Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs The State Rep By on 25 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.03.2026
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl. A. (MD)No.123 of 2024
Muthukumar .. Appellant/Sole accused
Vs.
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Parthibanoor Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District
Crime No.320/2017 ..Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023 in S.C.No.20 of 2021 on
the file of the Fast Track Mahalir Court (Mahalir Neethimandram),
Ramanathapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The sole accused has assailed the judgment passed in SC No.20/2021
dated 31.07.2023 on the file of the Fast Track Mahalir Court (Mahalir
Neethimandram), Ramanathapuram, wherein, the accused person was
convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
S.No. Convicted u/s. Sentence and fine imposed
1 342 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months
2 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for six monthsThe sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused belongs to
Panaikudi Village, Virudhunagar District and he was married to the
deceased Pon Irul, who is a resident of Peerkankurichi, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. They were blessed with four children. Dispute
arose between the husband and wife since the accused person started
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
suspecting the loyalty and chastity of the deceased. In view of the same, the
deceased came to her parents house at Peerkankurichi along with her
children. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused person used
to make visits to see his wife and children.
2.1. On 24.11.2017, at about 8.50 a.m., when the deceased was going
along with her parents to Parthibanur Hospital through Pidariseri, the
accused person was standing in the property belonging to one Shankar,
S/o.Alagar in Unduthi Village. The accused person called the deceased and
hence, the deceased went towards the accused person asking her parents to
wait. At that time, the accused person is said to have pulled the deceased
and slit her throat with knife and also cut the right ear of the deceased.
2.2. PW1 and PW2, on seeing this incident, started running towards
the scene of crime and the accused ran away on the northern side. With the
help of others, they arranged for an ambulance and the deceased was taken
to Paramakudi Government Hospital. PW8, who is the Doctor attended the
deceased and prepared the Accident Register (Ex.P9). Considering the
serious health condition of the deceased, she was referred to the
3/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, on the way, the deceased
succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the deceased was taken back to
Paramakudi Government Hospital.
2.3. PW10, Inspector of Police, received the intimation from
Paramakudi Government Hospital at about 11.20 a.m. on 24.11.2017 and he
went to the hospital around 12 noon. He recorded the statement of the
mother of the deceased (PW1) and prepared the complaint (Ex.P1). He
came back to the police station and registered an FIR (EX.P14) in Crime
No.320/2017 for offence under Section 302 IPC.
2.4. PW10 took up the investigation and he went to the Paramakudi
Government Hospital at about 2 p.m., on the same day and conducted
inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and
inquest report (Ex.P15) was prepared. Thereafter, the investigating officer
requested the Woman Constable to take the deceased for postmortem. The
postmortem was conducted by PW8 and in the postmortem report (Ex.P10),
the following injuries were recorded:
4/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024“External Examination: Thin built body of female aged
about 30-35 years lying on its back with rigor mortis present
all over the body.
Neck – clear cut injury (lacerated injury) size of about
10 x 15cm x 4 cm size anterior aspect of neck region with
blood clots seen. Exposing the trachea and major, minor small
blood vessels with clots seen. Tongue pallor, conjunctiva
pallor in appearance. Torn ear lobules with blood clots ® ear.
Internal Examination: Skull vault intact. Brain intact
concussions and pallor seen.
Lungs: Pallor in appearance
Trachea: Open to air size is of about 4 x 4 x 4 cm
deepens with blood clots seen. Hyoid bone also injured and
broken into pieces.
Death could have occurred about 6 to 8 hours prior to
autopsy. Death due to massive hemorrhage from the open
blood vessels from the injured site (massive hemorrhage)
Hypovolemic shock cardio respiratory arrest. ”
2.5. In the meantime, the investigating officer went to the place of
occurrence, at about 4.30 p.m., and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P7
and a rough sketch Ex.P16 in the presence of witnesses. The investigating
5/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
officer gathered bloodstained earth, normal earth, black bag, photocopy of
the ration card and photo of the accused (MO4 to MO8) under mahazar.
2.6. The investigating officer arrested the accused person on
25.11.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. and the accused person is said to have
voluntarily given his confession statement in the presence of Village
Administrative Officer (PW5) and based on the admissible portion of the
confession statement, a knife (MO1) was recovered under Mahazar Ex.P6.
