
assuming that there was some delay in transmitting the FIR, the same
would, at best, constitute a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. As
per the settled legal position, such a lapse cannot enure to the benefit of the
accused unless prejudice is shown to have been caused and the same was
elaborately discussed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Page 21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023Jafel Biswas and others vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 12 SCC 560.
19. The obligation is on the IO to communicate the report to 20. … mere delay in 23. On delayed
the Magistrate. The obligation cast on the IO is an obligation sending the report itself dispatch of FIR,
of a public duty. But it has been held by this Court that in the cannot lead to a some prejudice
event the report is submitted with delay or due to any lapse, conclusion that the trial is has to be proved
the trial shall not be affected. The delay in submitting the vitiated or the accused is by accused.
report is always taken as a ground to challenge the veracity entitled to be acquitted
of the FIR and the day and time of the lodging of the FIR. on this ground.
10.1.In the present case, no material has been placed to
demonstrate that any prejudice was occasioned to the appellant due to the
said delay. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the contention that the
delay in forwarding the FIR creates doubt regarding the prosecution case or
the credibility of PW1.
11.Discussion on the acquittal of A2:
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
acquittal of the second accused (A2) should enure to the benefit of the
appellant is devoid of merit. A careful scrutiny of the prosecution case
reveals that no specific overt act of assault has been attributed to A2. The
evidence on record indicates that A2’s role, if any, was confined to
accompanying the appellant after the occurrence, and there is no material to
Page 22 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023establish his participation in the actual assault. The learned trial Judge, upon
appreciation of the evidence, has rightly found that there is no sufficient
material to establish the involvement of A2 either in the commission of the
offence or to attract the definition of common intention under Section 34
IPC, or abetment under Section 109 IPC, nor is there any evidence to
substantiate the charge of conspiracy. Consequently, A2 was acquitted. It is
a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the acquittal of a co-
accused does not automatically entitle another accused to acquittal, unless
the evidence against both is inseparable and identical. The principle of
parity cannot be mechanically applied in all cases. In the present case, the
evidence of PW1, the injured eyewitness, insofar as it relates to the presence
and participation of A2, may be doubtful. However, the same does not affect
the core of the prosecution case against the appellant (A1), whose role as
the assailant has been consistently and cogently established. This Court
finds that the learned trial Judge has correctly applied the principle that the
maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no universal application in
criminal law. It is the duty of the Court to separate the “grain from the
chaff” and to accept that part of the testimony which is found to be credible
Page 23 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023and reliable. It is an established principle of criminal law in India that
only on account of detecting some falsehood in the statement of a
witness who is otherwise consistent and reliable, his entire testimony
should not be discarded and the same is fortified by the decision of the
Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Behera vs. State of
Orissa reported in 2002 (8) SCC 381 and the relevant portion in paragraph
No.15 as follows:
Even if a major portion of the evidence is
found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to
prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a
number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can
be maintained.
11.1.The said principle also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in number of cases including in the case of Mahendran vs. State of
Tamilnadu reported in 2019 5 SCC 67. Applying the said principle, even if
the presence of A2 is doubtful, the consistent and reliable evidence of PW1,
corroborated by medical and scientific evidence, clearly establishes that the
appellant alone committed the murderous assault on the deceased and
Page 24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023caused grievous injuries to PW1. Therefore, the acquittal of A2 does not in
any manner weaken the prosecution case against the appellant. The
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are sustainable
notwithstanding the acquittal of the co-accused.
12.Discussion on the application of 304 part I of IPC:
With regard to the alternative submission that the offence would
fall under Section 304 Part I IPC, this Court finds no substance in the said
plea. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the dispute relating to
wages originated at Kadaladi and continued even after the parties reached
Kariyapatti. The appellant had not only quarreled with the deceased but had
also criminally intimidated him, through a phone call also, as spoken to by
PW6. Significantly, after issuing such threats, the appellant went to his
house, armed himself with a deadly weapon (MO1 – sickle), and thereafter
returned to the place of occurrence. The subsequent acts of attacking the
deceased, followed by inflicting further blows even after the deceased fell
down, clearly demonstrates intention. Further, when PW1 attempted to
intervene, the appellant also attacked him and caused grievous injuries, and
Page 25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023uttering words indicative of animosity. The manner of attack, the nature of
weapon used, and the conduct of the appellant before and during the
occurrence unmistakably establish that the act was intentional and not the
result of a sudden quarrel or grave and sudden provocation. There was
sufficient time for reflection between the earlier quarrel and the occurrence,
thereby ruling out the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. In
such circumstances, this Court finds no justification to alter the conviction
from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Accordingly, this Court
holds that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned trial Judge are well-founded
and do not warrant interference. In the result, the appeal fails and is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are confirmed.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K,J.]
25.03.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pal
Page 26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
To:
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kariyapatti Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
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 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
pal
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD).No.274 of 2023
23.03.2026
Page 28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
