Madras High Court
D.Duraiyarasan vs The Inspector Of Police on 21 April, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 21.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
and
CRL MP(MD).No.15194 of 2023
D.Duraiyarasan ... Appellant
Vs.
The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station,
Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.101 of 2014) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated
26.07.2023 made in S.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur and allow the criminal
appeal.
Page 1 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.C.Christopher for
Mr.A.Padmanaban
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)
The sole accused in S.C.No.61 of 2015, on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur has preferred the
present appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him
under Section 450 of IPC sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- indefault, to undergo 3 months
Rigorous imprisonment and convicting him under Section 302(2 counts) of
IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-
in default, to undergo 6 months Rigorous imprisonment (2 counts) and
convicting him under Sections 404 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 3
months Rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- indefault to
undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment and convicting him under
Section 380 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years Rigorous
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- indefault, to undergo three
Page 2 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
months Rigorous imprisonment and directing the sentences to concurrently,
as per the judgment dated 26.07.2023.
2.Brief facts of the case:
According to the prosecution, the deceased, namely Saroja (D1),
was a retired Office Assistant in the Panchayat Union, and her husband
Solaimalai (D2) was employed as a teacher in a private Higher Secondary
School at Srivilliputhur. The couple resided at Soundiamman Koil Street,
Srivilliputhur and had no children. PW1, the sister of D1, and PW4, her
husband, were residing separately. On 17.02.2014 at about 9:30 a.m., PW1
tried to contact the deceased over phone, but there was no response.
Suspecting something foul, PW1, along with PW4 and other relatives, went
to the house of the deceased at about 5:15 p.m. On entering the house, they
were shocked to see both D1 and D2 lying dead with severe head injuries.
PW1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police, upon which a case in
Crime No.101 of 2014 was registered under Sections 450 and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P14.
PW20, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, visited the scene
Page 3 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023of occurrence, and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch
(Exhibits.P8 and P15) in the presence of witnesses. He also seized material
objects including bloodstained earth and a grinder stone alleged to have
been used for the commission of the offence.
2.1.Inquest was conducted over the bodies of both deceased
(Exs.P16 and P17), and the bodies were sent for postmortem. PW14, the
Doctor, conducted autopsy on 18.02.2014 and opined that the deaths were
due to head injuries sustained, and that the time of death was approximately
32 to 46 hours prior to postmortem.
2.2.On 24.02.2014, the accused allegedly appeared before the
Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and gave an extra-judicial confession,
which was recorded as Ex.P15. In the said confession, the accused is stated
to have admitted that he committed the murder due to a monetary dispute, as
the D1 had failed to give him money. He further stated that when D2
intervened, he assaulted him also with a grinder stone and he had stolen and
sold of gold jewels belonged to the deceased.
Page 4 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
2.3.Pursuant to the said confession, recoveries were effected
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, including bloodstained clothes
(MOs 13 and 14).
2.4.Based on his disclosure, part of the jewels were traced through
one Sheikh Alavuddin and subsequently in a jewellery shop, where they had
been melted into gold bars. Some more jewels (MOs 2 to 11) were
recovered from a scrap shop identified by the accused. Investigating agency
examined material witnesses and collected FSL report and after completing
investigation, final report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate,
namely the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, and the same was taken
on file in P.R.C.No.38 of 2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to the
Mahila Special Court, Srivilliputhur, and was taken on file as S.C. No.61 of
2015.
2.5.The accused was summoned and, upon appearance when he
was questioned, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned
trial Judge framed the necessary charges under Sections 450, 302 (two
Page 5 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
counts), 404, and 380 IPC against the appellant. The accused denied the
charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined PWs 1 to 20, marked Exs. P1 to P23, and produced MOs 1 to 20.
Thereafter, the learned trial Judge examined the accused under Section 313
of Cr.P.C asking him about the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence on record. The accused denied the same as false. On the side of the
defence, RW1 and RW2 were examined.