The accused person was sent for remand.
2.7. All the properties recovered were sent to the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Form 95 and thereafter it was sent for chemical analysis to
the Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory at Ramanathapuram.
2.8. The investigating officer altered the FIR through an alteration
report Ex.P18 and altered the offences to Sections 342 and 302 IPC. The
investigating officer also produced PW1, PW2 and PW4 before the Judicial
Magistrate, Paramakudi, for recording their statements under Section 164
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
Cr.P.C. and their statements were marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4.
3. On completion of recording the statement of the witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after gathering all the materials and reports, the
police report came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
which was taken on file in PRC No.16/2018. After serving the copies under
Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed and tried by the Fast Track
Mahalir Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Ramanathapuram.
4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 342 and 302 IPC and
the accused person denied the charges.
5. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P19 and also relied upon MO1 to MO8.
6. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the
accused person, when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C.,
and he denied the same as false.
7/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
7. The accused person did not examine any witness nor relied upon
any documents.
8. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion
that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and
proceeded to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated
supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed
before this court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
10. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the eyewitness account of PW1 and PW2, who happened to
be the mother and father of the deceased, is highly doubtful since they have
given evidence as if the incident happened in an open field, whereas, the
8/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
earliest version that was given by the deceased to PW8 – Doctor and which
was recorded in the Accident Register shows that the alleged incident had
happened inside the house. Therefore, PW1 and PW2 could not have seen
this incident. The learned counsel further submitted that if really PW1 and
PW2 were present in the scene of crime, their bloodstained clothes should
have been seized by the police, since they admitted that they had lifted the
body of the deceased, who was profusely bleeding. Apart from that the
statement of PW1 and PW2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reached the
Court only at the time of filing the police report. Therefore, all the
circumstances clearly established the fact that PW1 and PW2 could not have
seen the incident.
11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that if the statement given by the deceased before the Doctor-PW8 is to be
entirely acted upon along with the entries made in the Accident Register
marked as Ex.P9. It has to be taken to be the dying declaration of the
deceased, which is a very relevant factor under Section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act and based on the same, the prosecution has clearly established
9/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
the involvement of the accused person in the commission of crime beyond
reasonable doubts. Therefore, it was submitted that the charge of murder
against the accused person, assuming this Court does not rely upon PW1
and PW2, who are eyewitnesses, can be established by the evidence of PW8
Doctor and the Accident Register Ex.P9.
12. In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the prosecution has developed the case on the basis
of the eyewitness account of PW1 and PW2 and the charges were framed
based on their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and if this
foundation laid by the prosecution falls, the entire case of the prosecution
must also fall and the prosecution cannot be allowed to come up with a new
case relying upon the dying declaration since it will cause grave prejudice to
the accused person and it is not a mere omission or an error which can be
cured and it will go to the root of the matter.
13. The learned counsel by relying upon Section 212 of the Cr.P.C.
submitted that a charge must necessarily contain the time and place of the
10/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
alleged crime and if the charge was not based on the so called dying
declaration of the deceased, the prosecution cannot be allowed to come out
with a new case since the foundation of their case based on eyewitness
account of PW1 and PW2 will fall to the ground and the benefit of doubt
has to be necessarily given to the accused person.
14. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on
either side and the materials available on record.
15. The warp and woof of the entire case is now to balance the
eyewitness account of PW1 and PW2 on the one hand and the evidence of
PW8 Doctor and the Accident Register (Ex.P9) on the other and see if the
entry made in the Accident Register and the evidence tendered by PW8
completely takes away the very foundation of the case of the prosecution
and consequently the benefit of doubt must be extended in favour of the
accused person.
