Madras High Court
Muthuramalingam vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 March, 2026
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 09.03.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.A.(MD) No.578 of 2023
Muthuramalingam ... Appellant
-vs-
The Inspector of Police
Manur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
Crime No.333 of 2019 ...Respondent
Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records in judgment and sentence dated 11.08.2022 passed in SC No.270 of
2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and set
aside the same and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Maran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
JUDGMENT
P.DHANABAL, J.,
Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in SC No.270 of 2021 dated 11.08.2022
the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2.. The trial Court has convicted the appellant as follows:
Penal Sentence of Fine Amount
Provisions Imprisonment
341 of IPC One month simple Rs.500/- i/d to undergo
imprisonment one week simple
imprisonment
294(b) of IPC Three months simple Rs1000/- i/d to undergo
imprisonment one month simple
imprisonment
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- i/d to undergo
four year rigorous
imprisonment
506 (ii) of IPC Four years rigorous Rs.1000/- i/d to undergo
imprisonment one year rigorous
imprisonment
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant suspected the
deceased that he had illegal intimacy with his wife thereby the appellant
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
scolded the wife of the deceased Therefore the wife of the deceased
informed to panchayatars and thereby there is enmity between the
deceased and the appellant. While so, on 08.09.2019, at about 7.45 pm.,
when the deceased Murugan along with PW.1 was proceeding in a two
wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 72 M7331 to attend mandala pooja in
Kombumadasamy kovil situated at Madavakurichi and when he came in
front of the house one Santhana thevar the appellant along with his wife
Durgadevi came in a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 59 AM 8314 from
south to north waylaid P.W.1 and the appellant abused by saying
“Njtbah ktNd> Gz;lktNd cd; nghz;lhl;b nrhd;dhd;D nrhy;yp
vd;ida te;J eP rj;jk; NghLtPah Njtbah ktNd” and attacked the
deceased with aruval on his neck and head and when the deceased
prevented the assault he sustained injuries on his finger and thereafter the
deceased died due to the injuries caused by the appellant.
3.1. Thereafter P.W.1 and his son and brother of the deceased who
followed the deceased vehicle had taken the deceased to the hospital
through auto and already P.W.8 had informed 108 ambulance and
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
thereafter when they proceeded in the auto on the way to hospital the 108
ambulance came in the opposite direction thereafter the deceased was
transferred from auto to 108 ambulance. Thereafter the deceased was taken
to highground hospital at Tirunelveli where he reported dead.
3.2 Thereafter P.W.1/wife of the deceased had lodged the
complaint/Ex.P.1 before the respondent Police and based on the same,
First Information Report/Ex.P.17 in Crime No. 333 of 2019 was registered
by P.W.21/Sub Inspector of Police . Thereafter PW.22 Inspector of Police
had taken investigation and he went to the place of occurrence and
prepared observation mahazhar/ Ex.P2 and rough sketch/Ex.P.18 and
examined the witnesses and thereafter P.W.22 conducted inquest and
prepared inquest report /Ex.P.19 and then he sent the body of the
deceased for post mortem. P.W..17 had conducted autopsy in the body of
the deceased and also issued post mortem certificate/Ex.P.12. The
investigation officer arrested the appellant on 09.9.2019 and the appellant
voluntarily gave a confession statement and the same was recorded in the
presence of the witnesses. Thereafter based on the disclosure statement of
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
the appellant, P.W.22 had recovered material objects M.O.1 and M.O.2 and
thereafter he arrested the appellant and remanded to judicial custody. He
also obtained forensic lab report and thereafter he collected all materials
and filed final report.
3.3. On appearance of the appellant and compliance of Section 207 of
Cr.P.C., finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions the learned Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of
Sessions and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli had taken
the case on file in S.C.No.270 of 2021 for trial.
3.4. After perusing the case records and hearing both sides the trial
Court has framed charges for the offences under Section 341,294(b), 302
and 506(ii) of IPC as against the appellant. The above charges were read
over and explained to the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
3.5. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W.22 and marked exhibits
Ex.P.1 to P.26 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.10 were produced. After
completion of prosecution witnesses the appellant was examined under
Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating
circumstances appearing him and he denied the same as false. On the side
of the appellant no one was examined and no documents were marked.