2.6.The learned trial Judge, after considering the entire evidence
and materials on record, found the accused guilty of the offences charged,
and sentenced him as stated above, by judgment dated 26.07.2023.
Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the
accused/appellant.
3. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant:
The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a
case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. He would further contend
Page 6 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for appreciating
circumstantial evidence have not been followed by the trial court, and the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
3.1.According to the learned counsel for appellant, in a case of
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of
circumstances, each of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and
the circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of
accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty. In the present case, none of these principles
have been properly considered by the learned trial Judge.
3.2.The learned trial Judge relied upon the evidence of PW9, who
stated that D2 had informed him on 16.02.2014 about the visit of the
accused to their house and that the accused had demanded money and
property from them since they had no children. However, apart from this
statement, there is no other evidence available on record to show that the
accused was present in the house at the time of occurrence or was seen in
Page 7 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023the company of the deceased at any point of time prior to their death.
Therefore, the “last seen” theory has not been established. The evidence of
PW9 is purely hearsay and cannot be relied upon.
3.3.The learned trial Judge also relied upon the extra-judicial
confession said to have been given by the accused before the Village
Administrative Officer. It is highly improbable that the accused, who hails
from Tiruvarur District, would travel more than 300 kilometers and give a
confession before an unknown Village Administrative Officer after several
days from the date of occurrence. Hence, the extra-judicial confession is
inherently improbable and unreliable. It is further submitted that extra-
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and in the absence of
corroboration, the conviction cannot be sustained solely on that basis and
placed reliance of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgargh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 655.
3.4.The learned counsel further submitted that there is no
corroboration for the contents of the alleged extra-judicial confession, and
Page 8 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
therefore, the conviction based on such evidence is unsustainable.
3.5.With regard to the recovery of jewels, the learned trial Judge
failed to consider that the recovery has not been proved in accordance with
law. There is no evidence available on record to show that the jewels
belonged to the deceased or that the accused had committed theft of the
same. The evidence of PW7, the Village Administrative Officer, and other
witnesses (PWs 10, 11, 12, and 13) is not reliable to prove the source and
manner of recovery. The recoveries appear to have been a made up story to
falsely implicate the accused.
3.6.It is further submitted that the fingerprint expert’s evidence is
also unreliable. There is no material to show when and how the fingerprints
of the accused were taken. No document has been produced to establish that
the specimen fingerprints were obtained in accordance with law and
forwarded for comparison. The fingerprint expert submitted his report on
17.02.2016, whereas the accused was arrested only on 24.02.2016. Even on
the date of arrest, there is no evidence to show that his fingerprints were
Page 9 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
taken. Therefore, the opinion of the fingerprint expert is of no help to the
prosecution and has not been properly appreciated by the trial court.
3.7.It is also stated that four sets of fingerprints were marked,
namely: one relating to D1, another to D2, one to a person by name, Arul
Kumar, and one allegedly to the accused. However, in the absence of proper
proof regarding the collection and comparison of fingerprints, the said
evidence cannot be relied upon.
3.8.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit
that the alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes is doubtful. According to
him, the bloodstained clothes were not recovered from the deceased, and the
recovery mahazar does not disclose that the accused’s clothes were
recovered in the manner alleged by the prosecution. A perusal of Ex.P11
would show that the recovery was effected in the presence of police
officials. Therefore, the claim of the prosecution that the recovery was made
in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer is not believable. It is
further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
Page 10 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
reasonable doubt looking from all angles.
3.9.The learned counsel would also submit that the prosecution
story is inherently improbable. According to the prosecution, the accused
used a heavy grinder stone weighing approximately 11 kilograms to assault
the deceased on the head. However, the medical evidence does not disclose
injuries consistent with such a brutal assault, such as complete crushing or
extensive damage to the skull. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that
such a heavy object was used without causing relatively fatal injuries is
highly unbelievable.
