Madras High Court
Muniappan vs The State Rep.By Its on 16 July, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
CRL A No.444 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22-06-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 16-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 444 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.No.13257 of 2024
Muniappan
S/o. Muniappan @ Thekkapaiyan,
Chinnapandapalli Village, Aleseebam Post,
Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishangiri District.
...Appellant/Sole accused
Vs
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Uddanapalli Police Station,
Krishangiri District.
Cr.No.404 of 2017.
...Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
13.08.2021 passed in S.C.No.80 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Krishnagiri and allow this appeal.
__________
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
For Appellant: Mr.R.Selvakumar
For Respondent: Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunder Mohan J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, who has
been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months.
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Bhuvaneswari, was the wife of the accused; that they got married on
05.09.2010, pursuant to a romantic relationship; that they had two
children i.e., a son aged four years and a daughter aged two years; that a
few years after marriage, the accused caused cruelty to the deceased on
account of dowry demand; that on 03.02.2013 a complaint was lodged
before the All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai and on the advice of
elders, the differences were reconciled; that thereafter also accused
__________
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
continued to cause harassment and suspected the fidelity of the deceased;
that on 03.11.2017 the deceased had complained to her parents about the
harassment caused by the accused; that on 07.11.2017 at about 12.00
midnight the accused had beaten up the deceased accusing her of illicit
relationship with one Sattappa @ Thottapaiyan; that on 19.11.2017
between 2.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. caused the death of the deceased by
electrocution and also by strangulation; and thus, committed the aforesaid
offences.
(ii) PW1 the father of the deceased had lodged a complaint [Ex.P1]
on 19.11.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., stating that he came to know from the
neighbours that the accused had caused the death of the deceased by
electrocution and by strangulation since he had suspected the fidelity of
his wife/deceased. An FIR [Ex.P11] was registered in Cr.No.404 of 2017
by PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, against the accused under Section
302 of the IPC.
(iii) The investigation was taken up by PW14, the Inspector of
Police, who went to the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation
__________
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
mahazar and seized certain incriminating articles from the residence
including a white-coloured rope which was found on the neck of the
deceased. He conducted inquest and made arrangements for postmortem
examination. On 20.11.2017, the accused was arrested and on his
confession, an electric wire [M.O.2] was seized from a bush near the
river. Thereafter, on his transfer, PW15, the Inspector of Police, took up
investigation. After examining all the witnesses and obtaining
postmortem report [Ex.P4] and forensic sciences report [Ex.P3], the
investigating officer-PW15 altered the offences in the FIR (the alteration
report is marked as Ex.P19). Thereafter, PW15 filed the final report on
02.07.2018 against the accused for the offences under Section 302 r/w
201 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur.
(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Mahila Court), Krishnagiri, for trial, which was taken on file as
S.C.No.80 of 2019. The trial Court framed charges against the accused
for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 of the IPC and when
questioned, the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’.
__________
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
(v) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 19 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, besides 11
material objects, viz., M.O.1 to M.O.11. When the accused was
questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any
witness nor marked any document on his side.
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 of the IPC
and acquitted him of the offence under Section 201 r/w 302 of the IPC.
and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, the accused has preferred the
instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.
3. Mr.R.Selvakumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused,
would submit that there are no eyewitnesses in the case; that the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been conclusively
proved; that there is no evidence to show that the appellant stayed in the
house with the deceased on the fateful day; that motive has not been
__________
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
established by the prosecution; that the prosecution has not established
the manner in which the deceased was done to death; and that the
circumstances in any case do not point out only to the guilt of the accused
and there are several links missing in the chain of circumstances and
prayed for acquittal.
4. Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, the learned counsel for the Government of
Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) for the respondent, per contra submitted that the
motive has been established by the prosecution; that the recovery of wire
on the confession of the appellant, the fact that the accused failed to
establish the defence of alibi claimed by him and that the appellant had
not discharged his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,
would point out only to the guilt of the accused and took us through the
evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
5. As stated above, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. PW1 is
the father of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is
the brother-in-law of the deceased. PW4 is the sister of the deceased.
