Madras High Court · 2025

CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022(2).Crl.A(MD)No.493 of 2022:-1.Manickam2.Sudalai3.Anthonyammal4.Anthonyraj : Appellants/A4 to A7Vs.State represented by:The Inspector of Police,Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station,Tirunelveli,Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.125 of 2016) : Respondent/Respondent PRAYER:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, connected with the judgment rendered in SC No.116 of 2017, dated 28/06/2022 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellants/A4 to A7.For Appellants : Mr.S.Vishnuvaradhan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor(3).Crl.A(MD)No.518 of 2022:-Raja @ Ayirai : Appellant/A2Vs.The State through The Inspector of Police,Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station,Tirunelveli District.Crime No.125 of 2016 : Respondent/Complainant2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected with the judgment rendered in SC No.116 of 2017, dated 28/06/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellant/A2.For Appellant : Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J.)All the criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.116 of 2016, dated 28/06/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Bhagyaraj is the husband of A3-Janaki. They had a child. In 2015, Pookkuzhi festival was held at the Chandanamariyamman Temple in Pottal Nagar, for a week. At that time, A1-Sakthivel came as an Electrician to set up the loud-speakers for the festival. At that time, A3-Janaki, the wife of the deceased Bhagyaraj became acquainted with him and they had an illicit relationship. In the meantime, on 28/03/2016 at about 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202211.00 pm, A1 was found in the house of A3 along with her in a compromising position, which was seen by the deceased Bhagyaraj, for which he lodged a complaint to the Seevalaperi All Women Police Station and both were enquired and got separated and thereafter, A3 lived in her parental home. Subsequently, on 20/04/2016, when the deceased Bhagyaraj going by bike at 06.00 pm, along with PW2-Subbaiah, the accused chased them and toppled the bike and took the deceased to a remote place and murdered him with Aruval. At that time, A3 stood on the road side to watch for any visitors to the spot. 3.Initially based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2016 for 'man missing' and after investigation, the deceased body was found on the bushes at Aviniperi Junction, Tiruneveli, on the next day with injuries, by altering the Section 'Man Missing' @ 364 @ 364 and 302 IPC, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, and the same was taken on file in PRC No.65 of 2016. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file as SC No.116 of 2017 and made over to the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelvelli, for disposal.4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 20224.After completing the formalities of Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there were prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused persons, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w 302 IPC as against A1, A3 toA7; under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A2; under Section 364 IPC against A1 and A2; under Section 302 IPC against A1; and Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A5. 5.In order to prove the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 18 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW18 and 19 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P19, besides marking 6 material objects as MO1 to MO6.6.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating circumstances appearing against them on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied the same as false. On the side of the defence no oral evidence was adduced, but one document was marked as Ex.D1.7.After completion of the trial, since the first accused is absconding, the case against him has been split up by the trial Court and the same is pending in SC No.386 of 2021. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments advanced on the 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022side of the accused persons 2 to 7 as well as the prosecution side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, found guilt of the accused persons namely 2 to 7 and convicted and sentenced them as follows:-(1)For the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 302 IPC, A3 to A7 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.(2)For offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, A2 was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.