3.10.The learned counsel further submitted that, as per the
prosecution case, the accused handed over the stolen jewels to one Sheikh
Alavudeen, who in turn passed them on to PW10, and thereafter the jewels
were taken to PW13, a jeweller, who allegedly converted them into gold
bars. However, the evidence of PW13 does not inspire confidence. More
importantly, the said Sheikh Alavudeen, who is a crucial link in the chain of
circumstances, has not been examined. This omission is fatal to the
Page 11 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
prosecution case.
3.11.With regard to the recovery of jewels allegedly belonging to
the deceased, it is submitted that the evidence of PWs 10, 11, 12, and 13 are
unreliable and appears to be stage-managed. It is further contended that the
recovery proceedings were fabricated even prior to the arrest of the accused.
There are material contradictions between the evidence of PW15 (Village
Administrative Officer) and the Investigating Officer. While the
Investigating Officer stated that the confession was recorded at one place
and recovery was effected at another place PW5, a material witness,
deposed that the confession was recorded in a shop and the recovery was
made pursuant thereto. These material contradictions strike at the root of the
prosecution case and create serious doubt.
3.12.The learned counsel also pointed out that one of the
fingerprints (marked as M3) was identified as belonging to one Arul Kumar.
The prosecution has failed to explain the presence of this fingerprint at the
scene of occurrence. No investigation has been conducted to trace or
Page 12 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
examine the said Arul Kumar. This lapse on the part of the prosecution
suggests suppression of material facts and possible involvement of some
other persons.
3.13.In view of these serious infirmities, it is submitted that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
4. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon perusal
of the records and the impugned judgment, and with the assistance of the
investigating officer present before the Court, would submit that this is a
case of double murder, and the prosecution has established its case through
cogent and convincing circumstantial evidence. It is contended that the
evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 clearly establishes the involvement of the
accused. The recovery of incriminating materials, including the jewels
belonging to the deceased, has been duly proved. The minor contradictions
pointed out by the defence do not go to the root of the matter and are not
Page 13 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023sufficient to discard the prosecution case.
4.1.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further
submit that the recovery of the stolen jewels, coupled with the failure of the
accused to offer a plausible explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., forms
a strong incriminating circumstance against him. Taken cumulatively, these
circumstances establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this appeal.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.
6.The question arises in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt against the appellant and consequently conviction and sentence
passed against the appellant in S.C.No.61 of 2015 can be sustained?
Page 14 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
7.Discussion on the legal principles:
Before discussing this case on merits, this Court would like to
extract the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the nature
and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial
evidence.
7.1.The foundational decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of the circumstantial evidence is Hanumant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 and the relevant portion of the judgement is
extracted hereunder:
“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 otherPage 15 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023words, 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.”7.2.Yet another judgement of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of
Supreme Court is In M.G. Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC
200 and the Hon’ble Constitution Bench held as follows:
If the circumstances proved in a case are
consistent either with the innocence of the accused, or with
his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
When it is held that a certain fact has been proved, then the
question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the
inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not,
and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused, and a final inference of
guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved fact is
wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and
is entirely consistent with his guilt.
Page 16 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 20237.3.The Hon’ble three judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 153 set out five golden principles, namely the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and the same is as follows:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
7.3.1. It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not
“may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or
should be proved” as was held by this Court in the case of
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(1973) 2 SCC 793, which reads as follows:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
7.3.2. the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
7.3.3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,Page 17 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 20237.3.4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
7.3.5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.
7.4. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in
1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion
that within all human probability the crime was committed by
the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”Page 18 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 20237.5. Hon’ble Supreme Court also reiterated the said principles in
the case of C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. reported in (1996) 10 SCC
193 wherein it has been observed thus :
“21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence,
the settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
the circumstances should be complete and there should be
no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.”7.6. It is well settled principle that “fouler the crime higher the
proof” and the suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of
legal proof and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the said principle
in the following cases:
Page 19 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 20237.6.1. In the case of Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, in (2014) 1
SCC (Cri) 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot
take the place of proof, and there is a large difference
between something that “may be” proved, and something
that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter
how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between
“may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the
court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion
do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance
between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered
by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence
produced by the prosecution, before an accused is
condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must
be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance
between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must
maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and
sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of
dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and
comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as
well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on
record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice isPage 20 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so
demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair
doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.
