Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.721 of 2023JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 03.01.2023 in S.C.No.168 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, appellants/accused have filed the instant criminal appeal. 2. The accused A1 to A3, was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:AccusedConvictionSentenceA1 to A3Section 302 read with 34 of IPCEach to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-A1 to A3Section 392 of IPCEach to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three monthsThese sentences were ordered to run concurrently3.The case of the prosecution is as follows :3.1.PW1 Deivasigamani is a brother of the deceased Rama. On 29.11.2015, he came to know that somebody murdered his sister, immediately, he went to the spot and saw his sister's body in the pool of blood with cut injuries in the ears, skull and forehand and the Thali kayiru Page 2 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023was missing and some jewels were missing. He enquired Vanaji/PW13, she informed that Rama went for grazing the cow in the morning, then she was missing and further informed that the village people had seen her mother's umbrella and her towel found in one place. The deceased was wearing 2 sovereign of jewels, he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 before PW31, who registered a case in Cr.No.819/2015 under Sections 392 and 302 of IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P20. He sent the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and submitted the file to the Inspector of Police. PW32/Inspector of Police took up the investigation and went to place to occurrence at 18.45 hours and prepared observation mahazaar in the presence of witnesses, PW30, PW27/VAO. Observation Mahazaar prepared in the Vadivel gounder sugar cane field under Ex.P21 and rough sketch under Ex.P22. Then he went to the place near deceased Rama house at 19.45 hours and prepared another observation mahazaar Ex.P23 and prepared another rough sketch Ex.P24. At the place of occurrence, he collected the soil with blood under mahazar under Ex.P25. At 19.45 hours in the presence of other witnesses, collected the blood stained marked as M.O.12 and soil without blood marked as M.O.13. Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the body of Page 3 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023the deceased Rama in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared inquest report under Ex.P26. He enquired the witnesses and sent the body of the deceased to the Mundiyambakkam Government College and Hospital for postmortem. PW29/Dr.Geethanajali conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report marked under Ex.P10 and final report marked as Ex.P11 and opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to effects of cut injuries sustained at the head and face. 3.2. PW10 is the husband of the deceased Rama went to Sabarimala on 27.11.2015, after coming to know about the occurrence, he came back on 30.11.2015, the police enquired him after after a lapse of 1 ½ months and shown the jewels of Rama. He identified the jewels and they are M.O.1 to M.O.8. PW14/Selvamuthukumar stated that on 29.11.2015, when he went to the field for watering his land, the deceased was grazing the cows in the field, when he returned to home, he had seen the accused were talking and going toward his field. Thereafter, at about 2 pm, he came to know about the occurrence.3.3.On 14.01.2016 at Madambattu bus stop, Investigating Officer Page 4 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023arrested these accused in Cr.No.41/2016 under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii), 307 of IPC read with 25(1)f of Arms Act and enquired the accused separately. Accused voluntarily had given confession in the presence of witnesses Anbazhagan, Madubalan and VAO. The admissible portion of confession statement of A1 is marked as Ex.P5. On the basis of confession statement/ M.O.9 spade, M.O.10/Plat winding rod. Pillaiyar Thali with namam symbol/M.O.1 and one gold vazaicheepu/M.O.4 and gold mahalakshmipottu/M.O.5, one gold Kal kasu/M.O.6and one Sutthu mattal/M.O.7 and one supermax blade/M.O.8. On 14.01.2015 at 1.45 pm, they went to Maduram Pawn Shop at Thiruvennainallur bazar, he seized one set flower designed Kammal tups marked as M.O.8. Pawn receipt dated 15.12.2015 No.9292 is M.O.11. 3.4.The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, laid final report against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet.4.On appearance of the accused, the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Page 5 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023was complied with and the case was committed to the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram as contemplated under Section 209 of CrPC in S.C.No.168 of 2016 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram, for trial. 5.The trial Court framed the charges for the offence against the accused 1 to 3 under Sections Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 of IPC. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.6.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 32 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.32 and marked Exs.P1 to P72 and produced M.Os.1 to 17.7.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 03.01.2023, found A1 to A3 guilty of the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 of IPC and thereby, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.Page 6 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 20238. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the instant appeal is filed by A1 to A3/appellants.9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:-(i) that this case is based on circumstantial evidences, the entire circumstances has not been proved and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is highly doubtful and the same has been created only for the purpose of the case.