Madras High Court · 2025

Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 20212. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :(a) Upon receiving specific information, that Maoists were undergoing arms training at Ezhamparai Moolaiyaru Stream situated at Vadakounchi Village from 11.04.2008. On 19.04.2008, a team of Police personnel led by the Additional Superintendent of Police proceeded to Ezhamparai Moolaiyaru Stream. They then conducted a search operation at Thandikudi, Pannaikadu, Palaimalai, Adukkam, Kounchi hill ranges. On 19.04.2008 at about 7'o clock, when they carried out the operation at Vadakounchi Village to Ezhamparai Moolaiyaru Stream at about 10.45 a.m, the Maoists, who were hiding near the location opened fire and also hurled country made bombs at the police party. The police issued a warning to those Maoists to surrender failing which they would be arrested. However, without heeding the warning, they continued firing at the police party. Hence, on a precautionary measure, the Additional Superintendent of Police fired one round gun from his service, pistol. However, the above accused did not cease firing. Therefore, the police also retaliated by firing of the Maoists. After the exchange of gunfire, the Maoists fled away from the place of occurrence. The police party chased them but after two hours, they could not apprehend any of them and thereafter returned back. They found a dead body namely, Naveen @ 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021Prasad @ Prasanth @ Suresh near Ezhampirai Moollaiyarasu Streamwith bullet injuries. They also recovered a revolver, country made bombs and certain bags from the place of occurrence. As no transport facility was available in the hill area, a stretcher was improvised using tree branches,and the dead body, was brought down. Thereafter, an ambulance was brought and the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital. (b) In this regard, P.W.1, Thiru.Arumugam, inspector of police, Pattiveeranpatti lodged a special report under Ex.P.1 at about 20.30 hours which was received by the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal and a case in Crime No.111 of 2008 was registered at about 20.30 hours for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC, Sections 25(1)(a), 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 174 Cr.P.C.(c) Soon after receipt of FIR, the investigation was taken up by P.W.37 Thiru.Perumal, then inspector of police, Kodaikanal. He had received the 303 model gun and 31 round bullets under Form 95 from PW1. On the next day, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021observation mahazar Ex.P.4 and rough sketch Ex.P.21, in the presence of Village Administrative Officer Thiru.Rajaram, his Assistant Thiru.Pandi and recovered the blood stained earth, ordinary earth – M.O.26, M.O.27 and other materials M.O.29 to M.O.34 under a recovery mahazar-Ex.P.22. He also recovered M.O.36 to M.O.195 in the presence of the same witnesses under a seizure mahazar- Ex.P.23. He examined the witnesses viz Arumugam (P.W.1), Thirunavukkarasu (ADSP) (P.W.4), Anandan (P.W.2), Selvasuresh Britto (P.W.3), Chandran, Senthilkumar (P.W.5), Chelladurai (P.W.6), Pandian (P.W.7), Thiruppathyraja (P.W.8), Mahendran (P.W.9), Rambabu (P.W.10), Saravanakumar (P.W.11), Ilayaraja (P.W.12), Boopathy Kannan (P.W.13), Ravichandran (P.W.14), Anandan (P.W.15) and other witnesses and recorded their statements. All the material objects recovered were sent to Judicial Magistrate Court through form 95.A requisition letter sent to the Judicial Magistrate requesting that the materials objects be forwarded,to Forensic science,Laboratory for chemical analysis. He examined Dr.Vidhya (P.W.34) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body. (d) P.W.34 Dr.Vidhya, issued a post-mortem report-Ex.P.15 and final report -Ex.P.16 in which she mentioned the injuries as follows :5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021“Injuries : -Injury 1:- An oval shaped penetrating wound on the left loin 7cm above and infront of left anterior superior iliac spine measuring 2.5.cm x 2 cm with abraded and inverted margins. An abrasion collar was noted at that site. On dissection the wound passes obliquely towards the right piercing the ideal part of small intestine measuring 2 x 1.5 cm through & through and exited in the right lateral abdomen. 3.5 x 3cm (size) 10 cm above the right and supiliac spine with inverted margins. Peritoneal cavity contains 100ml of blood. Injury 2 :- A circular shaped penetrating wound over left lat chest 0.75cm dia on 6th intercostal space in midaxillary line with abraded and inverted margins. Margins of wound shows abrasion collor. On dissection the wound passes obliquely and towards right piercing the upper border of 7th rib adjoining intercostal ms, vessels nerves undying left lung lower border 1 cm dia through & through, percardium, shatterin the left ventricular wall of heart and exited on the right lateral chest in the 5th intercostal space fracturing the 6th rib and embedded in subcutaneous tissue which was recovered. A small fragment of bullet recovered left pleural cavity contains 1000ml of blood. Injury 3 :- An oval shaped penetrating wound on the left lateral chest measuring 1 x 0.5 cm in the anterior axillary line with abraded and inverted margins. Abrasion 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021collar noted. On dissection the wound passes obliquely and upwards towards