Madras High Court
N.Subramani @ Subramanian (Died) vs Chakravarthi, on 20 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09-04-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 20-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
1. N.Subramani @ Subramanian (died)
… 1st appellant/Defacto complainant
2. Maryrani
3. Selvaraj
4. Sheela
5. Anandaraj
6. Porkalai … Appellants 2 to 6 / Legal
Heirs of 1st appellant
Vs.
1.Chakravarthi
2.Saravanan
3.Purushothaman
4.Kathirvel
5.Shanmugam
6.Anandaraj
7.Radhakrishnan
8.Janarthanan
9.Dayalan
10.Devaraj
11.Muthukrishnan … Respondents 1-11/Accused 1-11
12.The State Rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Periyathatchur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
[Cr.No. of 233 of 2010] … 12th Respondent/Complainant
__________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
(Sole appellant died. Appellants 2 to 6, legal heirs of deceased sole
appellant are substituted in place of deceased sole appellant as per the
order of this court dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.MP.No.3272 of 2026 in
Crl.A.No.577 of 2018)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2012 made in S.C.No.37 of
2012 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam and convict the accused/respondents 1 to 11.
For Appellant(s): Mr. M.R. Jothimanian
(for A2 to A6)
A1 – Died
For Respondent(s): R1 Died
Ms. V. Vijayalakshmi,
Legal Aid Counsel
(for R2 to R11)
Mr. S. Raja Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
(for R12)
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunder Mohan J.)
An injured eyewitness to the occurrence had challenged the
judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.37 of 2012 by
the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in the
above appeal.
__________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.07.2010 at about
3.00 p.m, on the instigation of A1, A2 to A11, armed with knives, iron
rods, wooden logs and sickles, with an intention to cause the death of
PW1 and the deceased, attacked them indiscriminately; that both PW1
and the deceased were admitted to the hospital; that they were
unconscious for two days and the deceased succumbed to the injuries two
months after the occurrence; and thus, all the accused were liable for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(ii) and
307 of the IPC.
(ii) On the complaint [Ex. P1] given by PW1, an FIR [Ex. P10] in
Cr.No.233 of 2010 was registered by PW15, Sub-Inspector of Police on
10.07.2010, for the major offence under Section 307 IPC and for the
other allied offences. PW16 was deputed by the Superintendent of Police
to conduct the investigation, as the jurisdictional Inspector of Police was
on other duty. He conducted the inquest, handed over the dead body for
postmortem, examined a few witnesses and thereafter handed over the
investigation to PW17. PW17 took up the investigation, arrested a few
accused, examined the remaining witnesses and filed the final report on
__________
Page 3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
14.01.2011 against all the accused for the major offence under Section
302 of the IPC and for other allied offences, before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.
(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and was made over to the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, for trial, which was taken on file as
S.C.No.37 of 2012. The Trial Court had framed the charges under
Sections 148, 341, 294-b, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC against
A2 to A11 and for the offence under Sections 307 and 302 r/w 149 of the
IPC as against A1. The accused when questioned, pleaded ‘not guilty’.
The accused are respondents 1 to 11 in this appeal.
(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses
as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. When
the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The
accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their
side.
__________
Page 4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial
Court found the accused not guilty of any of the offences charged against
them and accordingly acquitted all the accused. It is against this
judgment that the appeal is filed by the defacto complainant. Since the
appellant/defacto complainant died pending appeal, his legal heirs were
impleaded as appellants 2 to 6 and were permitted to prosecute the
appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
judgment of the trial Court is perverse inasmuch as it ignored the
evidence of PW2; that minor inconsistencies or contradictions would not
render the prosecution case false; that even assuming that there is a flaw
in the investigation, the same would not render the witnesses unreliable;
and that therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned
counsel took us through the evidence of the witnesses to buttress his
submissions.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
__________
Page 5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
submitted that the eyewitnesses ought not to have been disbelieved by the
trial Court.
5.(i) Though notice had been served on the respondents 1 to 11,
none had entered appearance and hence this Court had appointed
Ms.V.Vijayalakshmi, as the legal aid counsel.
