Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District and acquit him from the said charges.For Appellant : Mr.A.Arasu GanesanFor Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa ThasneemCrl.A.No.715 of 2018:Vivekanandan.. AppellantVs.State Rep. by,Inspector of Police,Chidambaram Taluk Police Station,Chidambaram Taluk... RespondentCrime No.86 of 2013.Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to acquit the appellant herein by setting aside the judgment dated 20.09.2018 passed in S.C.No.70 of 2014 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.For Appellant : Ms.Sharada VivekFor Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem3/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Crl.A.No.769 of 2018:1.Sagajananthan2.Madhan Mohan3.Raj Kumar.. AppellantsVs.The State, Rep byThe Inspector of Police,Chidambaram Taluk,Chidambaram, Cuddalore... Respondent(Crime No.86 of 2013)Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in S.C.No.70 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District at Chidambaram and to examine the same and to set aside the judgment of conviction pronounced in S.C.No.70 of 2014 on 20.09.2018.For 1st Appellant : Ms.Sharada VivekFor appellants 2 & 3:Mr.S.Ashok KumarSenior Counselfor Mr.G.PrabhakaranFor Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem4/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Crl.A.No.848 of 2018:1.Hemalatha2.Mohan.. AppellantsVs.State, represented byThe Inspector of Police,Chidambaram Taluk Police Station,Cuddalore District... Respondent(Crime No.86 of 2013)Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.70 of 2014 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and the same is illegal and secure the ends of justice.For Appellants:Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa ThasneemCrl.A.No.1192 of 2024:R.Azhaganantham.. AppellantVs.State Rep. by,Inspector of Police,5/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Chidambaram Taluk Police Station,Chidambaram... RespondentCr. No.86 of 2013.Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 415(11) of BNSS, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.70 of 2014 dated 20.09.2018 against the appellant and to allow the above Criminal Appeal.For Appellant : Mr.C.SamivelFor Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa ThasneemC O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)These batch of appeals challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.70 of 2014, dated 20.09.2018. By the said judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:6/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Sl.No.Appeal No.Rank of accusedConviction and Sentence1.614 of 2018A3Convicted under Sections 148, 294(b) & 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A4Convicted under Sections 148, 294(b) & 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A5Convicted under Sections 148, 294(b) & 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A9Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, seven years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.2.640 of 2018A14Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months of imprisonment, fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year of simple imprisonment.3.715 of 2018A7Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months 7/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Sl.No.Appeal No.Rank of accusedConviction and Sentenceof rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, seven years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.4.769 of 2018A8Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, seven years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A10Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, seven years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A12Convicted under Sections 148, 294(b) & 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.5.848 of 2018A1Convicted under Sections 148, 294(b) & 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and life 8/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Sl.No.Appeal No.Rank of accusedConviction and Sentenceimprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.A13Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months of imprisonment, fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year of simple imprisonment.6.1192 of 2024A11Convicted under Sections 147, 294(b), 436, 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 and in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment, seven years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2013, at about 08.00 a.m. in the morning, the accused persons had come over to the house of