7.7. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains
essentially inferential. The famous Author “Sri Alfred Wills, in his
admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial evidence” laid rules to draw such
legal inference which has been followed and observed as universal guide by
various Courts all over world including our Apex Court in the case of
Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 315
which reads as follows:
7.7.(A). The facts alleged as the basis of any legal
inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt
connected with the factum probandum;
7.7.(B). The burden of proof is always on the party
who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability;
7.7.(C). In all cases, whether of direct or
circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adducedPage 21 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023which the nature of the case admits;
7.7.(D). In order to justify the inference of guilt, the
inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other
reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and
7.7.(E). If there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt
of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
7.8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sujit Biswas v.
State of Assam, reported in 2014 (1) SCC (Cri) 677 has followed similar
line of guidance in paragraph No.18 which reads as follows:
18….. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the
judgment remains essentially inferential. Inferences are drawn
from established facts, as the circumstances lead to particular
inferences. The court must draw an inference with respect to
whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the
circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must
lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is
the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so
established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Page 22 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
7.9. This case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Therefore, from the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the following principles flows:
Firstly, the prosecution must prove each link in
the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
Secondly, all the circumstances so proved must
form a complete chain, excluding every other possible
hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused.
Thirdly, the circumstances must be of a
conclusive nature and tendency. It is also the duty of the
Court to ensure that the facts so established are consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not
with any other hypothesis.
7.10. Keeping these settled principles in mind, this Court proceeds
to examine the facts of the present case.
8.Discussion on the recovery:
According to the prosecution, based on the extra-judicial
Page 23 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023confession, the accused had stolen two gold chains belonging to deceased
Nos. 1 and 2. To prove this allegation, the prosecution relied upon the arrest
and recovery said to have been effected on 24.02.2014. It is alleged that,
after the extra-judicial confession, the accused gave another confession to
the Investigating Officer (PW20), and on the basis of the disclosure
statement marked as Ex.P27, recovery was effected under Ex.P18.
8.1.The prosecution case is that there were two categories of
jewellery. First, certain jewels were pledged with a shop owner. Secondly,
according to the second confession of the accused, he had stolen several
items of jewellery from the deceased. Among those items, he allegedly
handed over two gold chains belonging to deceased No.1 to one Sheikh
Allaudin, who has not been examined before this Court. It is further stated
that the said Sheikh Allaudin, in turn, handed over the chains to another
person, and ultimately the accused went to a shop where the chains were
melted into gold ingots, which were later recovered. The remaining
jewellery items, marked as M.O. Nos. 2 to 11, were also recovered based on
the confession of the accused.
Page 24 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
8.2.However, there is a material contradiction between the
evidence of the Investigating Officer and that of the recovery witness. The
Investigating Officer deposed that the confession was recorded at the police
station, whereas the Village Administrative Officer, who attested the
recovery mahazar, specifically stated that the confession was recorded at the
place of recovery, which is more than 300 kilometers away from the police
station.
8.3.Further, one of the material circumstances relates to the
alleged recovery of bangles belonging to the deceased. However, the
photographs marked by the prosecution clearly show that the bangles were
found on the body of D1. In such circumstances, the recovery appears to be
doubtful. Therefore, it is contended that the entire recovery has been
fabricated by the prosecution in order to support the extra-judicial
confession.
Page 25 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
9.Discussion on extra judicial confession:
The Hon’ble supreme Court in the following cases reiterated the
principle that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and
must be examined with great care and caution and It must be shown to have
been made voluntarily, must be truthful, and must inspire confidence.
9.1.In the case of Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgargh reported
in (2023) 16 SCC 655. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
”19. In Sahadevan vs State of T.N. it was
observed in Para 14 as under:
”14. It is settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece
of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of
the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a
conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure
that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by
other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial
confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent
improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the
prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base
a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances,Page 26 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence
out of consideration.”