(ii) The learned legal aid counsel submitted that the judgment of
the trial Court does not suffer from perversity; that the view taken by the
trial Court is plausible and even assuming that a different view is
possible, the judgment of acquittal, which had reiterated the presumption
of innocence, cannot be interfered with; that PW1 and PW2 cannot be
believed; that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint; that
the doctor [PW13] had observed in the Wound Certificate [Ex.P5] that
PW1 was conscious and had sustained only simple injuries, which is
contrary to the evidence of PW1 that he was unconscious for two days;
that the other witnesses who are stated to be eyewitnesses have admitted
in their cross-examination that they had not witnessed the occurrence; and
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
__________
Page 6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
6.(i) As stated above, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses.
PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW12 were examined as eyewitnesses by the
prosecution. PW4 is the wife of the deceased and a hearsay witness.
PW6 is a witness to the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch
[Ex. P16]. PW7 is one of the sons of the deceased-Perumal and the
brother of PW5. He had deposed regarding the enmity between the
deceased and PW1 on the one hand and the accused on the other hand.
PW8 went to the place of occurrence on hearing about the attack and had
taken PW1 and the deceased to the hospital.
(ii) PW9 is the doctor who had treated the deceased at JIPMER
Hospital. According to PW9, the deceased was brought to the hospital at
11.35 p.m. on 08.09.2010. PW10 is the doctor who treated the deceased
at PIMS Hospital and had stated that the deceased was admitted to his
hospital on 09.09.2010 at about 3.00 a.m. PW11 is the Constable who had
handed over the body to the doctor for postmortem. PW13 is the doctor
who was working in the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu, and had
treated PW1 and the deceased on 08.07.2010 and had issued the wound
certificates [Ex.P5 and Ex.P6]. PW14 is the postmortem doctor and had
__________
Page 7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P9]. PW15 is the Sub-Inspector of
Police who had registered the FIR. PW16 and PW17 are the investigating
officers.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 and the deceased
sustained injuries due to an attack made by the accused in an occurrence
that took place on 08.07.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. According to the
prosecution, PW1 and the deceased along with the eyewitnesses were
proceeding in motorcycles after giving a complaint to the police
regarding an incident that took place that morning and were attacked by
the accused.
8. The deceased died two months after the occurrence. The doctor
PW14 who had conducted the postmortem had deposed that the deceased
died of an intra-cerebral haemorrhage due to hypertension. The above
opinion coupled with the fact that the deceased died two months after the
occurrence would make the prosecution case that the deceased died due
to the attack made on him two months prior to his death doubtful. In the
absence of conclusive proof that the deceased suffered a homicidal death,
we have to examine whether the deceased was attacked by the accused.
__________
Page 8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
9. As stated above, PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW12 were examined
as eyewitnesses. PW12 turned hostile and is of no avail to the
prosecution. PW2, PW3 and PW5 are said to have followed the deceased
and PW1 in separate motorcycles before the occurrence. PW1 is the
injured eyewitness and PW2 is his son. PW3 had admitted in the cross-
examination that he had not witnessed the occurrence. PW5 is the son of
the deceased. The question, therefore, is whether PW1, PW2, PW3 and
PW5 can be believed.
10. According to PW5, he came along with PW3-Dhandapani in
the same vehicle. It is PW3’s evidence that he had gone to the occurrence
place after all the accused had left. Therefore, the presence of PW5 at the
time of occurrence is doubtful. That apart, if PW5 had really seen the
accused, there was no reason why he had not lodged the complaint
immediately. In fact, PW13, the doctor who had first treated the PW1
and deceased, had stated that both PW1 and the deceased were brought
by the said Dhandapani [PW3]. There is no reference to the presence of
PW5.
__________
Page 9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
11. Be that as it may, PW1 would state in his deposition that after
he was attacked, he became unconscious till 10.07.2010 and thereafter he
was examined by the police. His evidence is contrary to the evidence of
PW13, the doctor who had recorded in the wound certificates [Ex.P5 and
Ex.P6, respectively] that PW1 and the deceased were conscious. The
doctor had further opined that PW1 and the deceased had sustained only
simple injuries.
12. PW1 would further state that the police had received the
complaint from the deceased on 08.07.2010. The police had suppressed
the said complaint of the deceased. PW1 would also add in the cross-
examination that after they were attacked, both were lying at the place of
occurrence for 10 minutes and only thereafter PW2, his son, came to the
occurrence place. His evidence therefore renders the prosecution case
that PW2 witnessed the occurrence doubtful.