11/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
16. Before dwelling into the evidence, this Court must keep in mind
certain fundamental principles with respect to the effect of entries made in
an accident Register and how far it has to be acted upon. The Apex Court in
Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhara Pradesh reported in 1985 (4) SCC
80 dealt with the effect of entry made in the Accident Register. In that case,
the eyewitnesses, while taking the deceased to the hospital, did not reveal
the name of the assailant and that was taken as a ground on the side of the
accused person. Considering this ground, the Apex Court held as follows:
“17.Another argument advanced before us was that
although PWs 1 and 2 were supposed to be eye-witnesses,
they never cared to disclose the name of the assailant to the
doctor when the body of the deceased was taken to the
hospital. This argument is only stated to be rejected. A doctor
is not at all concerned as to who committed the offence or
whether the person brought to him is a criminal or an
ordinary person. His primary effort is to save the life of the
person brought to him and inform the police in medico-legal
cases. It is well settled that doctors before whom dead bodies
are produced or injured persons are brought, both themselves
take the dying declaration or hold the postmortem
immediately and if they start examining the informants they12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024are likely to become witnesses of the occurrence which is not
permissible.”
17. Useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in P.Babu and others v. State of A.P. reported in 1994 SCC Crl. 424
and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“6. PW 1 is a young doctor and a highly independent
witness. There is no reason whatsoever for him to speak
falsehood. The recording of Ex. P- 1 by PW 1 is not in dispute.
PW 1 has clearly stated that the injured gave the said
statement and he duly recorded it and obtained his thumb
impression. PW 10, the Casualty Medical Officer who
examined the injured and admitted him, asserted that Ex. P- 1
was recorded by PW 1 as per his instructions. PW 10 also
deposed that he asked the Inspector to secure the presence of
the Magistrate but he was told that the Magistrate was not
available. Therefore the Circle Inspector requested him to
record the dying declaration. He, however, asked PW 1 to
record the same. PW 10’s evidence shows that he was present
when the dying declaration was being recorded by PW 1 and
that the patient was fully conscious when the dying
declaration was recorded. PW 10 further deposed that after13/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024the statement was recorded, he verified it and the same was
read over to the victim who affirmed the same to be correct
and therefore his thumb impression was taken. PW 10 was
cross-examined at length. In the first instance he was cross-
examined about the availability of the Magistrate and the time
taken to get the information that the Magistrate was not
available. Then he was cross-examined with reference to
actual recording. PW 10 asserted in the cross- examination
that he asked PW 1 to record and he himself had gone through
the entire dying declaration recorded by PW 1. PW 10 also
stated that they noted in the accident register that the dying
declaration was recorded. Ex. P-6 is the injury certificate. It
appears that it was noted in Ex. P- 6 against an entry that the
injured was said to have been stabbed by somebody. Placing
much reliance on this entry, PW 10 was asked in the cross-
examination as to how it was made. PW 10 stated that the
deceased stated so in the first instance. The learned counsel
relying on this admission sought to contend that the deceased
was not aware as to who stabbed him. We see no force in this
submission. It is a matter of common knowledge that such
entry in the injury certificate does not necessarily amount to a
statement. At that stage the doctor was required to fill up that
column in a normal manner and it was not the duty of the14/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024doctor to enquire from the injured patient about the actual
assailants and that the inquiry would be confined as to how
he received the injuries namely the weapons used etc. It is
next submitted that the condition of the injured was very
serious and therefore it is highly doubtful whether he would
have been in a position to make the statement. In support of
this submission, the learned counsel relied on the evidence of
PW 20 and also PW 9 another Doctor, who conducted the
postmortem. PW 20 deposed that he found that the condition
of the injured was serious and that the Magistrate should be
informed for recording the dying declaration. Relying on this
admission made by PW 20, the learned counsel contended
that the condition of the injured was serious and therefore it
would not have been possible to record the dying declaration.
The other submission is that since PW 20 made an entry that
the Magistrate should be informed, it becomes doubtful that
Ex. P-1 was already recorded and if, in fact, the same was
already recorded, PW 20 would not have made such an entry.
We do not find any substance in this submission. PW 20 does
not say that he inquired of PW 10 whether any dying
declaration was recorded already. Further, the accident
register itself reveals that PW IO had already made an entry
in the relevant column that the dying declaration was15/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024recorded. Therefore the entry made by PW 20 that he visited
the hospital at about 9 p.m. would not in any manner affect
the veracity of the evidence of PWs 1 and 10 who are
respectable doctors.”
18. The Apex Court in the above judgment held that entry in the
injury certificate does not necessarily amount to an admission. At that
stage, the Doctor was only required to fill up the columns in a normal
manner and it is not the duty of the Doctor to make further enquiries and
prepare the detailed report about the incident.