one Sampath Kumar. On noticing the accused persons approaching the house, the deceased Sampath Kumar ran into his thatched house and locked himself. Ramasamy (A2) (since deceased) exclaimed that Sampath Kumar would not come out of his house and called upon his associates to burn the house. In compliance with this direction, A11 took a kerosene can from A4 and poured the same over 9/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024the roof of Sampath Kumar's thatched house and the adjoining cow shed. Thereafter, the accused set fire to the same. Due to the fire, extreme heat was generated. Sampath Kumar, unable to bear the heat, rushed out of the house. At that time, Ramasamy (A2), using a wooden log hit Sampath Kumar on his back. Hemalatha (A1) hit him on his head. Arul Kumar @ Arun Kumar (A3), using a iron hammer, hit Sampath Kumar on his head while simultaneously exclaiming that Sampath Kumar should die. On account of these blows, Sampath Kumar fell down bleeding. Immediately, Mohan (A13) and Manikandan (A14) shouted that Sampath Kumar must not escape. On hearing this, Santhosh Kumar (A4) stabbed him on his head and jaw using a machete. Sasikumar (A5) hit Sampath Kumar on his right leg using a log, and Rajkumar (A12), using a button knife, repeatedly stabbed Sampath Kumar on the left side of his head. Sampath Kumar died on account of this murderous assault. 3.The sister-in-law of the deceased Sampath Kumar viz., Sugandhiravalli (PW1), and Sarathkumar (PW2), the son of the deceased went over to the police station and lodged a complaint. P.W.19, Ramadoss, the Sub Inspector of Police registered an FIR in Crime No.86 10/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024of 2013. P.W.20, Pugalenthi, Inspector of Police, took up the matter for investigation. He conducted an inquest over the body, caused photographs to be taken with the assistance of P.W.15 Sivanesan, and sent it for post-mortem. P.W.16, Dr.Lakshmi, conducted the post-mortem. Thereafter, a final report was filed by P.W.21 – Muruganantham. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, took up the report as PRC.No.33/2013, and finding that it was a case triable by the Sessions Judge, committed the case to the Sessions Court.4.The case was tried by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The following charges were framed:“1/fyfk; bra;jy; ? 1. 3 Kjy; 5. 7 Kjy; 14 vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/147 gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/2/ga';fu Ma[j';fSld; rl;ltpnuhjkhf fyfk; tpistpf;f ntz;Lbkd;w nehf;fj;Jld; Fk;gy; TLjy; ? 1. 3 Kjy; 5. 7 Kjy; 14 vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/148 gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/11/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 20243/bghJ ,lj;jpy; mrp';fkhf ngRjy; 1. 3 Kjy; 5. 7 Kjy; 14 vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/294?gp gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/4/tPL Kjypatw;iw mHpf;Fk; cl;fUj;Jld; jP my;yJ bto bghUshy; mHpk;g[ bra;jy; 7 Kjy; 11 vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/gpupt[ 436 gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/5/bfhiy bra;jy; ? 1. 3 Kjy; 5 kw;Wk; 12tJ vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/302 gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/6/bfhiy bra;tjw;F cWJizahf ,Uj;jy; 7 Kjy; 11. 13. 14 vjpupfs; kPJ ,/j/r/gpupt[ 302 c?,/149 gpuptpd; fPH; mika[k; Fw;wk;/”5.The matter went for trial. On the side of the prosecution, 21 witnesses were examined, 24 exhibits were marked, and 9 material objects were placed before the Court. Pending the trial, 2nd accused and 6th accused passed away and therefore, the charges abated as against them. The learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion as set forth above. Hence, the batch of appeals at the instance of the accused.12/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 20246.We heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Sathish Babu and for Mr.G.Prabakaran, Mr.A.Arasu Ganesan, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Mrs.Sharada Vivek, and Mr.C.Samivel for the appellants. The appeals were opposed by Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.Arifa Tasneem for the prosecution.7.For the sake of convenience, we will divide the judgement into two parts. The first part dealing with A1 to A10 and the subsequent part dealing with A11 to A14.Motive:8.The motive alleged by the prosecution is threefold. The deceased Sampath Kumar is said to have belonged to a group headed by one Babu. The assailants are said to belong to a group headed by A1, Hemalatha, and A2, Ramasamy. Both these groups had been regularly contesting in local body