Madras High Court
Rajkumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 March, 2026
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.A.(MD) No.632 of 2024
Rajkumar ... Appellant
-vs-
The Inspector of Police
Lalgudi Police Station
Tiruchirapalli District
Crime No.1221 of 2020 ...Respondent
Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records and set aside the impugned judgment of the conviction
and sentence passed by the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tiruchirapalli in SC No.178 of 2021 dated 23.06.2022 and allow
the appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Thirumal
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
JUDGMENT
P.DHANABAL, J.,
Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in
SC No.178 of 2021 dated 23.06.2022, the present criminal appeal has
been filed by the appellant.
2. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- indefault to
undergo three years simple imprisonment.
3. The appellant is the son of the deceased/Kalarani. The case
of the prosecution is that the appellant used to go outside the village
and come to his native place few time in the year and whenever he
come to his native place he used to stay along with her
mother/deceased Kalarani and he was a drunkard . The deceased
was a diabetic patient and she was cared by her another son Ravi
2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
Jeyakumar/P.W.1. On 06.05.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., when the said
Ravi Jeyakumar/complainant went to his mother’s house along with
his wife /P.W.2Glory Penita at that time the appellant scolded his
mother/deceased in filthy language and demanded money for his
expenses and when his mother refused to give money he assaulted
on her head by wooden log saying that if you not giving money you
should not live, die, thereby the appellant caused injuries on both
side of the head, right side of the face, thereafter she was taken to
Lalgudi hospital where the doctor referred the deceased to
Government Hospital, Trichy where she died, thereby another son of
the deceased P.W.1 had lodged complaint/Ex.P.1.
3.1. Based on the said complaint, P.W.20 had registered First
Information Report/Ex.P.13 in Crime No.1221 of 2020 on the file of
the respondent police. Thereafter P.W.21 had taken the case for
further investigation and went to place occurrence, prepared
observation mahazhar/Ex.P.2, rough sketch/Ex.P.14. Thereafter he
seized blood stained soil and ordinary soil through mahazhar/Ex.P.3
and thereafter he went to the Government Hospital, Trichy
3/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
conducted inquest and prepared inquest report/Ex.P.15 and
thereafter he examined some witnesses and recorded their statement
and on 06.05.2020 at about 5.30pm., he arrested the appellant near
Mandurai bus stop and at that time the appellant gave a voluntary
confession statement in the presence of witnesses.
3.2.Based on the disclosure statement of the appellant he seized
the material object M.O.1 through seizure mahazhar and thereafter
the appellant along with the material objects were remanded to
judicial custody and thereafter he seized the dress materials of the
deceased and thereafter on 12.06.2020 he examined the doctor who
has give first aid to the deceased and thereafter on 24.07.2020 he
examined the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the
deceased, thereafter he sent the blood stained material objects to the
forensic lab and obtained opinion and after completion of
investigation he filed final report as against the appellant.
3.3. On appearance of the accused, and compliance of Section
207 of Cr.P.C., finding that the case was exclusively triable by the
4/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate had committed the case to
the Court of Sessions and it was made over to the learned learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in SC No.178 of
2021 for trial.
3.4. After perusing the case records and hearing both sides the
trial Court has framed charges as against the appellant for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC. The above charge was read over and
explained to the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and
claimed to be tried.
3.5. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W.21 and marked
exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.18 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 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 against him, he denied the
same as false. On the side of the appellant no one was examined and
no documents were marked.
5/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
3.6. After analyzing the evidence and upon hearing both sides,
the trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for the offence as
stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction the
present appeal has been filed by the first accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that respondent police has registered a false case against the
appellant and the deceased is none other than the mother of the
appellant. P.W.1 and 6 are the sons of the deceased and P.W.2,7 and 8
are the daughters-in -law of the deceased. P.W. 3to 5 are neighbours
and PW. 12 is the mahazhar witness,P.W.13 is the recovery mahazhar
witness and P.W.14 is the doctor where the deceased was brought for
treatment and P.W.15 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the
body of the deceased, PW.20 is the Sub Inspector of Police who
registered First Information Report and P.W. 21 is the Investigation
officer who investigated the case and filed final report. The above
said witnesses have not made out prima facie case as against the
appellant
6/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
4.1. PW.1 and .P.W.2 are the said eye witnesses and that their
evidences are highly doubtful and their evidence are not reliable and
they simply stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased and all
other witnesses namely PW. 3 to 5 and 8 are hearsay witnesses and
the trial Court based on the basis of evidences adduced by P.W.1 and
P.W.2 that too without any corroboration convicted the appellant .