19. The next judgment that can be relied upon is the judgment in
Ravikumar @ Kutti Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (9) SCC
240 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“13. It is also urged by the counsel for the appellant
that when Pushpa was admitted in the hospital the doctor has
written in the accident register that she has lit fire on herself
which indicates that it was a case of suicide and not
homicide. In the statement of the doctor (PW 9), he has
explained the position that along with Pushpa her father came16/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024to the hospital and when he enquired about how the accident
happened he said that he did not know. In this state of affairs,
it can very well be presumed that the doctor assumed that the
burn injuries were caused due to some act on her part and he,
therefore. wrote in the register that she had lit fire on herself.
When he came to know about the correct state of affairs, he
erased that entry. In the factual scenario, it appears to us that
the doctor made enquiries from the father and as the cause of
injuries was not informed to him, he by himself put the entry
in the accident register that the deceased lit fire on herself
and when the correct picture emerged he erased the entry. The
entry made in the accident register has been explained by the
doctor in his statement. On the basis of this entry. the defence
version of suicide cannot be accepted on the face of the two
dying declarations of the deceased Pushpa recorded by the
Magistrate and the Head Constable on the basis of which the
FIR was registered. The evidence f of the Magistrate, PW 8
and the doctor, PW 9 is absolutely clear and unambiguous.”
20. In the above judgment, the Apex Court has held that it is even
possible for a Doctor to erase the entry made in the Accident Register and to
explain about the same in his evidence. One more judgment of this Court
17/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024can also be taken into consideration in Saranraj v. State rep. by its
Inspector of Police, K7 Police Station, Chennai reported in 2018(1) MLJ
Crl. 119, wherein this Court took into consideration all the earlier
judgments of the Apex Court and held that the Doctor is not at all concerned
as to who committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is a
criminal or to record any finer details about the case and what the Doctor is
concerned about is to treat the patient and while doing so, the Doctor has to
merely make the entry and fill up the columns provided in the Accident
Register.
21. It is quite clear from all the above judgments that entries that are
omitted to be made in the accident register or the entries that have been
made in the accident register cannot become a gospel truth to lay the entire
case of the prosecution based on such accident register. It is only a relevant
piece of evidence, which can be acted upon to understand the treatment that
was given by the Doctor to the injured/deceased taken to the hospital and
the nature of the injuries sustained and the further course of action taken by
the Doctor. The entries made in the accident register need not be elevated to
18/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024the status of a statement in order to develop the case from the accident
register. This principle of law will be kept in mind while dealing with the
facts of this case.
22. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. She has stated about the
misunderstanding between the deceased and the accused person and she was
going along with PW2 to the hospital along with the deceased. She has also
deposed as to how the accused person made a phone call to the mobile
number of PW2 at about 8.50 a.m. on the date of occurrence. She clearly
states that when she along with PW2 and the deceased were proceeding to
Parthibanur hospital and were crossing Unduthi, the accused person was
standing on the road side and he called the deceased. The deceased
informed PW1 and PW2 that she will speak with her husband and come
back. However, the accused is said to have caught hold of the hair of the
deceased and pulled her down and had slit her throat with MO1. On seeing
the same, PW1 and PW2 ran towards the place of occurrence and the
accused person fled from the scene. She also talks about arranging for the
ambulance to take the deceased to the hospital and the complaint that was
given in Ex.P1.
19/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
23. The evidence of PW2, who is the father of the deceased, is also to
the same effect. Apart from recording the statement of PW1 and PW2 under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., their statements were also recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
24. On a careful reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it gives a
clear description regarding the manner in which the entire incident took
place and there is nothing to discredit their evidence in the cross-
examination. Their evidence certainly inspires the confidence of this Court
and it also inspires the confidence of the trial Court.