3.6. After analyzing the evidence and upon hearing both sides, the
trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for the offences as stated
supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction the present appeal
has been filed by the appellant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
that the appellant has been charged for the offences under Sections 341,
294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. .P.W.1 to P.W. 4 are the eye witnesses to the
occurrence and except P.W.1 and P.W.4 all other witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 cannot be the eye witnesses and
the evidence of PW.2 is not acceptable. According to the evidence of P.W.1
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
he saw the occurrence and she also accompanied with the deceased and
after seeing the occurrence there was no raising of any alarm and the
occurrence had taken place in the road were house were situated and none
of the witnesses have spoken about the involvement of the appellant. Even
according to the case of prosecution after leaving the two wheeler the
appellant escaped from the place of occurrence , while so how could P.W.4
seen the appellant with aruval and thereby the case of the prosecution is
highly doubtful. According to the evidence of P.W.1 she along with P.W.2
to P.W.4 taken the deceased to the hospital through auto and her clothes
were also blood stained but those blood stained clothes were not recovered
by the police and there is no evidence as to how the appellant left from the
place the occurrence. More over PW.1 has not spoken about leaving behind
the byke by the appellant . The trial Court convicted the appellant based on
evidence of PW.1.
4.1 As per prosecution case P.W.2 and 3 have also accompanied with
the deceased but they have not supported the case of prosecution and
turned hostile. P.W.4 is not the eye witness to the occurrence and he had
seen the appellant with aruval and the wife of the appellant stated that his
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
father sustained injuries and to take him to hospital at that the time, the
appellant threatened PW.4 but P.W.4 has not sated as to whether the
appellant threatened him and where he saw the deceased. According to the
evidence of PW.4 he also followed the deceased. While so, whether the
appellant came in the opposite side from the place of occurrence or from
which place he came has to be explained by the prosecution. The
prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the material objects M.o.1
and M.O.2 and the recovery witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution and the injuries found in the post mortem report also not
tallied with the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of injuries sustained by the
deceased. There are so many discrepancies in the investigation. The
investigation officer failed to examine the ambulance driver and the doctor
who admitted the deceased initially in the hospital and thereby the
prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled as against the appellant
and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all
reasonable doubts and the trial Court ought to have acquitted the
appellant by giving benefit of doubt, thereby the judgment of conviction
and sentences are liable to be set aside.
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
appellant assaulted the deceased with billhook due to enmity between the
appellant and the deceased, the appellant on the date of occurrence
waylaid the deceased assaulted him with billhook. The occurrence was
witnesses by P.W.1 and PW.1 has categorically deposed about the
involvement of the appellant and her evidence is natural and cogent. P.W.2
and 3 are the close relatives of the deceased. However they have not
supported the case of prosecution.P.W4 who is the son of the deceased has
also deposed about seeing the appellant with billhook. The doctor has also
deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of
death. P.W.13 who is village administrative Officer has spoken about the
confession statement given by the appellant and the recovery of material
objects. Further as per the forensic lab report the blood stains found in the
material objects are human blood which belongs to ‘A’ group and the same
is tallied with the blood group of the deceased. The Investigation Officer
had deposed about the fair investigation thereby the prosecution has
proved the charges levelled as against the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubts. Non recovery of blood stained clothes from PW.1 is no way affect
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
the case of prosecution. The trial Court after considering the evidence
correctly convicted the appellant and there is no infirmity or illegality in
the judgment passed by the trial Court and therefore the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available
on record.
7. In this case the appellant has been charged for the offences under
Sections 341,294(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. Inorder to prove the case the
prosecution had examined P.W. 1 to P.W.22 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to
P.26 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.10. In this case P.W.1 is the eye
witness to the occurrence and she also accompanied with the deceased at
that time of occurrence. She deposed about the manner of occurrence and
she categorically deposed about the involvement of the appellant and the
assault made by the appellant with billhook and also identified the M.O.
1/bill hook, Immediately after the occurrence she along with his son and
PW.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital through an auto and the said
auto driver was examined as P.W.14 and he also deposed about taking the
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
deceased to the hospital and P.W.8 who is the son of the deceased also
accompanied with the deceased in the auto along with P.W.1. Therefore
the evidence of P.W.1 clearly established that the appellant assaulted the
deceased with M.O.1/billhook, thereby he sustained injuries. Further the
evidence of P.Ws.1, 8 and 14 established that the deceased was taken to
hospital through auto. Thereafter the deceased was transferred to 108
Ambulance and he was brought to the Palayamkottai highground hospital
through ambulance. But the investigation officer failed to examine the
ambulance driver and the doctor who saw the deceased in the hospital and
the accident register also has not been marked. Those discrepancies are due
to the lack of investigation on the part of the investigation and the same no
way affect the case of prosecution. Particularly when the evidence of P.W.1
is cogent and reliable, those discrepancies no way affect the case of
prosecution.