(3)For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC, A3 was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run consecutively by A2 to A7. Since, the charge under Section 428 IPC as against A2 is not proved, he was acquitted from that charge. 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 20228.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence, these three appeals have been preferred by A2, A3, A4 to A7 as appellants separately.9.Since, all the appeals arising out of the judgement passed in SC No.116 of 2017 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, they are taken up together for disposal by way of this common judgment. 10.The learned Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals would submit that the trial Court erred in relying on the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW8 and the evidence of PW2, who went along with the deceased Bhagyaraj on the bike is uncorroborated and insufficient to incriminate the appellants; PW3 is a planted witness, who despite allegedly overhearing the conspiracy at the tea shop along with the deceased and PW2 remained completely silent when PW1 lodged the complaint when PW2 came running after the deceased disappeared; there is a delay of one day in reaching FIR to the Court; PW5 Michael was nephew of the deceased Bhagyaraj, who gave evidence for the arrest, confession of recovery of cell phone from A2 on 22/04/2014, but the Investigating Officer did not examine any independent witnesses who were available in the occurrence place; for several days after, PW8's version is unbelievable because she kept quiet for 17 days after the allegedly overhearing the plot, did not disclose it even 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022at her brother's burial, and the children who were present during the tuition-class conversation were not examined; the evidence of PW4 is not corroborated the evidence of PW3; the open talk in a public place cannot constitute conspiracy against the appellants; therefore, the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC or abetment under Section 109 IPC. 11.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken and the 'last seen' theory stands disproved as the deceased was last seen alive only with PW2 and not with any accused; the manner of murder is not even projected and the recovery does not link the accused; in this case, FIR was suspiciously registered as 'man missing', despite names being mentioned by the de-facto complainant and later altered to Section 364 IC without explanation, with alternation reports appearing ante-timed since the body was recovered before the FIR reached the Court; The presence of PW3 at the tea shop is not even mentioned in the complaint (Ex.P1); the child common to the deceased and A3 was not examined; PW8 has admitted that PW1 was continuously sending representations only with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused and their family members; the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence of PW8 does not inspire confidence of the Court and untrustworthy; the prosecution has cited Pushpa, Paulraj and Ashok Kumar as witnesses to the charge of conspiracy levelled against the 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022appellants and the witnesses cited in the charge, the prosecution has dispensed with the witnesses Paulraj and Ashok Kumar; and the prosecution clinches upon the solitary testimony of PW8/Puspha, who happens to be the sister of the deceased had earlier faced a prosecution in the year 2018 and as such much credibility cannot be attached to her testimony. Under these circumstance, the conviction based the presumptions and conjunctions is perverse and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the appellants in all the appeals prays for the appeals to be allowed. In support of their contention, they placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1)Padman Bibhar Vs. State of Odisha (2025 SAR (Cri) 850; (2).Kalyanasundaram and others Vs. The Inspector of Police and another (2014 Supreme (Mad) 2509) and (3)Shail Kumari Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (2025 SAR (Cri) 934).12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has established the enmity between the deceased and all the accused persons, especially A1 to A3; due to previous enmity, all the accused persons entered into a conspiracy and murdered the deceased, who is the husband of A3; the conspiracy has been established by PW8, who has clearly spoken about the conspiracy made by all the accused persons; the evidence of PW1 to PW5 has established the motive for murder and PW6 has spoken about the