20. The said ratio was also reiterated and
followed by this Court in Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab,
Sk.Yusuf vs State of W.B. And Pancho vs State of Haryana,
wherein it has been specifically laid down that the extra-
judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and it has to
be examined by the Court with greater care and caution. It
should be truthful and should inspire confidence. An extra-
judicial confession attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.”
10. In this case, the accused came to P.W.15’s office on
24.02.2016 at 09.00a.m. in the presence of his assistant namely Sivan and
gave the voluntary extra-judicial confession admitting his guilt. The said
Sivan was not examined to corroborate the above P.W.5 evidence. Accused
in his 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on 22.02.2014, the police officials came to his
native place at Thiruvarur, and forcibly obtained his fingerprints by
subjecting him to coercion, including physical force. He has also stated that
Page 27 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
the alleged confession was obtained under duress and that no recovery was
effected in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is well settled that the
Court is duty-bound to consider the explanation offered by the accused
under section 313 Cr.P.C. in the light of the evidence on record. However,
this explanation offered by the accused has not been considered by the
learned trial Judge in his discussion. There is no reference whatsoever to the
said explanation in the judgment. D.W.1, Revenue Inspector, Srivilliputhur
was examined and he was requested to produce the movement register of
P.W.15. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.15 after recording the
extra-judicial confession went to the accused village Thiruvarur. But, D.W.
1 specifically deposed that there was no record available to show that on
24.02.2014, P.W.15 went to Thiruvarur. It is also clear from the records that
the distance between the Thiruvarur and the Srivilliputhur is more than 300
Kms. Therefore, this Court inclines to accept the argument of the learned
Counsel for the appellant that it is highly improbable that the accused, who
hails from Tiruvarur District, would travel more than 300 kilometers and
give a confession before an unknown Village Administrative Officer after
several days from the date of occurrence.
Page 28 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
11. Accordingly, in view of the above inherent improbabilities
attached with the above extra-judicial confession and the explanation
furnished by the accused appears to be plausible and the failure of the trial
Court to consider the explanation would result into finding that the extra-
judicial confession is inherently improbable, unreliable and does not inspire
confidence, the conviction passed against the appellant on the basis of the
extra-judicial confession is not legally correct.
12. Discussion on last seen theory:
P.W.9 was examined to prove the last seen theory. Admittedly, he
was not direct witness to prove the last seen theory. He deposed that D.2
had informed him on 16.02.2014 about the visit of the accused to his house.
Apart from that, there is no other evidence available on record to show that
accused was present in the house of the deceased at the time of the
occurrence or was seen in the company of the deceased at any point of time
prior to the death. Therefore, this Court holds that prosecution miserably
failed to prove the last seen theory.
Page 29 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
13.Discussion on the finger print expert:
13.1. It is well settled that unless the prosecution proves that the
specimen fingerprints of the accused were obtained in a manner known to
law and properly compared, such evidence cannot be relied upon. It is
relevant to refer the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Arumugam and another vs State represented by Inspector of Police,
Kottapatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District reported in (2024) 3 MLJ
(crl) 491, and the relevant portion of the said judgement is extracted as
follows:
”(iii) It is well settled that the evidence of a fingerprint
expert is not a substantive evidence and it can only corroborate the
other evidence on record. However, as to what value could be
attached to a report given by a police officer, who claims to be
trained in fingerprint comparison, even for the purpose of
corroboration, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.
Therefore, in the absence of any definite evidence as to whether
specimen fingerprints of the accused were taken and sent to the Fingerprint
Bureau, the comparison would not be relevant, and it would be difficult to
Page 30 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023place reliance on such a report.”
14. In this case, to implicate the accused, the prosecution rest
upon the alleged presence of his fingerprints at the scene of occurrence.
According to the fingerprint expert (PW17), four chance prints were lifted,
marked as M1, M2, M3, and M4. Out of these, M1 was identified as
belonging to deceased No.1, M2 to deceased No.2, M3 to one Arul Kumar,
and M4 to the accused.