(ii) The appellants are death drummers falsely implicated in this case, during the death of the deceased, the appellants were all along present in the village and they have beaten the death drum to the deceased Rama and one Anbazhagan who had also died prior to the death of the deceased Rama, therefore, the conduct of the accused ought to have considered by the Trial Court and acquitted the appellants on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts (iii) the accused have been falsely implicated in the case with oblique motive that the alleged occurrence was on 29.11.2015, whereas, the appellants were arrested on 14.01.2016 when the police were intercepting Page 7 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023the accused in some case, while recording the confession statement in that case, they have been falsely implicated in this case. (iv) that the confession statement has not been recorded independently to each accused, whereas, PW28 deposed that the confession statement was recorded jointly and the same is not permissible in law.(v) the prosecution has relied upon the the evidence of PW26, pawn shop owner, who has deposed that upon showing the receipt, he had identified, whereas, PW32 has not seized M.O.11 receipt from the A3, there is a contradiction between the evidence of PW32 and PW26. Therefore, the confession leading to recovery of material objects projected by the prosecution are not corroborated by any independent witnesses. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted as follows:(i) the prosecution has provided the case beyond reasonable doubts. Third appellant/accused No.3 during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC admitted that he has pledged 2 grams of gold stud, therefore, recovery from the accused based on the confession statement has been establishedPage 8 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023(ii) the evidence of PW30/VAO clearly establishes that in his presence, the accused have voluntarily confession statement and in pursuant the confession statement, recovery has been made.(iii) it is the case of murder for grain through the evidence of PW14, the prosecution has established the last seen theory, since, PW14 categorically deposed that the deceased has been grazing the cows in her field, when he returned to home, he had seen the accused talking and going towards his field(iv)The evidence of PW29/Medical Officer, who conduced autopsy had opined that the deceased had died due to effects of cut injuries sustained at the head and face, therefore, it is his contention that the prosecution has established the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has considered all these facts and clearly found that the accused are guilty. Hence, he would submit that the judgment of the trial Court does not require any interference.11.We have perused the entire materials available on record.Page 9 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 202312. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:-(i) So-called last seen theory(ii) Arrest and recovery(iii) Accused were seen in the village at the time of occurrence13. Admittedly, the deceased had died by homicidal violence and the same has been established. As far as the circumstantial evidences are concerned, the entire circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be complete so as to not leave any hypothesis unproved other than the guilt and there must be complete chain and the circumstances so as to convict the persons.14. As far as the last seen theory is concerned, prosecution has relied mainly on PW14. PW14 in his evidence has deposed as if when the dead body of the deceased was found in the field; from other side all the accused were proceeding. It is relevant to note that admittedly, the accused are the resident of the same village, they are drum beaters in the death ceremonies. During the death ceremony, the accused have been engaged by the villagers Page 10 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023to beat up the drums, these facts have been spoken by the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW2, PW5 and PW10. Though, PW14 has stated as if at the relevant point of time, all the accused were together, but, it is not his evidence that the accused were in company of the deceased, therefore, merely seeing the accused in the same village, the said circumstance in view of this Court will not come in the category of last seen theory. Even assuming that seeing the accused in company of the deceased at the relevant point of time may give rise to one of the circumstances, the cross examination of PW14 clearly indicate that on the same day even before the complaint is being lodged, the police has reached the spot. It is to be noted that if really, PW14 has seen the accused with the deceased at the relevant point of time, the normal conduct would be to at-least inform the police. Whereas, the accused have been arrested only on 14.01.2016, that too, in a difference case. It is the case of the prosecution that during the regular interception of the vehicle, when the accused were intercepted, they tried to assault the police and absconded, later, they were arrested in the presence of PW9 and the Investigating Officer had recorded the confession of all the accused. The evidence of Investigating Officer and the so-called confession Page 11 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023recorded indicate that the confession from all the accused have been recorded on the same day, more particularly, same time, whereas, PW28/VAO has clearly indicate as if the confession has been recorded one by one in different time and pursuant to the admission portion of confession, Exs.P7, P5 and P9 material objects were seized, particularly, jewels seized from PW26, pawn shop owner. 