arrest and confession made by A1, who is not a party in the present appeals; the case 9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022against A1 has been split up, due to his non-appearance; PW9 has clearly spoken about the motive and also conspiracy; PW5 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased; PW11 is the Scientific Officer and he has spoken about the Forensic report; the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW8 has clearly spoken about the involvement of the appellants and also Ex.P2-confession statement made by A2 and recovery portion of the confession statement made by him; Ex.P6 is the recovery portion of the confession statement made by A1, who is not a party to these appeals and Ex.A11 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by PW10-Doctor, who conducted postmortem; Ex.P13 is serological report detecting human blood and therefore, from the evidence of the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, though acquitted all the accused for the offences under Section 364 IPC, however, found guilt of the appellants for conspiracy and also murder and therefore, there is no merit in these appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.13.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202214.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 28/03/2016 at about 11.00 pm, A1 was found in the house of A3 along with her in a compromising position, which was seen by the deceased Bhagyaraj, for which, he lodged a complaint to the Seevalaperi All Women Police Station and both were enquired and got separated and thereafter, A3 lived in her parental home and subsequently, on 20/04/2016, when the deceased Bhagyaraj going by bike at 06.00 pm, along with PW2-Subbaiah, the accused chased them and toppled the bike and took the deceased to a remote place and murdered him with Aruval. At the time, A3 stood on the road side to watch for any visitors to the spot. 15.In order to substantiate the charges framed against these appellants, the prosecution has totally examined as many as 18 witnesses and marked 19 documents, besides 9 materials objects were exhibited. 16.A reading of the evidence of PW1 who is the de-facto complainant as well as the father of the deceased Bhagyaraj would go to show that he has clearly spoken about the motive of the accused to take away the life of the deceased. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the evidence of PW1 is extracted hereunder:-“.....vq;fs; Cupy; fle;j 2015k; tUlk; re;jdkhupak;kd; Nfhtpypy; G+f;Fop jpUtpoh ele;J nfhz;bUe;jJ. md;iwanghOJ ty;yehl;il Nru;e;j 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022rf;jpNty; vd;gtu; jpUtpoh xypngUf;fp mikg;gjw;F vyf;l;uPrpadhf te;J Ntiyghu;j;Jf; nfhz;bUe;jhu;. ,e;epiyapy; ghf;fpauh[Pd; kidtp [hdfpf;Fk> rf;jpNty; vd;gtUf;Fk; jfhj gof;fk; Vw;gl;lJ. mjd; %ykhf mtu;fs; ,UtUf;Fk; fs;sj;njhlu;G Vw;gl;lJ. ,e;epiyapy; fle;j 28.03.2016 md;W vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[; tPl;by; ,uT Rkhu; 11.00 kzpastpy; [hdfpAk;. rf;jpNtYk; xd;whf ,Ug;gij vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[; ghu;j;jhu;. md;iwajpdk; gpd;dpl;L ghf;fpauh[; jdJ tPl;L fjit G+l;btpl;L gf;fj;J tPl;Lf;fhuu;fisAk; kw;Wk; Cupy; cs;stu;fisAk; $g;gpl;lhu;. midtUk; ghf;fpauh[; tPl;bw;F te;jhu;fs;. gpd;dpl;L vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[; rPtyg;Ngup fhty; epiyak; nrd;W [hdfp kw;Wk; rf;jpNty; Mfpa ,Utu; kPJk; Gfhu; nfhLj;jhu;. gpd;dpl;L fhty;Jiwapdu; [hdfp kw;Wk; rf;jpNty; Mfpa ,UtiuAk; fz;bj;jhu;fs;. mg;nghOJ [hdfp ehd; ghf;fpauh[Pld; tho tpUg;gkpy;iy vd;W njuptpj;J jd; kfis $l;bf;nfhz;L mtSila mk;kh tPl;bw;F nry;tjhf nrhy;yp nrd;Wtpl;lhu;. gpd;dpl;L [hdfp rf;jpNtYld; trpj;J tUtjhf njupe;J nfhz;Nld;. rf;jpNty; jd;id mtkhdgLj;jpaJ njhlu;ghf ghf;fpauhi[ nfhiy nra;Jtpl Ntz;Lk; vd;W Ngrp te;J nfhz;bUe;jhu;. mjdhy; jhd; Ntiyf;F nry;Yk;NghJ jd;Dld; Rg;igah kw;Wk; fgpupNaYlDk;. gl;Luh[Dld; Nkhl;lhu; irf;fpspy; Ntiyf;F nrd;W tUtJ tof;fkhf ,Ue;jJ. ,e;epiyapy; fle;j 20.04.2016k; Njjpad;W nrd;bupq; Ntiyia Kbj;Jtpl;L 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022Rg;igahTk;> vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[Pk; jd;Dila igf;fpy; CUf;F te;J nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. mg;nghOJ kfhuh[efu; Bf;fil mUNf fgpupNay;> gl;Luh[;> Rg;igah kw;Wk; vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[; MfpNahu; B Fbf;f epd;W nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. mg;nghOJ vdJ kfDk;> Rg;igahTk; B Fbf;fhky; fpsk;gptpl;lhu;fs;. mNj Bf;filf;F mUNf cs;s gof;filapy; rf;jpNtYk;> [hdfpAk; kw;Wk; mtu;fSld; Nru;e;j gputpd;Fkhu; nry;th> Iiu MfpNahu;fs; ghf;fpauh[; Nghfpwhd; vd;W $wpaNjhL ,Jjhd; re;ju;g;gk; ehk; gopthq;f Ntz;Lnkd;W