elections. Hemalatha was successfully elected in the elections conducted in the years 2001, 2006 and 2011. This resulted in bitter 13/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024enmity between both the groups. The incident had taken place nearly 2 years after the last of the elections was over. The incident was not in close proximity with the declaration of the election results. Therefore, first of the motives does not convince us.9.This is because the statement confirming the absence of enmity between A1 and the deceased can be found in the evidence of the wife of the deceased, Pazhaniyammal (PW3), who categorically stated as follows:“nju;jypy; ncwkyjh btw;wp bgw;Wtpl;lhu; vd;why; rupjhd;/ mjpypUe;J rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ tiu ncwkyjhtpw;Fk; vd; fztUf;Fk; nghyp!; nfnrh my;yJ kw;w gpur;ridfnsh ,y;iy/”10.The second motive alleged is that, on the late evening of 25.02.2013, about 7:30 p.m., there was an altercation between members of the two groups. On account of this altercation, fury overflowed, resulting in the incident that took place the next morning. Apart from the statement made by PW7, that there was an incident on 25.02.2013, no 14/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024other evidence has been let in for this purpose. This too, therefore, does not convince us.11.It is the third motive alleged which seems to be more plausible. The deceased had been appointed as a Water Pump Operator in the panchayat. While he was performing his duty, he became embroiled in a criminal complaint. On account of that fact, he had to undergo a prolonged period of incarceration. Taking advantage of his absence, A1 Hemalatha had dismissed the deceased Sampath Kumar from service. This lead to bad blood between Sampath Kumar and Hemalatha. Though for the purpose of a Criminal Act, that rests on ocular testimonies, motive is not always essential for proving a criminal offence, we are able to discern that there was a pre-existing enmity and fostering wound between A1 and deceased. Therefore, on that aspect, we are convinced that there was some motive.Unexplained delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate12.The incident is said to have taken place at about 8:00 a.m. on 26.02.2013. PW1, accompanied by PW 2, are said to have gone over to the police station and lodged a complaint at about 9:30 a.m. PW1 15/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Sugandhiravalli, is the sister in law of the deceased. PW2 is the son of the deceased. The written complaint filed by them has been marked as Ex.P1. Both of them are said to have taken public transport and gone over to the Chidambaram taluk police station at 9:30 a.m. on 26.02.2013, where they lodged the complaint. Being a case of murder, the FIR falls under the category of an express FIR. The distance between the police station and the Magistrate Court was hardly 200 metres. Yet, the complaint reached the Magistrate's Court only at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon. The reason for the delay is unexplained. Lack of examination of independent witnesses:13.PW1 in her examination categorically states that there were about 50 houses in and around the scene of crime. In her examination, she states as follows:“rk;gtk; ele;j ,lj;ij Rw;wp vd; tPL:. kw;Wk; rk;gj;Fkhu; cl;gl 50 tPLfSf;F nky; m';F tPLfs; cs;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/”14.This statement was echoed by the mother of the deceased Sampath Kumar. She goes on to state that at the time of incident, about 16/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024hundred persons were witnessing the same. The relevant portion is as follows:“vd; kfd; mog;gl;L tpGe;j ,lj;jpy; Rkhu; 100 ngu; ,Ue;jhu;fs;/”15.When the case of the prosecution is that there had been a pre existing enmity between the family of the deceased and that of A1 Hemalatha, in order to prove the case, they should have examined at least a few independent witnesses. In this case, the prosecution had, in fact marched PW5 to PW11 for the purpose of proving their case. All of them had turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them during their cross examination. When the incident is said to have taken place in broad daylight in the presence of approximately 100 persons, the prosecution ought to have examined persons other than the members of the family of the deceased. We hasten to add that we should not be understood as if to suggest that in all cases independent witnesses are necessary. However, when the case of the prosecution itself is that there had been a dispute between the members of the panchayat and the members of the 17/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024deceased's