The prosecution failed to prove the arrest of the appellant and the
recovery of the material objects and there is a nexus between the
appellant and the material objects, however the trial court failed to
consider the contradictory statement given by the PW.1 who is the
son of the deceased and his wife PW. 2 and there are vital
contradictions and the same affects the very root of the case of
prosecution.
4.2. The prosecution has projected the theory through P.W1
that the appellant demanded money from the deceased and their
evidence is inconsistent and P.W.1 himself admitted in his cross
examination that the deceased had no independent income and
thereby the theory of prosecution that the appellant demanded
7/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
money from the deceased is doubtful. As per the evidence of P.W.1
after the incident the village President /P.W.11 informed the police
and immediately the respondent police rushed to the spot and
started investigation and the same was also confirmed by the
evidence of P.w.3 who is the neighbour but PW.1 gave complaint and
investigation started prior to the complaint. Therefore the case of the
prosecution is highly doubtful . P.W.1 cannot be the eye witness and
he admitted in his cross examination that after hearing noise he came
to the place of occurrence and thereby he could not have seen the
occurrence. Therefore the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt
and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against
the accused 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.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the appellant is none other than the son of the deceased and the
appellant demanded money from his mother and on the date of
occurrence when the appellant demanded money from the deceased
8/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
she refused to give money thereby he assaulted his mother with
wooden stick and thereby she sustained injuries and immediately she
was taken to lalgudi Government hospital and thereafter she was
referred to Trichy Government Hospital where she died. P.W.1 gave
complaint and based on the complaint the Sub Inspector of Police
registered First Information Report and thereafter the Investigation
Officer conducted investigation and as per the investigation prima
facie materials are available and thereby he filed final report as
against the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witness to the
occurrence and they categorically deposed about the manner of
occurrence. P.W.3 to P.W.8 though they are hearsay witnesses
however they saw the deceased with injuries. PW.9 has deposed
about the inquest PW. 10 has deposed about the sending the
deceased to the hospital through auto. P.W.11 is the village president
who after hearing the occurrence came to the occurrence spot and
had seen the deceased with injuries and he arranged auto and also
helped in sending the deceased to the hospital. P.W.10 has deposed
about the preparation of observation mahazhar. P.W.12 is the doctor
who initially treated the injured . PW.15 has deposed about the
9/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
treatment given in the Government Hospital, Trichy P.W 20 has
deposed about the registration of the First Information Report and
the evidences of prosecution witnesses are cogent and reliable and
thereby 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. The appellant has been charged for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC. Now the point for determination in this appeal is
whether the prosecution has proved the charges levelled as against
the appellant .
8. In this case the deceased is none other than the mother of the
appellant . According to the case of prosecution the appellant used to
10/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
demand money from his mother/deceased Kalarani. While so, on the
date of occurrence when the deceased was in her house, the appellant
demanded money from her mother and when she refused to give
money he assaulted her with stick and thereby she sustained injuries
and she was taken to lalgudi hospital and thereafter referred to
Government Hospital, Trichy, where she died.
9. In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined
P.W. 1 to P.W.21 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.18 and material
objects M.O.1 to M.O.4. In this case P.W.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses
to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and P.W.2 is the
daughter-in-law of the deceased and wife of P.W.1 The P.W.1 who is
eye witness to the occurrence has clearly deposed that in the year
2020 in the month of February the appellant stayed with her mother
and he very often demanded money from her mother. While so, on
06.05.2020 when he along with wife went to the house of the
deceased to give food to her, at the time at about 9.30 am., the
appellant scolded her mother and assaulted with stick on the right
11/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
head saying that will kill you (cd;id nfhd;W tpLNtd;) and
thereafter he ran away with stick. Immediately the neighbors came
there and he along with his wife seen the deceased and immediately
with the help of panchayat president /P.W.11 they had taken his
mother to the lalgudi hospital where they referred her to
Government Hospital, Trichy. In the Government Hospital Trichy
the doctor reported that his mother died, and thereafter he lodged
complaint and the said complaint has been marked as Ex.P.1 which
reveals that on the date of occurrence the appellant assaulted the
deceased with stick thereby she sustained injuries and therefore the
evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by Ex.P.1 which is the first
statement.
10. P.W.2 also in her evidence stated that on the date of
occurrence on 06.05.2020 when she along with the wife of the
deceased to give food at that time at about 9.30 a.m., the appellant
scolded his mother by demanding money and for that the mother of
the appellant refused to give money and immediately the appellant
12/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
took a stick and assaulted his mother on her right ear and
immediately blood was ousted. After hearing the noise, P.W.3 came
there and thereafter the deceased was taken to hospital therefore the
evidence of P.W.1 and 2 revealed that the appellant assaulted the
deceased with stick. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 has not been
shaken through cross examination and their evidences were not
discredited.