right piercing the underlying 2nd intercostal ms, nerves and upper lobe of left lung 1.5 x 0.5cm through & through and piercing the prevertebral ms and upper lobe of right lung 1.5 x 1cm through & through and the bullet was embedded in the subcutaneous plane of right supraclavicular fossa which was recovered. Right pleural cavity contains 150 ml blood with clotts. Injury 4 : - An oval shaped penetrating wound on letf shoulder top 5 cm medial to left acromion process measuring 0.75 x (torn ) .5cm with abraded and inverted margins and abrasion collar noted over the margins of wound. On dissection the wound passes obliquely upwards towards right along ms plane and a bullet was recovered within paravertebral muscles on left side. Injury 5 : - An oval shaped penetrating wound over left side of neck 9cm below left mastoid measuring 1 x 0.5 cm with abraded and inverted margins. Abrasion collar present. The bullet exited on back of right side of neck close to midline measuring 2 x 1.5 cm. Injury 6 :- A circular shaped 0.5cm dia penetrating wound over upper part of left hip with abraded & inverted margins. Abrasion collor present. On dissection the wound passes obliquely and to right fracturing the left side iliac part of bone 2 x 1cm and crossing through the pleural cavity and fracturing the iliac part of right pelvic bone 2.5 x 1.5 cm and exited on the right side hip measuring 3cm 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021dia, margins inverted. Injury 7 : - Abrasion over left lateral chest 6 x 1.5cmOther findings : - 1) Hyoid bone intact. 2) Pleural and peritoneal cavities described in injury column.3) Pericardial injury described in injury column. 4) Lungs and heart injury described in injury column.5) Liver, spleen, kidneys C/S pale. 6) Stomach :- 300 gm of partially digested food materials. No specific smell. Mucosa pale. 7) Small intestine : - injury described in injury column. Proximal portion contains 30ml of lube stained fluid. No specific smell mucosa is pale.8) Bladder --> Empty .9) Skull --> No fracture. Membranes intact. Brain --> Congested. base of skull no fracture. Viscera preserved and send for chemical anlaysis. 3 bullets and a fragment of bullet recovered from body and the clothes handed over to the PC No. HC 655 A.Sekar for Ballistic opinion.The deceased would appear to have died of shock & Haemmorrhage due to multiple firearm injuries.”(e) PW37 also examined the Revenue Divisional Officer 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021Thiru.Sundareshan (P.W.36) who had prepared inquest report-Ex.P.17 and recorded his statement. Thereafter he produced the witness Visu @ Viswanathan before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he handed over the case files to the Inspector of Police,Thiru.Mahalingam (not examined).(f) Thereafter, P.W.38-Thiru.Chandran, DSP, Kodaikanal altered the Sections of Law into Sections 147, 148, 307, 123(A), 124(A), 153(B) IPC, Section 174 Cr.P.C and Sections 25(1) (A) Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(b) and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 under Section alteration report-Ex.P.13 and submitted the same to the Court. Subsequently, he proceeded to the place of occurrence ,inspected the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. He had sent a requisition letter to the government, seeking sanction for prosecution. Thereafter he filed a preliminary charge sheet against A1 to A7 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul. He arrested A6 who was already in judicial custody in Crime No.1 of 2006 and took her to police custody. During custody he examined her in the presence of witnesses John Britto (P.W.24), Thirukkaivel (P.W.25) and recorded her confession 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021statement. Thereafter, handed over A6 to judicial custody. Since he was transferred to District Crime Branch, he handed over the file to Thiru.Selvam (P.W.41).(g) Thereafter P.W.41 Thiru.Selvam took up the case for further investigation and arrested A5 who was in judicial custody in Crime No.111 of 2008 at Salem Central Jail. He recorded his confession statement in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer Thiru.Kannan (P.W.26), his Assistant Thirukkaivel (P.W.25). He also arrested A3 who was in judicial custody in Palakkadu Sub Jail in Crime No.163 of 2017, upon his transfer handed over the files due to his superannuation.(h) Pw43, Tr.Muruganandham, handover pipe bomb two numbers, explosive 60 numbers to JP and Co., as per the direction of the DSP, Kodaikanal.(i) Thereafter, Thiru.Ponnuchamy-PW44 took up the case for further investigation, arrested A7 and recorded her confession statement in the presence of Thiru.Murugesan and his Assistant 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021Thiru.Thirukaivel and handed over for judicial custody and examined DSP Chandran, DSP Selvam, Inspector Jayarani and recorded their statements. He further deposed that he handed over three handmade bombs, 50 PVC pipe bombs, Detonators to JBN Company (authorized license holder) and received an acknowledgement from the said company under Ex.P28. He also handed over the material objects recovered under Ex.P.18 to the said JBN Company. He also recovered the dresses (M.O.196 to M.O.199) worn by the deceased Naveen @ Naveenprasanth. He Further deposed about the recovery of M.O.200 to M.O.210 recovered under recovery Mahazar-Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.33 and also deposed about the identification Parade conducted by judicial magistrate, Palani for identification of accused.