family on account of the dismissal of the deceased from service by A1, in order to clear the cloud of possibility of roping in persons against whom the family already has an axe to grind, they ought to have examined independent witnesses.Contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 & P.W.416.Even assuming that the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4, who are said to be eye witnesses to the incident, is taken at their face value, there is a contradiction between PW1 and PW 3 regarding the place of occurrence itself. According to PW1, Sampath Kumar was beaten up and done to death on the road. She deposed as follows:“rk;gj;Fkhu; ve;j ,lj;jpy; mogl;L tpGe;jhu; vd;why; nuhl;oy;/”17.In contradiction to this statement, PW3 States: “vd; fztu; TiutPl;oypUe;J btspna te;j nghnj vjpupfs; vd; fztiu btl;odhu;fs;/ 18/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024vd; fztu; mnj ,lj;jpy; tpGe;Jtpl;lhu;/”18.While the statement of PW1 is that Sampath Kumar was done to death on the road, the evidence of his wife is that he was done to death in front of the thatched house, which was set on fire. 19.Even if we were to keep aside this aspect, there exists one more issue which raises a doubt in the case of the prosecution. This being the difference in the medical evidence, as against the ocular evidence. The evidence of PW1, PW 3, and PW4 is that A2 Ramasamy, upon finding that the deceased Sampath Kumar had run into the hut, exhorted the other accused to set fire to the hut. Unable to bear the heat, Sampath Kumar is said to have run out of the hut and when he did so, A2 Ramasamy had beaten Sampath Kumar with a wooden log on his back, while A1 Hemalatha is said to have hit the deceased with a wooden log on the head. A3 Arul Kumar @ Arun Kumar is said to have used a Sammatti (hammer) and knocked Sampath Kumar on his head. After he fell down on the ground, A4 Santoshkumar is said to have used a sharp instrument and stabbed Sampath Kumar on his head and jaw. Thereafter, A12 19/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Rajkumar is said to have used a button knife to repeatedly stab Sampath Kumar on his head. 20.This shows that the weapons used for attacking Sampath Kumar were, one wooden log by A1, one wooden log by A2, a long hammer by A3, a knife by A4, and a button knife by A12. Taking the case of the prosecution into account, only two sharp instruments are said to have been used, one by A4 and other by A12. The evidence of the postmortem Doctor PW16 list out the following injuries on the deceased:-21.External Injuries:(i)I° to II° burns seen on the right shoulder, right forearm, right hand, right back, right elbow and upper chest and left forearms. II° burn found over nape of the neck and upper back.(ii)Two cut injuries over right temporal regions scalp - 12 x 6 x 5 cm.(iii)Cut injury of left temporal regions scalp – 6 x 2 x 7 cm.(iv)Cut injury mid parietal region – 5 x 2 x 0.5 cm.20/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024(v)Cut injury of mid parietal regional scalp above the fourth injury – 6 x 2 x 0.5 cm.(vi)Cut injury below the right mandible – 5 x 3 x 3 cm.(vii)Cut injury of the left forehead – 4 x 1 x 1 cm.(viii)Stub wound near lower lip – 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.(ix)Abrasions (red) back right shoulder – 7 x 5 cm.(x)Cut injury right temporal back – 2 x 10 x 7 cm.(xi)Cut injury, right forehead – 20 x 9 x 10 cm with brain matter protruding out.(xii)Cut injury, right side of the head – 20 X 10 X 2 cm.(xiii)Deformity of right forehead.22.Injury Nos.2 to 8, 10 - 12 are all cut injuries. The nature of weapons which is said to have been used have already been pointed out before. While using a wooden log, the nature of injuries that would result 21/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024are blunt injuries. It is very doubtful whether cut injury would be possible from the nature of weapons used. It is here that the evidence of PW16, Doctor Lakshmi becomes relevant.“btl;Lfha';fs; gy;ntW mst[fspy; cs;sJ/ btl;Lfha';fs; Tu;ikahd Ma[j';fs; Vw;gl tha;g;g[z;L/ btl;Lfha';fs; gy;ntW mst[fspy; cs;sjhy; mitfs; xd;Wf;F nkw;gl;l Ma[j';fshy; Vw;gl tha;g;g[ cs;sJ/ bghJthf Kid kG';fpa Ma[j';fshy; Vw;gLk; fha';fs; rpije;j fha';fshft[k; fd;wpa fha';fshft[k; Vw;gLk;/”23.When the injuries found on the deceased do not correspond to the weapons exhibited by the prosecution, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt, owing to the apparent conflict between medical evidence and the account of the eye-witnesses. The position of law on this aspect has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Budhwa @ Ramcharan and others. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 9. The Court pointed out that where the medical evidence contradicts the exaggerated eye witnesses' account, the Court must give the benefit of doubt to the accused. 22/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 202424.In addition, there is a contradiction even in the recovery of the weapons. Whereas, PW12 would state that recovery took place from Ramasamy's house, but PW1 goes on to state that the weapons had been taken from the house of the deceased.25.Furthermore, the case of the prosecution is that, it was an attack by a group of persons. When a group of persons attack an individual, and 4 individuals or more are said to have participated in the attack, it becomes extremely difficult for the witnesses to give specific overt acts to each of the accused. This is on account of the nature of incident. It is possible for the witnesses to state that a group of persons attacked and to describe the weapons they possessed at the time of the attack. However, to give a specific overt act to each of the accused, raises a doubt that it is an exaggerated account by the eye witnesses. Since this doubt arises even in the depositions of the only non-hostile witnesses, namely PW1, PW3 and PW4, we are inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused. 26.Turning to the role of A11 to A14, we have to point out that 23/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024they were not mentioned in Ex.P1. It is not as if A11 to A14 were utter strangers to PW1, the informant. We cannot rely upon evidence of PW2, as he turned hostile. Ex.P1 does not speak about the role of A11 to A14. Ocular evidence points out that they were not mentioned in the 164 statement, that is said to have been recorded on the requisition of PW20. Though the witnesses state that they had deposed before the Judicial Magistrate, and evidence was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the said evidence was not produced before the Court. 27.In addition, PW20, the investigating officer would categorically state as follows:“rk;gt rhl;rpfis ehd; Kjypy; tprhupj;j nghJ 11 Kjy; 14 vjpupfis gw;wp Twtpy;iy/”28.A11 to A14 had been included only in the additional report that had been filed by the police while nearing the completion of investigation. A11 is said to have gotten the kerosene can. The Can was not seized. No evidence was let in to show that kerosene was used for the purpose of torching the hut and cowshed. Apart from that, during the 24/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024course of evidence, though PW1 speaks about the torching of the cowshed, when the complaint was originally lodged, there was no such statement.29.Another aspect that we have to see in this case is that, though charge No.1 relates to the alleged incident which is said to have taken place on 25.02.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., the same had not been substantiated as pointed out above. In fact, PW1 had given up the alleged incident. Furthermore, PW1 would categorically state that the police had examined her on 7th. She does not give the date or month on which the examination had taken place. We would point out the relevant paragraph:“rz;Kfk; tPL vd; tPl;ow;F gf;fj;jpy; cs;sJ/ mtu; tPL jhd; Kjy; tPL/ nghyprhu; vd;id vj;jid Kiw tprhupj;jhu;fs; vd;why; 2 Kiw tprhupj;jdu;/ g[fhiu vGjpaJ ahu; vd;why; ruj;Fkhu; vGjpdhu;/ g[fhu; bfhLj;j nghnjh mjd;gpwF nghyprhu; tprhupj;;j nghnjh ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; tprhupj;j nghnjh vjpupfs; 11 Kjy; 14 cs;stu;fis gw;wp brhd;dPu;fsh vd;why; 7e;njjp tprhupj;j nghJ brhd;ndd;/ 25/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024ePjpj;Jiw eLtuplk; thf;FK:yk; bfhLj;jgpwF brhd;ndd;/ mHfhee;jk; kd;bdd;id nfd; vLj;J bfhz;L te;j tpguj;ij brhd;dPu;fsh vd;why; Kjypy; brhy;ytpy;iy/ 7e;njjp nghyprhu; tprhupj;jnghJ brhd;ndd;/ tpntfhde;jd;. rf$hde;jd;. gHdprhkp. kjd;nkhfd; Mfpnahu;fs; tPl;il gw;witj;jhu;fs; vd;w tpguj;ij 7e;njjp nghyprhuplk; brhd;dPu;fsh vd;why; md;iwa jpdk; brhy;ytpy;iy/”In utter contradiction to this statement, the investigating officer states that he did not enquire them on 7th at all. This is clear from Pg.No.54 of the evidence of the investigation officer. 30.Similarly, there are contradictions in the evidences of PW3, PW4 and PW20 on this aspect.