Madras High Court
Samchitravel vs State Rep. By on 18 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.840 of 2022
Samchitravel : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Muneerpallam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.46 of 2020) : Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the Principal Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli, in Sessions Case No.289 of 2021, dated 01/11/2022 and to set aside
the same and consequently to acquit the appellant/sole accused.
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj
for M/s.APN Law Associates
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon’ble R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruneveli, in SC No.289
of 2021, dated 01.11.2022 and consequently to acquit the appellant.
2. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the accused was
temporarily residing in the house of the deceased, Sudalaimuthu. The sister of
the accused was residing in the house of her relative, Anna Vadivu, and was
working as a teacher. The deceased and the sister of the accused were acquainted
with each other. Subsequently, she fell in love with another person. Owing to
this, the deceased developed enmity towards the sister of the accused. Therefore,
with the intention of killing the deceased, the accused allegedly took him on
19.12.2020 at about 12.30 midnight to a place at Muneerpallam, Etteri,
Tirunelveli, belonging to one Sham Patric.
3. At that time, the deceased was sitting on the parapet of the well with
his legs hanging inside. The accused allegedly came there and kicked the
deceased on his chest, as a result of which the deceased fell into the well and
died due to drowning. Thereafter, the accused falsely stated that he was not
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
present at the place of occurrence. Hence, he was charged under Sections 302
and 201 IPC.
4. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1, the paternal uncle of the
deceased. In the complaint, he stated that on 18.02.2020, the deceased and the
accused came to Etteri, Tirunelveli. One Raja (P.W.3) took them to a field for
work. About 15 persons were already staying there for employment, and the said
Raja had arranged the work for them. All of them had dinner and went to sleep.
The deceased, the accused, and others were sleeping near a well situated in the
place of occurrence, about 10 feet away from the well.
5. At about 1.00 a.m., the accused woke up and went to charge his cell
phone. He then heard a noise and noticed that the deceased was not present at the
place. He also found the chappal worn by the deceased inside the well.
Immediately, he woke up the others and informed them about the same. All of
them came and looked into the well, but they could not find anything. They also
informed the same to P.W.3.
6. Thereafter, the father of the deceased came to the place of
occurrence and at about 6.30 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was found in
the well and taken out. The father of the deceased was unable to bear the death
of his son and returned to his house. Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged the complaint.
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
7. The complaint was received by P.W.16 – Tmt. Mariyadoss, who
registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The original
FIR was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate concerned and copies were sent to
the higher officials for further action.
8. P.W.18–Tmt.Sundar, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation.
He visited the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar
(Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P9). He conducted an inquest over the dead body
and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P10).
9. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.19 – Tmt.
Seethalakshmi, Inspector of Police. She continued the investigation. In the
meantime, the accused surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer,
who produced him before the police. She arrested the accused and recorded his
confession statement (Ex.P11). Based on the confession, the accused produced a
knife (M.O.1), which was recovered under a Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P7).
10. Subsequently, the section of law was altered from Section 174
Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC through an Alteration Report (Ex.P13). After
completing the investigation, she filed the final report on 22.07.2020 against the
accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (Ex.P14).
4/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
11. P.W.13–Dr.Selvamurugan conducted the postmortem examination
and issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P4). During the postmortem, he noted
the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
(i) Abrasions of size 2 x 1 cm in middle of forehead;
(ii) Old incised scare of priya present in front of left forearm;
(iii) Multiple horizontal recent incised wound of age 5 to 7 days noted
I front of left forearm; and
(iv) On dissection of Thorax & Abdomen: contusion of size 25 x 8 cm
noted in middle of front of chest.
Viscera report (Ex.P5) was issued by the forensic expert.
12. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Tirunelveli, took up the case in PRC No.62 of 2020 and issued summons to the
accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records were
furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
13. Since the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the
learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under Section 209(A) Cr.P.C for further action.
5/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
14. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, received the
case records and numbered it as SC No.289 of 2021 and framed the charges
against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The charges were read over
and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be
tried. Therefore, the case was posted for trial.