(j) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 09.04.2018 against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 121(A), 124(a), 153(A), 153(b), 307 r/w.149 IPC and Sections 25(1) (A), 27 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(b), 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 20213. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, took up the case in P.R.C.No.25 of 2018 and issued summons to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records were furnished to them free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, under Section 209(A) Cr.P.C. for further action.5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul received the case records and numbered it as S.C.No.339 of 2018, framed charges against the accused under Sections 148, 121(A), 124(A), 153(B), 307 r/w.149 IPC and Sections 25(1) (A), 27 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 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.6. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.44 were 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.210 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined.7. On conclusion of trial, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, acquitted the accused of all the charges by judgment dated 19.01.2021, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State/complainant on the following among other grounds :(i) That the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.40 FSL Department which would prove that the death of the deceased was not at all an encounter and it is a self defence by special task force;(ii) That the Post-mortem Doctor P.W.34 Dr.Vidya who conducted post-mortem of deceased Naveen @ Prasad had clearly the report Ex.P.15 that there were 7 external injuries due to firing. The final opinion Ex.P.16 proved that due to crossfire, there was a huge loss of blood and so the deceased succumbed to death. (iii) The trial Court also failed to consider that the seized material objects [M.O.1 -210] proved the occurrence of crime against the State. In State of Karnataka V Suvarnamma reported in 2015 (1) SCC-323, any 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021lapse on its part cannot per se be a ground to throw out the prosecution case when there is overwhelming evidence to prove the offence;(iv) That the arrest of Maoists A-1 to A-7, their previous convictions in various offences and their confession along with 27 recovery proved that they have involved in the illegal arms training inside the forest;(v) That the trial Court ought to have seen the evidence of P.W.33 Karupachinathan and Laksumanan which proved the motive of the accused involving in the offences against the State. [M.O.s 209 and 210 - Notice “Nkw;F njhlu;r;rp kiyg;gFjpapy; MAjg; Nghuhl;lj;ij tsu;j;njLg;Nghk; jkpofj;jpy; kf;fs; [dehaf Gul;rpapd; ntw;wpf;F mbj;jsk; mikg;Nghk; vd;W rptg;G ikahy; mr;rplg;gl;L gpd; gf;fj;jpy; ,e;jpa fk;A+dp];l; fl;rp (khNthap];l;) jkpo;ehL vd;Wk; rptg;G fyu; nfhbAld; mupths; Rj;jpaYld; rpwpa Nfhb glj;Jld; $ba Jz;L gpuRuk; ,uz;L”;(vi) That the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the Test Identification Parade witness P.W.17 Visu @ Viswanathan helped the investigation team and identified the accused person. It is submitted that he is an independent witness and he also deposed that he stayed along with the Maoist accused on force and he guided the Special task force inside the forest to catch the accused;14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021(vii) That trial Court failed to consider that the medical evidence had fully corroborated the version of eyewitness P.W.1, 3, 5 to 8, 14, 15 and 37. The prosecution case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused, however, the trial Court acquitted the accused without considering the materials on record; and (viii) That the entire judgment deserves re-appreciation of evidence and appeal against acquittal can be made.8. The learned counsel for the respondents who had appeared for the accused argued that A) No search operation was conducted in the hills of Kodaikanal by the police on the said date , since they already encountered a person in their custody and in order to conceal the same, a false case has been foisted against the accused who are innocents. B) The prosecution failed to prove the arrest, confession and recovery of material objects from the accused. C) The presence of P.W.17 who was alleged to be accompanied along with the police was not spoken by the eyewitnesses except P.W.14. The eyewitnesses to the occurrence were not able to identify the accused. None of the eyewitness stated that even on 18.04.2008, the police 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021conducted a search with P.W.17. D) That none of the police officials injured in the crossfire. No enquiry was ordered by Revenue Divisional Officer or the Judicial Magistrate for the death of a person named Naveen @ Prasanth @ Prasath @ Suresh due to firing/encounter.E) The prosecution failed to produce any photograph taken in the place of occurrence. F) No details regarding the registration number of ambulance in which the dead body of one of the accused was brought to the hospital. G) The prosecution failed to conduct identification parade to the eyewitnesses who were present in the crossfire to identify