15. PW26 though he has stated that A3 has pledged 1.900 grams of gold stud, it is relevant to note that his evidence when carefully seen, he has stated that while pledging, he has given a receipt to the accused and on seeing the receipt, the police enquired him. Whereas, seizure mahazar does not indicate that receipt has been seized from the accused. Further, with regard to the so-called jewels, PW1 and others have not disclosed anything in the complaint or under statement under Section 161 of CrPC with regard to the identity of the properties/jewels. Except stating that the deceased were wearing two sovereign gold jewels, identity of the jewels has not been stated anywhere. Even in the chief examination of the witnesses, they have not stated anything, even the close relatives are not in a position to show Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023when they identified the jewels, where the jewels were identified. Further, seizure mahazar relied upon by the prosecution also clearly shows that they also seized murder weapon/M.O.9, spade and other aspects. These aspects also creates serious doubt. 16. PW2, PW5 and PW10 have spoken that the accused were used to be engaged for beating death drum and it is also to be noted that they were used to beat death drum on the date after the burial of the deceased body and other dead body, on the previous date. PW21 in this regard has clearly admitted in his evidence that the accused have dug the pit for burial of the deceased and after the burial, they had handed over the spade and other materials, therefore, keeping the said material objects for more than 1 ½ months and concealing the same in different area is also highly doubtful. 17. Further, though the evidence of the Investigating Officer also indicate as if the material objects collected by them were seized by blood stain, absolutely, there is no evidence to show blood stain were found in any of the materials so-called. In the statements of other witnesses, except PW1 Page 13 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023and PW2, those statements were examined then and there, however, statements have reached the Court only on 23.03.2016 with an inordinate delay. All these facts indicate serious doubt. 18. Further, the accused have been arrested on a different case and the statement have been sent to the Court. The manner in which the accused were arrested also creates serious doubt, viz., when they tried to allegedly attack the police officials in a different case they were arrested, roping them into serious crime cannot be ruled out, particularly, in the nature of the investigation and the evidences. 19. The Trial Court relying upon the confession and extracting the portion of the confession recorded by the police and giving substantive version for conviction is in view of this Court, such approach is nothing but clear ignorance of the Trial Court with regard to the provisions of law. Confession cannot be used for any other purposes except for discovery of the facts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Only for limited purposes, confession recorded by the police leading to discovery of any Page 14 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023facts alone could be used in a criminal trial, whereas, relying upon every portion and particularly inculpatory statement recorded by the police under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, relying the same clearly indicate ignorance of the very fundamental principle by the learned Judge.20. Though the trial court has relied upon one of the admission of A3 as to the pledging of jewels measuring 1.900 grams, it is relevant to note that prosecution has not even examined whether these jewels belong to the deceased. PW26 in his evidence stated that the police has brought the receipt by him, whereas, in the seizure mahazar and confession, absolutely, there is no whisper with regard to the receipt. Then how come the receipt has come into the police also creates serious doubt. This indicate that when even a person normally pledges their own gold, that would have taken advantage by the police for framing him, that cannot be ruled out considering the nature of the other evidences. The Investigating Officer has also clearly deposed that none of the witnesses have disclosed about the deceased wearing the jewels on the date prior to the death of the deceased. Further, the very M.O.11/Pawn Receipt also creates doubt in the prosecution case, in fact, the weight of the jewel has been corrected, later.Page 15 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 202321. Though Ex.P8, the so-called mahazar relied upon by the prosecution show as if tubs and stud are receipts were seized from PW26, whereas, PW26 evidence clearly indicate that the receipt, in fact, were produced by the police which is also explained properly. Investigating Officer, in his cross examination clearly admitted that even prior to the arrest of the accused, almost all the witnesses have been examined and all the witnesses belong to the same villages have been examined and none of the witnesses stated before him that the deceased worn any jewels on the date of death and none of them have given any description of the jewels, these facts also clearly indicate that in order to solve the murder case taking advantage of the fact that the accused have allegedly made an attempt to assault the police officials, possibility of framing them also cannot be ruled out. Hence, we are of the view that prosecution has not established all the circumstances to maintain the conviction.22. In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the Page 16 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023accused 1 to 3/appellants. 23. In such view of the matter, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 03.01.2023 in S.C.No.168 of 2016, is set aside, and the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused 1 to 3, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 30.10.2025dhkInternet : YesIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NoTo1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram District 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram DistrictPage 17 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.721 of 2023N. SATHISH KUMAR , J. andM. JOTHIRAMAN, J.dhk 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.No.721 of 202330.10.2025Page 18 of 18