ghf;fpauhi[ nfhy;yhky; tplkhl;Nld; vd;W nrhy;ypf;nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. gl;Luh[; kw;Wk; fgpupNay; MfpNahu; mq;F ,Ug;gij ftdpf;fhky; Ngrpf;nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. ,e;epiyapy; vdJ kfd; Ciu Nehf;fp te;J nfhz;bUe;jNghJ vdJ kfd; tz;bia gpd;njhlu;e;J nts;isfyu; mg;ghr;rp igf;fpy; rf;jpNty;> Iiu> gputpd;Fkhu;nry;th MfpNahu; te;jdu;. mtpdhg;Ngup tpyf;F mUNf vdJ kfdpd; ,Urf;fu thfdj;ij rf;jpNty; kw;Wk; mtUld; ,Ue;jtu;fs; ,bj;J js;spdhu;fs;. ,e;epiyapy; fPNo tpOe;jTld; vdJ kfd; ghf;fpauh[; Nkw;F ghu;j;J Xbdhu;. Rg;igah njw;F ghu;j;J Xbdhu;. thfdj;jpy; ,Ue;J fPNo tpOe;jNghJ Rg;igahtpw;F ifapy; rpuha;g;G fhaq;fs; Vw;gl;lJ. vdJ kfid gpd;njhlu;e;J mUthSld; rf;jpNty; Juj;jpdhu;. mg;nghOJ gu;fpl;khefu; mUNf fgpupNaYk;> gl;Luh[hTk; te;J nfhz;bUe;jNghJ Rg;igah mtu;fsplk; ghf;fpauhi[ mUthSld; Juj;jpf;nfhz;L nrd;whu; vd;W $wpdhu;. me;j ,lj;jpw;F mUfpy; Rg;igah> fgpupNay;> gl;Luh[; 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022MfpNahu; ghf;fpuhi[ Njb ghu;j;jhu;fs;. mg;nghOJ Neuk; khiy Rkhu; 6 kzpapUf;Fk;. Njb ghu;j;J ghf;fpuh[; fpilf;fhjjhy; mtiu flj;jp nrd;wpUg;ghu;fNsh vd;W vd;dplk; jfty; nrhd;dhu;fs;. ehDk; Ngha; Njb ghu;j;Njd;. vq;fSf;Fk; njupatpy;iy. ehd; jhYfh fhty; epiyak; nrd;W vd; kfd; fhztpy;iy vd;W Gfhu; nfhLj;Njd;. me;j Gfhu; m.rh.M.1. kWehs; fhiy Rkhu; 5 kzpastpy; Ks;nrbf;Fs; jiyapy; gy;NtW ntl;Lf;fhaq;fSld; ,we;Jfple;jhd;. gpd;dpl;L tprhuiz Kbj;J muR kUj;Jtkidf;F nfhz;L nrd;whu;fs;. ehDk; kUj;Jtkid nrd;W vdJ kfdpd; gpNujj;ij muR kUj;Jtkidapy; ngw;Wf;nfhz;Nlhk;.”17.PW3 is the friend as well as the co-worker of the deceased. He has clearly spoken about the enmity between the accused and the deceased. He has also deposed that on the date of the occurrence, he went along with the deceased for work and after finishing the work, the deceased and PW2 were returning in a bike and PW3 in another bike. He has also spoken about the conspiracy made by all the accused persons and subsequently, A2 informed to PW3 that A1 hit the bike, in which PW2 and the deceased were travelling and he sustained injury and he also spoken that all the accused persons chasing the deceased. 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202218.PW4 is also one of the friends as well as the co-workers of the deceased, who has also spoken about the death of the deceased. PW5 has spoken about the confession made by A2 and also recovery of cell phone of the deceased. PW6 has spoken about the confession statement made by A1, who is not a party to the present appeals and also recovery. PW8 has also spoken about the conspiracy made by all the accused. The evidence of PW8 has proved the conspiracy. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the deposition of PW8 is extracted hereunder:-“...ehd;. vdJ fztu; ghy;uh[; kw;Wk; mNrhf; vq;fs; tPl;by; 3.4.16k; Njjp ,uT 9 kzpf;F Ngrpf;nfhz;bUe;Njhk;. mg;nghOJ rf;jpNty;> [hdfp. [hdfp kfs; ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; [hdfpapd; mk;kh tPl;bw;F te;jhu;fs;. mg;nghOJ [hdfp mk;kh tPl;by; [hdfp mk;kh me;Njhzp> mg;gh khzpf;fk;. [hdfp jk;gp me;Njhzpuh[; Rliy MfpNahu; mq;F ,Ue;jhu;fs;. ehq;fs; Kd;gf;fk; Ngrpf;nfhz;BUe;jij ghu;j;J mtu;fs; tPl;bd;fPo;gf;fk; nrd;Wtpl;lhu;fs;. ,tu;fs; vjw;F midtUk; ,q;F te;jpUf;fpwhu;fs; vd;W njupe;J nfhs;s ehDk; vd; tPl;bd; fPo; gf;fk; nrd;W xl;LNfl;Nld;. [hdfpapd; mk;kh me;Njhzp mk;khs; kw;wtu;fspl;k; ghf;fpauh[; Nftg;gLj;jp tpl;lhd; mtid fhyp nra;a Ntz;Lnkd;W kw;wtu;fsplk; nrhy;yp nfhz;bUe;jhu;. [hdfpapd; mk;kh me;Njhzp mk;khs; vt;tsT nryT MdhYk; guthapy;iy. ehd; [hdfpapd; gps;isia ghu;j;Jnfhs;fpNwd; vd;W 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022nrhd;dhu;. mjw;F [hdfp vd;id Nftyg;gLj;jp tpl;lhd; mtid fhyp gz;z Ntz;L nkd;W nrhd;dhs;. mjw;F rf;jpNty; vd;idAk; ghf;fpauh[; Nftyg;Lj;jp tpl;lhd; ehd; Ms; itj;jpUf;fpNwd;. mtid fhyp nra;aNtz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhd;. ....28.3.16k; Nkjjp ghf;fpauh[; tPl;by; ele;j rk;gtk; vdf;F njupahJ rj;jk; Nfl;L NghNdd;. ehd; NghFk; nghOJ rf;jpNtiy fl;bg;Nghl;bUe;jhu;fs;. ghf;fpauh[; mq;F ,Ue;jhu;. ghf;fpauh[; jhd; Gfhu; Nghyprhuplk; nfhLj;jhu;. 28.3.16k; Njjpapy; rf;jpNty; [hdfp ghf;fpauh[; rk;gtk; rk;ke;jkhf Nghyprhu; tprhupj;jNghJ ehd; nry;ytpy;iy. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ele;j rk;gtk; gw;wp vdf;F njupahJ.” 19.From the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and PW8, it is made clear that A3 is the wife of the deceased Bhagyaraj and she had illegal intimacy with A1 and on 28/03/2016 at about 11.00 am, the deceased saw A1 and A3 in a compromising position, who is the wife of the deceased and therefore, exposed the same to the villagers and made a complaint before the Police and due to that, A1, A2 and A4 to A6, who are mother, brothers and sisters of A3 in order to wreck vengeance, entered into a conspiracy and murdered the deceased. 