the accused. H) The police failed to obtain sanction from the concerned authority to conduct a search within the time limit which is mandatory as per law. I) The evidence of eyewitnesses are not cogent, but there are contradictions. J) There is a delay in registering the case and delay in handing over the copy of the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate which is not properly explained by the prosecution. K) The accident register of the deceased was not produced to 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021establish the time or circumstances under which he was taken to the hospital. Moreover, the postmortem report reveals that the injuries sustained by the deceased were confined to the chest region. The Doctor who had conducted autopsy on the body admitted that the entry wound is typically smaller than the exist wound and further stated that the effect of gunshot fired from a long range would be lesser than the close range.L) No Forest Officials were examined. M) The police kept the explosives in a private godown belonging to P.W.42, but failed to send the same for chemical analysis. N) The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and prays to dismiss the criminal appeal as there is no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.10. Now, this Court has to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubts and whether the trial Court is right in acquitting the accused or the order of the trial Court is perverse and liable to be sustained?17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 202111. As per the prosecution, in this case, all the accused belonging prohibited unlawful association moist had collected fund and selected persons from various part of Tamil Nadu to act as against the Government. They intend to strengthen their organisation, in Dindigul District. During the year 2007 at Kodaikanal Hills, they conducted a selection, provided a training to the recruits with weapon, training. They distributed pamphlets to the residence of various places in and around Kodaikanal and instigating them to act against the Government. They has Pre-plan and launched an attack against the State by using lethal weapons, such as, bombs, guns, explosives, etc. and thereby causing disturbance, to the public peace and Tranquility.12. The prosecution primarily rely upon the evidence of P.W17, alleging that he was taken by the accused and subjected to brainwashing. Thereafter, he stated to have escaped and identified the accused to the Police 13. We carefully analyzed the entire records and evidence. 14. Except PW14 and PW25 none of the eye witnesses who 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021participated in the search operation led by PW4 have stated that PW17, accompanied them or identified the accused. According to PW14, they started the search operation even on 18.4.2008 and they were accompanied by PW 17.15. PW1/Complainant an eye witness to the occurrence, in his evidence stated that they started searching for the accused only on 19.04.2008, under the leadership of P.W.4. He has not stated that they were accompanied by PW17 on previous day i.e., 18.04.2008 and or that the search continued from 18.04.2008 to 19.04.2008. Likewise, P.W.2 to P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.16 have not stated that they made searches even on 18.04.2008 along with PW17. PW4, who led the search team also admitted that the search operation commenced on the morning 19.04.2008. However it is not stated anywhere in his evidence that PW17 accompanied them during the said operation. 16. PW14 for the first time in his evidence before the court, stated on 18.04.2008, PW17 had accompanied them on 18.04.2008 and identified the slipper of accused, namely, A5, Bagathsingh @ Sugadev as well as dead body of one of the accused on 19.04.2008. On the contrary, 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021PW15 in his chief evidence stated that PW17 accompanied them on 18.04.2008 but not stated that he accompanied them on 19.04.2008 also. However, both P.W14, and P.W15 categorically admitted that they had not stated before the investigating officer about the presence of PW17 on the date of occurrence. The inconsistence between their testimonies coupled with the improvements introduced during the trial, materially, impaired the credibility of the prosecution case. 17. Further, P.W17 who is alleged to have been in the custody of the accused has not stated the place where the group was formed, the-date on which he joined the armed group or the time and manner in which he escaped. Furthermore, the statement of PW17, was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement, he deposed that in pursuance of the instruction of police, he went to the mortuary and identified a person. Significantly he has not stated that he accompanied with the police on the date of occurrence. According to PW17, except A1, A2 and the deceased he did not know the name of the any of the accused. Therefore, the claim of PW17, identify the slippers as belonging to A5 appears to be highly doubtful, and seems to be an imaginary version without convincing basis.20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 202118. Further all the eyewitnesses to the occurrence have admitted that the incident took place place in a dense forest area and that they were unable to identify any of the accused at the time of occurrence.The complainant P.W.1, in chief examination stated