25. PW3 is the owner of the land in which the incident took place and
he speaks about seeing the accused running away from the land with a bag
in his hand. The evidence of this witness will confine itself to what was
seen immediately after the incident and it will be relevant as res gestea
under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Since the accused person belonged to
Panaikudi of Virudhunagar District and he is said to have come to
20/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
Peerkankurichi at Paramakudi Taluk to commit the offence, the prosecution
has thought it fit to examine PW4, who speaks about the presence of the
accused around 8.30 a.m., and the phone call made by the accused from the
mobile phone belonging to PW4. In her evidence, she also speaks about
hearing about the incident late in the day. Her statement was also recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
26. The next important witness is PW8 – Doctor, who has deposed to
the effect that the deceased was brought for emergency treatment in 108
ambulance on 24.11.2017 at about 10.40 a.m. and the deceased informed
him that she was assaulted by her husband when she was working in her
house. He also prepared the accident register (Ex.P9). Since PW8 found
the condition of the deceased to be very serious, the deceased was referred
to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However the deceased was
brought back dead and he conducted the autopsy and issued the postmortem
certificate (Ex.P10).
21/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
27. The evidence of PW9 also assumes some significance. He is the
scientific officer, who received the materials that were sent to the lab for
examination and the witness had deposed that the material objects were sent
to the Chennai Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis and the biological
report and the serological report were marked through this witness as
Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. Under Ex.P12, it has been mentioned that the human
blood group ‘O’ was found on the sample bloodstained earth, saree and
blouse and it matched with the blood group of the deceased.
28. The injuries recorded in the postmortem certificate has already
been extracted supra and the same corroborates the eyewitness account
regarding the incident.
29. At this juncture, it will be more apposite to quote Paragraphs 7
and 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath
and others reported in 1999 5 SCC 96 and they are extracted hereunder:
“7. … The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be
invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of22/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious
judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire
evidence that the accused might not have committed the
offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of
the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be
administered at every segment of the evidence, but an
advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after
consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge
conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding
the guilt of the accused.
8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove
all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court
could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a
reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression ‘reasonable
doubt’ is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour
of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same
as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. The above judgment gives a clear indication that when testing the
ground of reasonable doubt raised by the accused, it is a reasonable doubt
which a conscientious judicial mind will entertain on a conspectus of the
23/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
entire evidence. It is an advantage to be afforded to the accused person at
the final analysis after consideration of the entire evidence. This is in view
of the fact that it is almost impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the
elements with a scientific precision. Obviously, a Judge is expected to
assess the entire evidence and see if the proof beyond reasonable doubt also
falls within the judicial conscience of the Judge. Considering the sloppy
nature in which investigations are conducted, if a Court is to expect for a
scientific precision on every evidence collected by the prosecution, every
other case will only end in acquittal and will become impossible for the
Court to convict the accused person.
31. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is sought to be discredited by
relying upon the evidence of PW8 – Doctor, who recorded the entries in the
accident register Ex.P9. The Doctor, while deposing and while making the
entries, has stated that the deceased was in a position to talk and she stated
that her husband (accused herein) was the one, who attacked her with knife.
While making this statement, she seems to have told that she was working
in the house and at that time, she was attacked. Considering the serious
24/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
condition of the deceased and considering the fact that a Doctor will only
focus on giving treatment to the person, who is in a critical condition, every
other entry made in the Accident Register cannot be taken to be a gospel
truth and it cannot be pitted against the unassailable eyewitness account to
disbelieve the same. In fact, the evidence of PW8 and the Accident Register
only helps the prosecution to substantiate the fact that it was the accused
person who attacked the deceased, which resulted to be fatal and where and
what time it took place will all be irrelevant, insofar the reliance placed on
the accident register is concerned. By no stretch, the entries made in an
accident register and which is spoken to by a Doctor can be used to
completely discredit an eyewitness account, which is otherwise
unassailable.
32. The trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, has perfectly
undertaken this exercise and rendered a finding that such entry made in the
accident register does not in any way take away the merits of the eyewitness
account and it rather corroborates the theory projected by the prosecution
and this finding is perfectly in order and does not require the interference of
25/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
this Court.
33. In the light of the above discussions, this Court finds that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and there is no
ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed and the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahalir Court (Mahalir
Neethimandram), Ramanathapuram in SC No.20 of 2021 are hereby
confirmed.
[N.A.V, J.] & [P.D.B, J.]
.03.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
RR
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
To
1.The Fast Track Mahalir Court (Mahalir Neethimandram),
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Parthibanur Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section officer (English Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
27/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.123 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
RR
Judgment made in
Crl. A. (MD)No.123 of 2024
.03.2026
28/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:48:11 pm )