“vjpupfspd; xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;ij ePjpj;JiweLtu; K:yk; gjpt[ bra;tjw;F eltof;if vLf;ftpy;iy/ m/rh/1 Rfe;jputs;spia ehd; 7k; njjp 26/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024tprhupf;ftpy;iy/ m/rh/3 gHdpak;khs; vd;gtu; vdJ tprhuizapd; nghJ “mHfhde;jk; re;njhc; & Fkhu; tPl;oypUe;J kz;bzz;iz bfhz;L te;jhu; ” vd;W brhy;ytpy;iy / mnjnghd;W ncwkyjh “X';fp X';fp cUl;Lfl;ilahy; moj;jhu;” vd;W brhy;ytpy;iy/ jiyapy; moj;jhu; vd;W brhy;yp cs;shu;/ “uh$;Fkhu; gl;ld; fj;jpahy; Fj;jpdhu;” vd;W brhy;ytpy;iy/ nkhfDk; kzpfz;lDk; tplhjp';flh” vd brhy;ytpy;iy/ m/rh/3 vd;dplk; rk;gtj;jpy; gad;gLj;jpa Ma[j';fis ghu;j;jhy;fhl;l Koa[k; vd;W Twtpy;iy/ m/rh/4 re;jhdk; vd;Dila tprhuizapd; nghJ vjpupfs; mHfhee;jk;. uh$;Fkhu;. nkhfd;. kzpfz;ld; Mfpnahu;fs; Fk;gyhf te;jhu;fs;” vd Twtpy;iy/”31.The aforesaid evidence shows that A11 to A14 were not mentioned in the complaint, not spoken about in the 164 statement said to have been given, and not informed to the police till the alleged 27/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024recording of evidence on the 7th. Recording on 7th itself has been denied by the investigating officer. This raises a doubt in our minds that A11 to A14 were roped in later, since they belonged to the group which owed its loyalty to A1. It is not unknown in this country for the victim's family to settle scores against their perceived enemies by roping them into criminal prosecutions. The very presence of A11 to A14 at the scene of crime being doubtful, we are inclined to grant that benefit to them.Medical evidence on time of death32.The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the evidence of PW16 to the effect that the death had taken place 18 to 36 hours before the post-mortem had been conducted., i.e. on 26.02.2013 at about 3:10 p.m., and pleaded that it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution. This aspect requires a discussion. Post-mortem conducted 18 to 36 hours before 3.10 p.m., places the incident at the late night / early morning of 25.02.2013. We are not inclined to accept this plea for the reasons set forth below.33.If we were to take the medical evidence as conclusive, then the 28/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would become relevant. The evidence of a Doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem, is an expert evidence as understood under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. An expert evidence is not binding on the court. It merely suggests to the court as to the possibilities that arise in the case. At the time of overall marshalling of evidence, it is for the trial and appellate court to consider whether that aspect of medical evidence can be relied upon or not.34.The estimation of time of death by a forensic pathologist is based on the sequential post-mortem changes in the body. Medical science is yet to discover or invent a method, which can determine the precise time of death.35.We referred to several books of medical jurisprudence, and found that all of them speak about the classic trail of post-mortem changes:(i) Algor mortis or reduction in body temperature;(ii) Livor mortis or Postmortem lividity; and,29/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024(iii) Rigor mortis. or stiffness of the limbs.36.It is on examination of these aspects that the post-mortem doctor gives the approximate time of death. It is but an approximation. Algor mortis happens when the body starts losing heat until it reaches the ambient temperature. The rate of cooling depends upon the body mass, the clothing on the deceased, as well as the temperature of the place where the body is found. These three are amongst the several factors which contribute to the body cooling. However, the general rule is that the body looses 1 degree centigrade or 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit per hour. 37.Livor mortis or post-mortem lividity occurs on account of the blood circulation being stopped due to death. The blood settles in the lower part of the body due to gravity, causing a reddish – blue skin discoloration. This begins to appear in blotches within 30 minutes to 2 hours of death. The blotches fully develop by 6 to 12 hours. Lividity is fixed after 12 hours implying that the discoloration will not shift, even if the body position is changed. 30/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 202438.Rigor mortis, in simple terms, means body stiffness. Forensic pathologists state that the muscles starts stiffening, due to the lack of adenosine triphosphate. Stiffening starts with smaller muscles first and progresses throughout the body. 39.In the case of smaller muscles like face and jaw, Rigor mortis sets in between 1 to 3 hours. Steadily, it progresses throughout the body between 6 to 12 hours. It disappears between 18 to 36 hours as decomposition commences. The variation in the time of Rigor mortis shows that it is only a rough guide for determining the time of death. In fact, Rigor mortis sets quicker if the muscles are feeble or exhausted or if the cut injury is to the throat.40.It can be