__________
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
PW5 is the brother of the deceased; PW6 is the Doctor, who conducted
postmortem; PW7 and PW8 are the witnesses to the seizure mahazar
[Ex.P6]. M.O.1, electric wire was marked through PW7, which was also
identified by PW8. PW9, is the Village Administrative Officer, who had
signed as a witness in the confession of the appellant and had also
witnessed the seizure of electric wire on the confession of the appellant in
a bush. PW10 is the relative of the deceased and speaks about the fact
that the appellant was inimical towards the deceased since he suspected
that she had illicit relationship with Sattappa @ Thottapaiyan. PW11 is
the Sub-Inspector of Police, who despatched the FIR to the Magistrate;
PW12 is the postmortem constable; PW13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police,
who had registered the FIR. PW14 and PW15 are the other investigating
officers.
6. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution relies upon the fact that the deceased suffered a homicidal
death, the circumstances of motive, recovery, the false explanation by the
appellant and the fact that the accused had not discharged his burden of
proving the facts that were exclusively within his knowledge.
__________
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
7. The fact that the deceased suffered a homicidal death has not
been seriously challenged. In fact though the charge would state that the
deceased was first electrocuted and thereafter strangulated by the
appellant, the medical evidence of the doctor (PW6) rules out
electrocution. However, there are abrasions in the cheek of the deceased
and also multiple small burn wounds over the back side of both the legs
below the knee region. The Doctor had opined that the deceased had died
of ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’. The appellant had not discredited the
evidence of PW6 and her report [Ex.P4] in any manner. Therefore, the
fact that the deceased suffered a homicidal death has been conclusively
established by the prosecution.
8. As regards the circumstance of motive, we find that PW1 to
PW5 have stated that the appellant was inimical towards the deceased as
he suspected her fidelity. In fact, PW1 had stated about the complaint
which was given in the year 2013 accusing the appellant of committing
cruelty in connection with dowry demand. The witnesses have spoken
about an incident that took place two weeks prior to the occurrence where
__________
Page 8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
the appellant is said to have beaten the deceased, accusing her of illicit
intimacy with another person (Sattappa). The evidence of PW1 to PW5
would clearly establish that the relationship between the appellant and the
deceased, was not cordial. In fact, apart from the facts elicited in the
chief examination, the defence also suggested to the witnesses that the
deceased had extra-marital relationship. Therefore, we are of the view
that the prosecution had established that the appellant has suspected the
fidelity of the deceased and there were frequent quarrels and he had
harassed the deceased.
9. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant and the
deceased were together in the house where the occurrence took place on
the fateful night. Though it is the claim of the appellant that he was not
available at the matrimonial home on the fateful day and he had been in
Bangalore, the evidence of the relatives of the deceased PW3 and PW4
would suggest that the appellant was in the habit of going to Bangalore
and returning to Krishnagiri the same night. The appellant has not
__________
Page 9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
produced any evidence to prove alibi and that he was at Bangalore when
the occurrence took place.
10. The appellant therefore, has failed to establish that he was not
present at the matrimonial home on the fateful day. It is also in the
evidence that all the relatives of the appellant viz., his brother, parents
were living near the house of the appellant. The evidence of the
witnesses suggests that none of them were available on the next day
morning. In fact, the inquest report suggests that the deceased was first
seen by the brother of the appellant, who was not examined by the
prosecution. We do not fault the prosecution as it is unlikely that he
would support the case of the prosecution.
11. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on
20.11.2017 at about 11.00 a.m. On his confession, an orange-coloured
electric wire was seized and marked as M.O.2, When PW14 first visited
the house on 19.11.2017 at about 11.15 a.m., he had also seized a rope
which measured 209 cms in length. This rope is marked as M.O.1. The
doctor had opined that the death was caused due to strangulation. Though
__________
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
the doctor had ruled out any possibility of electrocution, the recovery of
the rope at the scene of occurrence assumes significance in the light of
her opinion that the death was due to strangulation. The burn injures on
the back side of both legs also confirms that the victim/deceased was
subjected to harassment prior to her death.
12. Further, as stated above, the accused had not established that he
was away from the matrimonial home on the fateful day. Since the
prosecution has established the circumstances pointed above, the accused
ought to have explained the circumstances which led to the death of the
deceased since they are exclusively within his knowledge. Section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act is only to meet such circumstances, as it could
not be possible for the prosecution to establish facts which are
exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. The absence of
explanation would, also be a circumstance in the chain of circumstances
to prove the guilt of the appellant.