that the deceased was identified by the witnesses P.W.14 and P.W.15 from a photograph album kept with them which is contrary to the statement made by P.W14, P.W15 and PW17. No photographs were taken by the police officials, to identify the place of occurrence and also the dead body of the deceased.19. Considering the above circumstances, the trial Court rightly held that the presence of PW17 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, has not been being satisfy by the prosecution. We find no reason to differ with the said conclusion and accordingly confirm the conclusion of the trial Court.20. The time of recovery of dead body of the deceased was not properly spoken by the witness.21. The occurrences alleged to have been taken place in the forest. It has been admitted by the police official that Forest personnel 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021were on duty throughout the area. As per evidence of PW17, Forest Officials had also accompanied with them for search operation. However, none of said the Forest Officials were made as witnesses in this case. It is further seen that P.W.17 alone participated in the process of identification parade conducted on 04.07.2017. It is pertinent to note that none of the eyewitness to the occurrence participated in the identification parade.22. Recovery of weapon from the place of occurrence was not properly proved by the prosecution. Further, there is no record available to show that the blood stained earth which was alleged to be recovered was sent to chemical laboratories. 23. The recovery alleged to have been made person to the confession of the accused has not been properly spoken by any of the prosecution witnesses.24. The occurrence took place at 20.30 hours but the complaint was registered belated on 19.04.2008 and the FIR-Ex.P.23 reached the Judicial Magistrate on 20.04.2008 at about 03.20 a.m. The police official, who had handed over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021admitted that they could reach the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, within 10 minutes. However the endorsement on the FIR-shows that it was delivered to the Judicial Magistrate’s residence on 20.04.2008 at about 03.20 a.m, for which, no explanation was given on the side of prosecution. 25. As far as issuance of sanction is concerned, it is to be noted that prior to the occurrence, there was no time limit for according sanction. The sanction was marked under Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 which was seriously objected by the defence side. The occurrence took place on 19.4.2008, wherein the time limit for granting sanction was not fixed, only subsequent to the occurrence it was introduced viz., 31.12.2008. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a judgment in Achhar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2021 (5) SCC 543. It is to be noted that the time limit was introduced, only subsequent amendment. But the occurrence took place prior to the amendment. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is not a valid one.26. The evidence of PW17 has been found doubtful, and except the said witness, none of the eye witnesses have identified the 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021accused, thereby weakening the prosecution case on the aspect of identification. Further the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the alleged involvement of the accused in any prohibited unlawful association. The recovery made pursuant to the confession has also not been properly proved. Mere pendency of previous criminal cases against the accused does not by itself, establish their involvement in the present case. 27. The prosecution totally failed to establish that the accused alone participated in the alleged incident in the forest. Further, the prosecution has not produced accident register nor were blood stain or another materials, object sent for forensic examination to substantiate that the accused sustained gunshot injuries at the place of occurrence. The Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution. Moreover, there is an unexplained delay in the registration and forwarding the FIR which create serious doubt, regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. Some of the explosives were allegedly kept in a private go-down, however, the same were not sent for chemical analysis for the reason, best known to investigating agency.24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 202128. Upon considering the entire oral and the documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused. We find that the appreciation of evidence and conclusion do not suffer from any perversity and the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no need for interference with the judgment of the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.29. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment passed in S.C.No.339 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, dated 19.01.2021 is hereby confirmed. (P.V., J.) & (R.P., J.) 10.11.2025Index :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NoNCC: Yes / NoRM25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021Copy toThe Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kodaikanal Sub Division,Dindigul District.(Crime No.111/2008)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 2021P.VELMURUGAN, J.ANDR.POORNIMA, J. RM Judgment in Crl.A(MD)No.478 of 202110.11.202527/27