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202220.Though the confession made before the Police Officer is not admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, if it is leading to recovery, is admissible as per 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Forensic Analysis report and Postmortem Certificate also shows that the death of the deceased is unnatural. The serological report also shows that human blood was detected. Though, there is no eye witness in this case, but the prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence. The ingredients of circumstantial evidence are motive, last seen theory and recovery. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and PW8, the prosecution has proved the strong motive against the accused persons. The evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 shows the last seen theory. 21.From the evidence of PW8, the prosecution has proved the conspiracy. From the evidence of PW5 and PW6, the prosecution has proved the recovery. Therefore, for conspiracy, there can not be any written agreement, it can be gathered only from the conduct of the party. From the evidence of PW1 and PW8, motive and conspiracy have been clearly established by the prosecution. From the evidence of PW3 and PW4, 'last seen' theory has also been clearly established. In this case, motive and conspiracy coupled with the recovery which has also been established beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202222.Though, the case has been split up against A1 and is pending trial, but however, in respect of conspiracy, charges under Sections 120(B) r/w 302 IPC were levelled against the other accused persons namely the appellants herein. The prosecution has also proved the death of the deceased through the evidence of PW10-Doctor and the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P13). Reading of the Postmortem Certificate, the following antemortem injuries were found:-(1).Abrasions: 18 x 8 cm on inner aspect of right forearm, 8 x 5 cm & 5 x 4 cm on front of right knee and 1 x 1cm on root of right big toe.(2).A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 8 x 2 cm x bone deep on top of head. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, nerves and bone.(3).An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 11 x 3 cm x bone deep on right temporal-occipital region of head. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, nerves and bone.(4).A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 13 x 3 cm x cavity deep on top of head, from left parietal to right parietal region. It lies 2cm back to Injury No: 2. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, nerves and bone and brain.18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022(5).A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 12 x 3 cm x cavity deep on top of head, from left parietal to right parietal region. It lies 2 cm back to Injury No: 4. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, nerves and bone and brain.(6).An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 16 x 4 cm x cavity deep on left side of head to right side of head (left temporal, left parietal, right parietal & right frontal region). It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, nerves and bone and brain and left ear lobule.”23.The Forensic analysis report and the Serological report also shows the detection of human blood. Therefore, the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW8 are cogent, consistent, reliable and credible, which inspire confidence of this Court and there is no reason to discard their evidence. This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court, which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an independent finding. While re-appreciating the findings of the trial Court, this Court finds no perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. Therefore, a reading of the evidence both oral and documentary, this Court independently finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed.19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 202224.In the result, these criminal appeals fail and the same are dismissed, confirming impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. The respondent police is directed to secure the appellants forthwith. (P.V.,J) (L.V.G.,J) 28/11/2025 Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoerTo, 1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN,J.andL.VICTORIA GOWRI,JerPre-Delivery Judgement made in Crl.A(MD)Nos.456, 493 and 518 of 202228.11.2025 21/21