15. According to the Investigating Officer, this constitutes one of
the material links connecting the accused to the crime. However, no
investigation whatsoever was conducted with regard to the presence of Arul
Kumar’s fingerprint at the scene. The Investigating Officer has not
furnished any explanation for exonerating Arul Kumar from the scope of
investigation, despite the presence of his fingerprint. This omission assumes
significance and casts a serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation.
Page 31 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
16. Further, as per the prosecution, the accused was arrested only
on 24.02.2014. However, the fingerprint expert is stated to have examined
and given his opinion on 17.02.2014, which is prior to the arrest of the
accused. In this context, no record has been produced by the prosecution to
show as to how and when the specimen fingerprints of the accused were
obtained.
17. There is no material on record to establish that the fingerprints
of the accused were taken in accordance with law prior to 17.02.2014. No
document has been marked to show that permission was obtained under the
Identification of Prisoners Act for taking the specimen fingerprints. Indeed,
there is no scrap of evidence available to demonstrate that the fingerprints
of the accused were collected as per law.
18. Moreover, even in the expert opinion marked as an exhibit,
there is no clear indication regarding the date on which the opinion was
given or about the foundational data relied upon. In the absence of such
foundational evidence, the opinion of the fingerprint expert becomes
Page 32 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
doubtful.
19. Further, fingerprint evidence, in the absence of corroborative
circumstances, cannot by itself form the sole basis for conviction,
particularly when the surrounding circumstances are doubtful and the
possibility of involvement of other persons has not been ruled out.
Therefore, the circumstances warrant applicability principle that when in the
evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the
favour of the prosecution and the other benefits the accused, the accused is
undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt and the same was fortified by
the following judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali
Ram vs. State of H.P. reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under :
“25. Another golden thread which runs through the
web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should
be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in casesPage 33 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence.”19.1. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
reported in (1992) 2 SCC 86 it was pointed out that great care must be taken
in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must
be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must
be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the
facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
20. In these circumstances, the alleged presence of the fingerprint
of the accused cannot be safely relied upon and this Court holds that the
conclusion reached by the learned trial judge on the basis of the fingerprint
expert cannot be sustained.
21.Discussion on the prosecution case of “Murder for gain”:
The prosecution has projected the case as one of “murder for
gain.” In such cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish,
Page 34 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023beyond reasonable doubt, two essential facts: first, that the recovered
articles belonged to the deceased; and second, that those very articles were
stolen by the accused.
21.1. In the present case, there is inconsistency with regard to the
recovery of jewels as mentioned in the charge and the articles allegedly
recovered under the recovery mahazar. The evidence of the recovery
witnesses is not reliable, and the recovery itself has not been satisfactorily
proved, particularly in light of the material contradictions between the
testimony of the recovery witnesses and that of the Investigating Officer.
21.2. Further, while the charge refers to six items of jewellery, the
recovery under Ex.P11 speaks of more than eleven items. This unexplained
discrepancy creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the recovery.
In such circumstances, it appears that the investigating agency has
attempted to introduce materials to artificially support the theory of “murder
for gain.”
Page 35 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
21.3. Moreover, even according to the prosecution, some of the
articles were recovered from the bureau. The specific case of the
prosecution is that the deceased refused to give money to the accused, and
consequently, the accused hit the deceased with a grinder stone. In this
context, there is no evidence to show that the bureau was broken open or
that any key was used to open the bureau. No fingerprints were lifted from
the bureau to connect the accused with the alleged theft.
21.4. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused
had stolen the articles of the deceased and without the same, chain would
get smepped. It is relevant to refer the following observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Aman and another vs State of
Rajasthan reported in (1997) 10 SCC 44 which reads as follows:
”9. Unless the prosecution conclusively
establishes that the articles recovered were stolen when
the murder was committed, and not on an earlier
occasion, there would be a missing link in the chain sofar
as the specific accusation levelled against the accused is
concerned.”.