15. On the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined as
PW1 to PW19 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. Material Object
MO1 was produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and
no document was marked.
16. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused found guilty and
convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced
him to undergo imprisonment as detailed below:-
Conviction Sentence Fine amount
302 IPC To undergo imprisonment To pay a fine of
of life Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo 5 years
imprisonment.
201 IPC To undergo 3 years RI To pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to
undergo on year
imprisonment.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
6/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
17. Against which, this present appeal is filed by the appellant
following among other grounds:-
The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that motive and the
circumstantial evidence was not corroborated with the version of the
prosecution. The medical evidence also not supported with the version of the
prosecution and it was held that ‘no definite opinion’ would be given regarding
the exact cause of the death. However, death due to drowning could not be ruled
out. Viscera positive for ethyl alcohol. The cause of death was not established in
the postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.P4). As per the Viscera report, the
deceased stomach contents 679.0 mg alcohol and small intestine contents
299.0 mg in his liver contents, 472.0 mg of alcohol. It is proved that the
deceased along with others intoxicated alcohol at night hours on 18.02.2020.
The Trial Court ought to have presumed the fact the deceased himself fell down
in the well due to intoxication of alcohol. The confession statement of the
accused was marked as Ex.P6 and the knife was recovered from the accused, but
no corroboration was proved by the prosecution with regard to the confession
statement. The sister of the accused was not investigated to prove that the
deceased gave love torture to her. The Trial Court failed to consider the
principles of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt. But the Trial Court erroneously convicted the
appellant/accused by presuming the entire occurrence and believed that the
7/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
accused committed the murder without properly applying the criminal law. The
Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the extra judicial confession is not a
substantial evidence to corroborate the evidence to other witnesses. But in the
instant case, the extra judicial confession was considered as substantial
evidence; hence, the conviction based on the extra judicial confession is not
sustainable in law and no evidence connecting the accused with the guilt of the
offence. Without considering the above, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted
the accused and prays for allowing the appeal by acquitting the appellant.
18. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent State contended that on the date of occurrence, the accused and
the deceased were staying together. The existence of previous enmity was
spoken to by P.W.9 and P.W.11. It was further contended that the accused had
taken the deceased under the guise of securing employment. Though the
deceased was under the influence of alcohol, there was no reason for him to
accidentally fall into the well. The accused subsequently appeared before the
Village Administrative Officer and made an extra-judicial confession admitting
his guilt and referring to the previous enmity. According to the prosecution,
since the accused had taken the deceased with the intention of causing his death,
he later informed the persons staying nearby that the deceased was missing in
order to portray himself as innocent. The learned Trial Judge, after considering
the entire evidence on record, rightly convicted the accused. Hence, it was
8/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
contended that the conviction does not warrant any interference by this Court
and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
19. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
20. On a careful perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the
complaint does not mention any previous enmity between the deceased and the
accused. Admittedly, the deceased and the accused had gone to the place of
occurrence for work. P.W.3, one Raja, is a contractor. He deposed that his
marriage was fixed with one Esakkiammal. The said Esakkiammal informed him
that her brother, namely the deceased, was unemployed and requested him to
provide employment for him. Accordingly, he asked the deceased to come for
work.
21. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 19.02.2020, the deceased along
with the accused came to the KTC bus stop. P.W.3 picked up both of them on his
two-wheeler and thereafter they consumed alcohol. Later, he lay down near the
well while the deceased was sleeping in a cart. Subsequently, at about 12.30
a.m., the accused woke him up and stated that he had gone to charge his cell
phone. When he returned, the deceased Sudalaimuthu was not found at the place.
However, his slippers were found in the well and he heard some unusual noise.
9/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
P.W.3 went inside the well but did not find anything. Thereafter, both the
accused and P.W.1 searched for the deceased but could not find him. The same
was informed to his father, who came to the spot at about 03.30 p.m. They again
searched the well using a hook and a shirt was caught in the hook, after which
the dead body was retrieved from the well. His father initially took the dead
body to their village, but on the instruction of the police, he brought the body
back and it was taken to Etteri.
22. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is evident that the deceased, the
accused and other persons were staying together. In fact, P.W.3 himself was
sleeping near the well. It is further revealed that the accused alone informed
P.W.3 and P.W.4, who was also working with P.W.3, about the missing of the
deceased. P.W.4 also stated that all the employees woke up and later found the
dead body of the deceased in the well. P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9
have all stated that they were staying together and that the non-availability of the
deceased was informed by the accused. It is also significant that the accused did
not abscond from the place of occurrence. None of the witnesses had witnessed
the occurrence or spoken about any suspicious circumstances surrounding the
place of occurrence. The father of the deceased, examined as P.W.8, has also not
stated anything about any previous enmity between the accused and the
deceased. Though he stated that he had heard about some enmity, he did not
witness the same.
10/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
23. P.W.11 has spoken about a different incident. According to him,
about 2½ years prior to the occurrence, the accused, in an intoxicated condition
during a temple bhajan, created a problem. Both P.W.11 and the deceased
questioned him. At that time, the accused allegedly stated that he knew about the
love affair between the deceased and his sister and that he would do away with
him. However, this witness was examined only on 15.06.2022 and he had not
stated anything about this incident to the Investigating Officer earlier. Except for
this statement, none of the witnesses have spoken about any previous enmity
between the accused and the deceased. The medical evidence also reveals that
the deceased died due to drowning and that ethyl alcohol was found in his body.
24. P.W.15, the Village Administrative Officer of Munneerpallam, has
spoken about the extra-judicial confession allegedly given by the accused. It is
well settled that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and by
itself cannot form the sole basis for conviction. However, if the prosecution
establishes other incriminating circumstances linking the accused with the crime,
such confession may be treated as a supporting piece of evidence.
25. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.
Though it was alleged that the deceased had a love affair with the sister of the
accused, the said sister was not examined. Further, the evidence shows that
nearly fifteen persons, including the accused and other witnesses, were present at
11/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
the place of occurrence. The deceased had consumed excessive alcohol and was
in an intoxicated condition. It is also noteworthy that the accused did not
abscond after the occurrence and it was he who informed others about the
missing of the deceased. Had he committed the offence, it is quite probable that
he would have fled from the scene. None of the witnesses have spoken about any
suspicious circumstances against the accused. Even the father of the deceased
initially did not suspect the accused and took the body to the village under the
impression that his son had accidentally fallen into the well. Only later, on the
instruction of the police, was the body brought back.
26. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Except for the extra-judicial confession,
which is a weak piece of evidence, there is no material linking the accused with
the alleged crime
27. At this juncture we relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2025) 3
SCC 565, the Hon’ble Court held in paras 24 to 26
“24. Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was
again examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N.
[(2012) 6 SCC 403] that was also a case where conviction was based
on extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a case based on
12/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove
the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards
the guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial
evidence where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial
confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of
care and caution. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true
and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court.
However, the confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The
value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends
upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.
25. This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession
is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court 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 the extra-judicial confession suffers from material
discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be
cogent, such evidence should not be considered. This Court held as
follows : (Sahadevan case)
“14. It is a 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
13/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances,
the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence
out of consideration.”
26. Upon an indepth analysis of judicial precedents, this
Court in Sahadevan’s case summed up the principles which would
make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence
capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused : (SCC pp.
412-13, para 16)
“16. … (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence
by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater
care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv)An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility
and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of
conviction, it should not suffer from any material
discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any
other fact and in accordance with law.”
28. In view of the same, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction
against the accused. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case.
14/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
29. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in
SC No.289 of 2021, dated 01.11.2022 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted
from all the charges. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand
cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded to the
appellant.
(G.K.I., J) (R.P., J)
18/02/2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
er
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
To,
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Muneerpallam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )
CRL.A.(MD)No.840 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
er
Crl.A(MD)No.840 of 2022
18/02/2026
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 11:49:12 am )