13. In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar, reported in (2000) 8 SCC
382, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the
__________
Page 11 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a
fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent
reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule,
nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the
traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed
to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences
would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the
casualty.
32. In this case, when prosecution succeeded in establishing the
afore narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of
certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the
court to rely on in conditions such as this.
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of
one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such
inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence
that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other
proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of
proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a
logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle
has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is
incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the
existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that
process court shall have regard to the common course of natural
events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.”
14. In this regard, it would also be useful to refer to the following
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalu alias Laxminathan
__________
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2019 (10) SCC 211.
12. In the circumstances, the onus clearly shifted on the
appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner in which the
deceased met a homicidal death in the matrimonial home as it was a
fact specifically and exclusive to his knowledge. It is not the case of
the appellant that there had been an intruder in the house at night. In
Hanumant and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, it
was observed
“10. …..It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully established, and all
the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused….”
13. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373, this Court observed:
“23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of
evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from
certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a
fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process__________
Page 13 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most
probable position. The above position is strengthened in view
of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the
court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely
to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have regard
to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in
addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the
principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can
also be utilised. We make it clear that this section is not
intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would
apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving
facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such
facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the
court to draw a different inference. It is useful to quote the
following observation in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad
Omar“38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of
the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for
the prosecution to establish certain facts which are
particularly within the knowledge of the
accused. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer the
learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus:
‘11. This lays down the general rule that in a
criminal case the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not__________
Page 14 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021intended to relieve it of that duty. On the
contrary, it is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible, or at any rate disproportionately
difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts
which are “especially” within the knowledge of
the accused and which he could prove without
difficulty or inconvenience.
The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre-
eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge.”
14. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006
(10) SCC 681, this Court was considering a similar case of homicidal
death in the confines of the house. The following observations are
considered relevant in the facts of the present case:
“14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and
in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in
circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for
the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as
noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not
preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man
is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does
not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of
Public Prosecutions — quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat,
J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh). The law does not enjoin
a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character
which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely
difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such__________
Page 15 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep
in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b)
appended to this section throws some light on the content and
scope of this provision and it reads:
“(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket.
The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in
secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case
would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and
amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge
cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a
comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the
inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the
crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get
away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies
entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an
accused to offer any explanation.
Xxxxxxxx
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the
murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading
evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime
__________
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
they were seen together or the offence takes place in the
dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has
been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an
explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong
circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime.”
15. In view of our conclusion that the prosecution has clearly
established a prima facie case, the precedents cited on behalf of the
appellant are not considered relevant in the facts of the present case.
Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was
obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with
regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural
death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever
therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant
of the deceased.”
15. The above observations are self-explanatory and would
squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The prosecution in this
case has established that the deceased sustained a homicidal death; that
the appellant had motive to cause the death of the deceased; and that the
appellant and the deceased were residing in their matrimonial home along
with their two children. Further, the appellant had failed to establish his
plea of alibi and that he was at Bangalore on that night.
__________
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
16. In the light of the above circumstances, a duty is cast upon the
appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain the
circumstances under which death was caused to the deceased and since
the appellant has not discharged this burden, it would offer an additional
circumstance in the chain of circumstances sought to be established by
the prosecution. We may also note here that not only the appellant, but,
his brother and other close relatives who were living nearby were not
available in their respective residences on the day after the occurrence,
which also can be considered as an additional circumstance in the facts
and circumstances of the case, though by itself in other cases it may not
have much relevance. Since all the circumstances that have been
enumerated above point out only to the guilt of the accused ruling out any
of the hypothesis, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction
and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused vide judgment dated
13.08.2021 in S.C.No.80 of 2019, on the file of the learned Sessions
__________
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Krishnagiri, are confirmed.
Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
16-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Krishnagiri.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Uddanapalli Police Station,
Krishangiri District.
3. The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.444 of 2021
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
Pre-delivery Judgment in
CRL A No. 444 of 2021
16-07-2026
__________
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