8. Further P.W17 who conducted autopsy on the body of the
deceased has noted down the following External and internal injuries;-
An oblique gaping heavy cut injury of size 10 X 3cm X cranial
cavity deep on left frontal – parietal region of head. It cuts underlying
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
soft tissues, vessels, nerves and bones & brain. An oblique gaping cut
injury of size 10 X 3cm X bone deep on dorsum of right index – middle
– ring – little finger. It cuts underlying soft tissues, vessels, nerves and
bones. Other Findings , Peritoneal Cavity and Pleural Cavities
appear normal, heart appears normal and coronary vessels are patent.
Hyoid bone found Intact. Stomach contains about 300 gm of partly
digested cooked rice particles with about 100 ml of altered blood with
nil specific smell and mucosa pale. Intestine contains about 100 gm of
partly digested cooked rice particles with about 50 ml of altered blood
with nil specific smell and mucosa pale. Lungs, Liver, Spleen and
Kidneys appear normal, c/s pale, Bladder found empty. Viscera are
preserved for chemical analysis.
and he opined that the deceased died due to heavy cut injury to the region
of left side of head. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated
by the medical evidence in respect of Injuries sustained by the deceased
and the cause of death.
9. From the above evidence the prosecution has clearly established
the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court
also correctly analyzed the evidence and came to conclusion that the
appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 341,294(b), 302
and 506(ii) of IPC.
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
10. So far as offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned as per the
evidence of P.W.1 when the deceased along with PW.1 proceeding in the
main road the appellant waylaid and assaulted the deceased with aruval,
thereby the prosecution has clearly established the offence of wrongful
restraint under Section 341 of IPC.
11. So far as offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is concerned as per
the evidence of PW.1, it reveals that the appellant used obscene words by
saying that “Njtbah ktNd> Gz;lktNd cd; nghz;lhl;b nrhd;dhd;D
nrhy;yp vd;ida te;J eP rj;jk; NghLtPah Njtbah ktNd” and he
used the above said obscene words in the public place, and annoyed the
complainant P.W.1 and thereby the prosecution has established the guilt of
the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.
12. So far as offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned the
appellant threatened the witnesses with dire consequences and the same
has been clearly spoken by PW.1 and P.W.8 about the criminal
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
intimidation thereby the prosecution has established the charge under
Section 506(ii) of IPC.
13. So far as offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned the
prosecution witnesses have established that the appellant assaulted the
deceased with billhook on his head, neck and other vital parts of the body
and thereby he sustained injuries. The doctor also in the post mortem
report stated about the injuries found on the body of the deceased and
cause of death,thereby the prosecution has established the charge under
Section 302 of IPC.
14. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the prosecution failed to examine the auto driver and the
doctor who admitted the deceased in the hospital and non recovery of
blood stains clothes of PW.1 are concerned, it is true that the investigation
officer failed to examine the auto driver and the ambulance driver.
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
15. In this context the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent police would submit that non examination
of blood stained clothes of P.W.1, non examination of ambulance driver,
the doctor who initially admitted the deceased in the hospital is not a
ground to disbelieve the ocular testimony of the eye witness and PW.1 has
categorically deposed about the manner of accident and thereby the said
discrepancy will no way affect the case of prosecution.
16. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and another .vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2023)13 SCC 365, thereby the
prosecution has established the charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC,
wherein it is held as follows:
In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two
principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is
possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such
situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to
by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or
unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
15/19https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or establishedby other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the
veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a
Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of
the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has
to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or
put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the
prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect
of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the
prosecution evidence.
17 . In the case on hand also, the eyewitness/PW.1 has categorically
deposed about the manner of accident and also identified the material
objects and the recovery of material objects also proved through witnesses.
Keeping the above said principal of law this Court has to give importance
to the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent and trust
worthy and the evidence of PW.1 cannot be discarded in any way.
Therefore mere non recovery of blood stains and obtaining of accident
register copy and examination of ambulance driver will no way affect the
case of prosecution.
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of the appellant and has
correctly found the appellant guilty, convicted and awarded adequate
sentence, thereby this Court need not interfere with the well reasoned
judgment and conviction of the trial Court and this Court finds no merit in
the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming
the judgment of the trial Court.
[N.A.V.,J] [P.D.B.,J]
18 .03.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
2. The Inspector of Police
Manur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Record keeper
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.578 of 2023
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.A.(MD) No.578 of 2023
18.03.2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:04 pm )
[ad_1]
Source link