Page 36 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 202321.5. But, in this case no material circumstances were established
either to hold or infer the accused had stolen the articles of the deceased. In
view of the said significant deficiencies, this Court finds it difficult to
accept the prosecution’s version that the accused committed theft of the
jewellery from the bureau or from the persons of the deceased and that the
same was subsequently recovered at his instance.
21.6. Accordingly, the material aspects of the prosecution case
remain unproved, and the theory of “murder for gain” is not established
beyond reasonable doubt.
21.7. According to the prosecution, the complaint regarding the
death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 was lodged by the sister of deceased No.1.
However, in the said complaint, there is no reference whatsoever about the
theft of any jewellery, or any allegation that the accused had stolen such
jewels.
Page 37 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
21.8. In these circumstances, the projection by the prosecution
regarding recovery of jewels from the bureau, as well as the alleged
recovery of jewels said to have been removed from the bodies of the
deceased by the accused, appears to be dubious. As already discussed, this
version appears to be made up story by the investigating agency to implicate
the accused.
22.Discussion on the blood stained clothes of the accused:
Further, with regard to the recovery of the bloodstained clothes of
the accused, the prosecution relies upon Ex.P7. However, Ex.P7 does not
clearly relate to the accused. It is stated that M.O.Nos.13 and 14 were
recovered in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. On the other
hand, the evidence of the police witnesses suggests that the recovery was
effected in the presence of police constables. These constables are not
independent witnesses, and this inconsistency further weakens the
prosecution case.
Page 38 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 202322.1. Additionally, the forensic report (serology report) does not
support or corroborate the prosecution version. In view of these
discrepancies, the alleged recovery of the lungi and shirt, purportedly worn
by the accused at the time of commission of offence, has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
22.3. Therefore, in all respects, the prosecution has failed to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to benefit of
doubt.
23.Conclusion
In light of the above circumstances, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt on all
material aspects. Merely because this is a case of double murder, the Court
cannot be swayed by the gravity or the heinous nature of the offence in the
absence of legally admissible and reliable evidence linking the accused to
the crime. It is well settled principle that no conviction can be passed on
mere suspicion and the same cannot amount to legal proof. In this regard, it
Page 39 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023is relevant to extract the following judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Chandrakant Ganpat Sharad Birdhichand Sarda [Sharad
Sovitkar vs. State of Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
16
It is well settled that no one Graver the crime, greater should be the
can be convicted on the basis standard of proof. An accused may
of mere suspicion, however appear to be guilty on the basis of
strong it may be. suspicion but that cannot amount to
legal proof.
24. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the learned trial
Judge has committed error in convicting the accused on suspicion alone
which is not permissible in law.
24.1. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the
appellant has been implicated as an accused on the basis of an alleged extra-
judicial confession and purported recoveries. These pieces of evidence do
not inspire confidence and appear to be artificial in nature. It seems that the
investigating agency, faced with the frustration of being unable to identify
the true perpetrator of the crime, has resorted to constructing a case rather
Page 40 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
than establishing proof of its commission through credible evidence. In this
context it is apposite to refer the following portion of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab,
reported in (1982) 3 SCC 462 which reads as follows:
11. …An a priori suspicion that the accused has
committed the crime transforms itself into a facile belief that it is
he who has committed the crime. Human mind plays that trick
on proof of the commission of a crime by resisting the frustrating
feeling that no one can be identified as the author of that crime.
In the case before us, there is no doubt that five persons were
murdered. Unquestionably, every effort had to be made to find
out who committed those murders. But the duty is not done by
holding someone or the other guilty somehow or the other….
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following
terms:
25.1.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in
S.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur dated 26.07.2023, is hereby set aside.
25.2.The accused is acquitted of all charges and shall be released
Page 41 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
25.3. If any fine amount, he paid, shall be refunded forthwith.
Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands
closed.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K,J.]
21.04.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
gvn/sbn
To:-
1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Srivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Srivilliputhur Town Police Station,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 42 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
gvn/sbn
Judgment made in
CRL.A(MD).No.779 of 2023
Dated:21.04.2026
Page 43 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