11. The other witness P.W.3 to P.W.8 are hearsay witnesses
and P.W.9 has deposed about the inquest conducted by the
investigation Officer. P.W. 10 had deposed about seeing the deceased
with injuries and they also arranged auto and the deceased was
taken to hospital through auto. P.W.12 is the mahazhar witness she
also deposed about the preparation of observation mahazhar and
rough sketch. P.W.13 had deposed about the recovery of material
objects and P.W.14 who had given first aid to the deceased stated
that on 06.05.2020 when he was on duty at Lalgudi hospital at about
10.10 a.m., PW.1 along with the deceased came there for treatment at
13/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
that time he saw the injuries on the face and head of the deceased.
The deceased was unconscious and she was referred to Trichy
Government Hospital. He also gave certificate Ex.P.6.
12. On perusal of ExP.6 it reveals that the deceased was
unconscious and she sustained injuries on her nose and head Further
P.W.15 who admitted the deceased in the hospital at Trichy has
deposed that on 06.05.2020 at about 12.00 pm. When he was on duty
the deceased was brought by her son and she was unconscious and
she could not respond the instructions. Pulse rate not pulpable and
he was declared dead thereby the body was sent to post mortem.
Ex.P.7 also reveals the same. P.W. 18 also doctor who conducted post
mortem on the body of the deceased has deposed that he conducted
autopsy on the body of the deceased and he found the following
injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Reddish brown abraded contusion on right side of face
and adjacent neck outer part 14x13x4cm; On examination right
side of lower jaw bone fractured.
2. Tear of right ear, 2x1cm; lower part, full thickness.
14/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
3.Lacerated wound over the left fronto-temporo-parietal
region, vertical 3.5x2cm; Bone deep; On dissection underlying
scalp contused, 9x6x2cm; contusion of right temporal scalp; Skull;
linear fracture from left temporal to right temporal runs along the
midbase 20cm; merges with adjacent cranial sutures; Membranes:
Diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage, red colour present: Brain:
Intact; C/s: Normal.
4. Reddish brown abrasion over right arm outer part
3x2cm.
External genital organs: Intact; Heart: Intact; C/s: Empty; Lungs:
Intact, C/s: Pale; Larynx and Trachea: Diffuse contusion on right
side of neck; Hyoid bone and Thyroid Cartilage: Intact; Stomach:
Intact; C/s: contains 180ml of greed fluid, No peculiar smell;
mucosa: normal; All other internal organs: Intact, C/s Pale;
Bladder: Intact; Uterus: Intact; C/s: Empty; Intestines: Normal;
Pelvis and Spinal column: Intact.
No other ante-mortem injuries or abnormalities anywhere on the
body.
Blood in gauze sent for serology. Viscera preserved and sent to
chemical analysis.
He also issued post mortem certificate. Ex.P.9 and also opined
that the deceased would have appeared to have died due to head
injury, significant blunt injury to the next noted.
15/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
13. PW 20 has deposed about the registration of the First
Information Report based on the complaint given by P.W.1 and P.W.
21 has deposed about the fair investigation conducted and he also
arrested the appellant and recovered the material objects through
mahazhar witnesses and also deposed about the recovery of
weapons. The weapon was also shown to the doctor and the doctor
also suggested that there are possibility to cause injury on the body
of the deceased with the said weapon. It is a case of eye witness and
evidence of eye witness are natural , cogent and reliable and the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be discarded in any way,
thereby the prosecution has clearly established the case that the
deceased died due to the assault made by the appellant.
14. The trial Court also after elaborate discussion and analysing
the evidence adduced on both side convicted the appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC. Though the prosecution has proved
that the appellant assaulted the deceased with stick and she died the
16/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
said act of the appellant will come under Exception I of 300 of IPC,because there is no pre meditation and the appellant has not used
any deadly weapons and he attacked with stick which was available
near to the place of occurrence. Further considering the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the evidence of witnesses shows that
the appellant had given a blow to the deceased due to wordy quarrel
between the appellant and the deceased thereby the act of the
appellant will come under Exception I of Section 300 of IPC.
15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the
judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC passed by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in
SC No.178 of 2021 dated 23.06.2022 is modified and the appellant is
found guilty for the offence under section 304 (I) of IPC and he is
convicted under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced to undergo
seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The
period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be set off
17/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. as against the substantive sentence. The
fine amount already paid for the offence under section 302 of IPC can
be adjusted to the fine payable for the offence under section 304(i) of
IPC. Bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.
The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.
[N.A.V.,J] [P.D.B.,J]
17.03.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli
2. The Inspector of Police
Lalgudi Police Station
Tiruchirapalli 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: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.632 of 2024
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.A.(MD) No.632 of 2024
17.03.2026
19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 08:28:18 pm )