used by the defence to question the other evidences and similar methodologies can be used by the prosecution to support the ocular evidence. The ultimate weight that has been given to the expert evidence depends on the facts of the each case. On the aspect of time of death not being proved, we are not in a position to accept the plea of Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel. We are entirely in agreement with 31/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Mr.A.Damodharan, Additional Public Prosecutor, that the climatic circumstance could have resulted in the variation that has been stated in the medical report. This is moreso when the body is kept in a cold storage as in this case. PW14 deposed on this aspect as follows:-“jl;gbtg;gk; gpnujk; FspU:l;lg;gl;l miwapy; ,Ue;jJ Mfpatw;iw tp";"hd uPjpapy; fzf;fpl;nld;/”Independent Witnesses:41.Though two persons have been examined by the police during the course of investigation, namely, Shanmugam and Swaminathan; they were not produced before the Court to support the case of the prosecution. This shows independent witnesses were available but they have not been examined yet. The plea of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the burn injuries found on the body of the deceased, together with MO9, are sufficient to prove the case against A6, A10 and A11, does not convince us. His submissions regarding the discrepancy in the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 being only minor, also does not appeal to us. 32/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 202442.We have set out in detail the discrepancies in the nature of weapons and the injuries on the body, the exaggerated versions of PW1, PW3 and PW4, the contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, as well as the non production of Section 164 statement by the prosecution together with the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate; all of which creates much doubt in the case of the prosecution. Each one of these lacuna when looked in isolation might not affect the case of the prosecution, but taken as a whole, they cast a dark and huge cloud over the case. It raises enough doubt for us to reach a conclusion that benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. 43.We can rely upon the ocular evidence to overwrite the medical evidence only when the evidence is trustworthy, credible, and relatable. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reiterate that ocular evidence is considered the best evidence, unless there are reasons to doubt it. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, the latter may be disbelieved. (See, Pruthiviraj 33/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and others, (2022) 18 SCC 683). In the present case, we find such robust inconsistencies with respect to the weapons alleged to have been used, and the nature of the physical external injuries found on the deceased's body. When we conclude that the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 are exaggerated accounts of the alleged incident, we are not in a position to apply the principle of evidence that ocular evidence should be given priority over medical evidence to the facts of the case.44.It is pertinent to point out here that A11 to A14 were brought into the case, only pursuant to the alleged confession that is said to have been made on 05.03.2013. Hence, there is a possibility that their presence was not stated in the 164 statement, which has been recorded by the Magistrate. Perhaps, it is for that reason that the statements were burked from evidence. On this aspect, we have to point out that the trial Court had relied upon the 164 statement when the same was not even produced before the Court. Such an appreciation of evidence is nothing but perverse.34/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 202445.In the light of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in S.C.No.70 of 2014, dated 20.09.2018, are set aside. The appellants are set at Liberty. Bail bonds if any stands cancelled. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed that A11 was arrested on 01.04.2013, and has been in incarceration till date. A11 shall also be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.(M.S.R., J) (V.L.N., J) 19.09.2025 krkIndex: Yes Internet: Yes Neutral Citation: Yes Note to Registry: Issue order copy on 19.09.2025.35/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 2024M.S.RAMESH, J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.krkTo1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram.2.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.A.Nos.614, 640, 715, 769 &848 of 2018 and 1192 of 202419.09.202536/36