13. The complaint [Ex.P1] relating to the occurrence was lodged on
10.07.2010 at about 02.00 p.m. There is absolutely no explanation for the
delay. It is needless to say that if a person injured in an attack is admitted
__________
Page 10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
to the hospital, the hospital authorities are bound to inform the police.
The prosecution case that no information was received from the hospital
and nobody lodged any complaint on 08.07.2010 is highly doubtful.
14. PW2, had deposed that even on 08.07.2010, the police had
recorded the statements of both the deceased Perumal and PW1
Subramani. The prosecution therefore, had suppressed the first
information and the complaint [Ex.P1] lodged on 10.07.2010 could not
have been the first information. The witnesses had two days time to
deliberate and lodge a complaint. It is seen from the complaint [Ex.P1]
that the line spacing in the last seven lines is less than the line spacing in
the preceding lines. When this was specifically put to the investigating
officer, he denied that the line spacing is different, which is however,
visible on a perusal. This also probabilises the defence case that the
signature was obtained on a blank paper and the contents were filled later.
15. The express FIR was sent to the Court on 11.07.2010 at about
12.10p.m., which is with a further delay of 24 hours after the FIR was
registered. It is well settled that if the FIR is brought into existence long
__________
Page 11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
after the occurrence or found to be fabricated, the entire fabric of the
prosecution case would collapse and it is very difficult to check the
authenticity of the witnesses. In Marudanal Augusti vs State of Kerala
reported in (1980) 4 SCC 425, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated
the above principle. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“The High Court seems to have
overlooked the fact that the entire fabric of the
prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is
held to be fabricated or brought into existence
long after the occurrence and any number of
witness could be added without there being
anything to check the authenticity of their
evidence.”
16. The investigating officer had also admitted that statements of
all witnesses were sent to the Magistrate one year after the occurrence.
Thus, there is a doubt as to whether the witnesses were examined on the
dates claimed by the investigating officer.
17. It is further seen that both PW1 and the deceased-Perumal, had
stated to the doctor that they were attacked by six known persons.
However, in the complaint [Ex.P1], PW1 had mentioned the names of 11
__________
Page 12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
persons and stated that those persons along with six unknown persons
attacked him. There is an improvement in the version and in view of the
delay in lodging the complaint, the possibility of deliberation and false
implication cannot be ruled out. That apart 11 accused have been named
in the final report filed by the police. Even assuming that the six persons
mentioned before the doctor are included in this list, it is difficult to
ascertain as to which of the six accused out of the 11 accused, are the
actual offenders. It is impossible to separate the chaff from the grain.
18. Thus, it could be seen that the presence of PW2 and PW5 is
highly doubtful for the reasons stated above. PW1 cannot be believed, as
his version that he was unconscious for two days is a faint attempt to
explain the delay, which is falsified by the other evidence on record.
There is an improvement in his version in the complaint from his earliest
version given to the doctor. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been
explained. The delay in despatching the express FIR to the Court and the
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses has also not been
explained. The prosecution case that the deceased suffered a homicidal
death also appears to be highly doubtful, in view of the opinion of the
__________
Page 13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
doctor who conducted the postmortem. The earliest version has been
suppressed, as could be seen from the evidence of PW1 and the complaint
[Ex.P1] could not have been the first information.
19. The law relating to the appeal against the acquittal is well
settled. The Appellate Court shall not interfere with the Judgment of
acquittal, unless the finding is perverse. If two views are possible and the
Trial Court had taken a plausible view, the Appellate Court shall not
interfere. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450, reiterated this position of law.
The relevant portion reads as follows:-
“70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate
courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number
of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court’s acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb
the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling
reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the
appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons”
to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling
reasons” exist when:
(i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous
view of law;
__________
Page 14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
(iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in
“grave miscarriage of justice”;
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with
the evidence was patently illegal;
(v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread
the material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached—one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction—the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused.”
20. Therefore, the trial Court judgment acquitting the respondents 1
to 11 cannot be faulted and in any case, it is not perverse, warranting an
interference in the appeal against acquittal. We may further observe that
there cannot be any other reasonable view in the facts of the case and
therefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment deserves to be
confirmed.
__________
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of
respondents 1 to 11, vide judgment dated 27.09.2012 in S.C.No.37 of
2025, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam, is confirmed.
(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
20-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Periyathatchur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN J.
ars
Pre-delivery judgment in
CRL A No. 577 of 2018
20-04-2026
__________
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis