HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019 1.Selvaraj 2.Saravanan 3.Ezhumalai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
1.Selvaraj
2.Saravanan
3.Ezhumalai
4.Pazhani
… Appellants in Crl.A.No.641 of 2018
Kullammal
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Polur Police Station,
Polur,
Thiruvannamalai District.
Vs.
… Appellant in Crl.A.No.160 of 2019
Crime No.437 of 2008
… Respondent in both Appeals
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.09.2018 in
S.C.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr.R.Krishnakumar Legal Aid Counsel in both Appeals
For Respondent
:
Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor in both Appeals
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
20.09.2018, in S.C.No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, A1, A3, A4 and A5 have filed Crl.A.No.641 of 2018 and A2 has filed Crl.O.P.No.160 of 2019. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :
Accused
Conviction
Sentence
A1 to A5
Sections 147 and 506(2) IPC
Two years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment
A1
Section 325 IPC
Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment
Accused
Conviction
Sentence
A1
Section 302 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment
A2
Section 323 IPC
One year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment
A3 to A5
Section 302 IPC r/w.149 IPC
Life imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment
Section 148 and 324 IPC
Three years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.There was a previous enmity between the deceased Babu and A1’s family in removing the sand next to A1’s property. Prior to the day of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the parties on excavation of sand. Thereafter, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.08.2008 at about 05.30 p.m., A1, his wife A2, and sons A3 to A5 assembled unlawfully with stick and iron rods and beat the deceased. A1 attacked the deceased on his head; A3 hit the deceased on his left ear; A4 attacked the deceased on his ankle and A5 beat the deceased on his back. A2 also attacked the deceased on his ankle with axe. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to prevent the attack, they were also attacked by the accused. The above occurrence was witnessed by
P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Polur Hospital. From there, he was taken to Vellore CMC Hospital, where, he succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e., on 14.08.2008.
2.2.On the basis the complaint given by P.W.1, an FIR (Ex.P1) came to be registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station (P.W.14) against A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 307 IPC.
2.3.After receipt of the FIR (Ex.P1), P.W.18 (Investigating Officer) went to the place of occurrence on 14.08.2008 at about 08.30 a.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14) in the presence of P.W.9 and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the same night, he examined the injured Babu and recorded his statement. Thereafter, after receipt of the death intimation, he altered the FIR to one under Section 302 IPC and filed the alteration report (Ex.P16). Thereafter, he also conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ex.P17) and sent the dead body for postmortem.
2.4.P.W.17 (medical officer) conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P13) opining that the death of the deceased was due to the head injuries causing damage to the brain.
2.5.In continuation of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) arrested the accused persons, recorded their confession, and seized the material objects (M.Os.1 to 5) in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness.
2.6.P.W.16 (medical officer), who has admitted Indira (P.W.1), has noted contusion on her right forearm measuring 3 x 2 cm and has opined that the above injury is grievous in nature and on the same day, issued Ex.P11 – Accident Register in this regard. He has also admitted one Velu (P.W.2) and noted 6 x 1 x 0.5 laceration on the right head and contusion on the left knee and issued Ex.P12 – Accident Register.
2.7.The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, laid final report against the accused A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 302 IPC, in P.R.C.No.1 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Polur.
3.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in
S.C.No.84 of 2009 and was made over to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, for trial.
4.The trial Court framed the charge for the offence under Section 147 IPC as against A1 to A5; charges for the offences under Section 148 IPC as against A3 to A5; charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against A1; charges for the offences under Sections 302 r/w. 149 IPC as against A3 to A5; charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC as against A1; charge for the offence under Section 323 IPC as against A1; charge under Section
323 IPC as against A2; charge for the offences under Section 324 as against A3 to A5; charge for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC as against A1 to A5. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.
5.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P20 and produced M.Os.1 to 5. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.
6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 20.09.2018, found all the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and sentenced the accused A1 to A5 as stated supra.
7.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.641 of 2018 is filed by A1, A3, A4 & A5 and Crl.A.No.160 of 2019 is filed by A2.
8.As the accused could not engage a counsel to defend their case, a Legal Aid counsel was appointed by this Court to prosecute the appeals. Accordingly, Mr.R.Krishnakumar, Legal Aid counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the entire eye-witness theory is unbelievable and the prosecution has suppressed the other side version completely. All the statements of the eye witnesses are parrot-like repetition, which are totally unreliable. Further, it is his contention that the time of occurrence itself is not established. Further, the FIR has been registered with a delay and also sent to the Court with huge delay, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, it is his contention that the judgment of conviction has to be set aside.
9.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are injured, clearly attribute the overt acts against each of the accused. The other eyewitnesses P.Ws.3 to 8 have also clearly spoken about the occurrence. There was no motive, whatsoever, established against them for false implication of the accused persons. Hence, he would submit that the judgment of the trial Court does not require any interference.
10.We have perused the entire materials available on record.
11.The charges against the accused are that, due to some prior enmity in excavation of sand near the land owned by the accused, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the previous day of occurrence. Thereafter, on the next day, i.e. the date of occurrence on
13.08.2008 at 05.30 p.m., all the accused unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons M.Os.1 to 5 and each of them assaulted the deceased with the deadly weapons, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, on account of which, he succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e. on 14.08.2008.
12.On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who claim to be the injured witnesses, they have stated in a unison voice that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m. on 13.08.2008. However, on careful analysis of the evidence, though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken about the overt acts of all the family members of the accused, when they were admitted before the medical officer for the injures sustained by them, their version was that they were attacked only by three known persons. Only while giving statements and during the evidence, all the family members of the accused have been implicated. Be that as it may.
13.Though it is the specific version of P.W.1 that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m., in her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that there was a scuffle between two groups and when she reached the spot,
already, the deceased as well as A1 were lying down in the A1’s house and there was a huge crowd already gathered in the place. Her evidence clearly indicates that she was not aware of what had happened prior to the occurrence and who was the real aggressor. Further, she has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the occurrence took place in the night hours, whereas, the specific version of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place at 05.30 in the evening, which creates a serious doubt in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the evidence of P.W.1.
14.P.W.2, who also claims to be an injured witness, in his evidence, has stated there was a group clash between two sections. P.W.2 also, while he was admitted in the hospital, has categorically stated that the occurrence took place at 07.10 p.m., whereas, it is the specific version of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m. Therefore, the above fact clearly indicates that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not come up with the true version.
15.Further, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly indicates that the accused side is also seriously injured. In fact, P.W.1’s evidence clearly indicates that A1 was also lying down in his house when she reached the spot. In fact, A1 also got injured all over his head and was admitted in the hospital, which is clearly substantiated by Ex.D1 (Wound Certificate) relating to A1. Ex.D1 also clearly indicates that there is a lacerated wound on the forehead measuring 5 x 1 x 0.5 cm; 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm on temporal region (centre); 7 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the temporal region scalp; and also other injuries on knee, shoulder and elbow, etc. The injuries sustained by the accused group, are totally suppressed by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him. Even in his evidence, he has not whispered as any such incident had happened.
16.It is further relevant to note that P.W.2, though has stated to be working as Maistry and that he knows the deceased, has spoken about all the accused in a parrot-like repetition. He has also admitted that the occurrence took place in the night hours and he has also admitted that A1 and A2 were also injured and they were also admitted in the hospital. The entire cross-examination of P.W.2, when scanned, would indicate that he has also admitted not once, but many times, that the occurrence took place in the night hours. Whereas, the prosecution has projected a case as if the occurrence took place in the evening hours at 05.30 p.m. This is one of the reasons which creates serious doubt in the entire prosecution version.
17.P.W.3, who is said to be the eye-witness to the incident, has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that, by the time he visited the spot, the occurrence was already over and A1 was also injured.
18.Similarly, P.W.4, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he is not aware as to who was the aggressor. Further, in the cross-examination, he has asserted again and again that the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m., which is totally contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 who also stood in the place of occurrence and got some injuries.
19.P.W.5, another eye-witness, though in chief-examination, has stated that the accused beat the deceased, in the cross-examination, has clearly admitted that A1 was also attacked and before reaching the spot, fight between the two groups was already over.
20.P.W.6, the father of the deceased, though has stated as if he was present in the place of occurrence, his evidence clearly indicates that, even before reaching the spot, his son had already died and he was taken to the hospital, which is totally contrary to the very prosecution story itself. In fact, the deceased was taken to the hospital and he was alive in the hospital and he succumbed to the injuries only on the next day. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 is also totally improbable and creates serious doubt about the occurrence.
21.The cross-examination of P.W.7 clearly shows that there were 50 people each of them beating others, and he was also injured. However, he has not gone to the hospital.
22.P.W.8, though claims to be eye-witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he has not gone to the spot and witnessed the occurrence.
23.The entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when scanned together, clearly indicates that there was a group fight between two groups and both sides sustained injuries. Though it is stated that the statements of all the eye-witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day when he took up investigation, in fact, except the statement of P.W.1, all the other statements have reached the Court only on 06.01.2009. For this delay, there is no explanation. If really the Investigating Officer had conducted investigation then and there and recorded the statements of the witnesses, he ought to have despatched the statements then and there to the Magistrate.
24.Further, though P.W.1 would indicate that she has given a complaint on the date of occurrence itself, the FIR came to be registered only on the next day morning. Though the FIR is stated to have been filed at 06.30 in the morning, the same has been despatched to the Court only at 05.45 p.m. on the next day. This huge delay in sending the FIR to the Court, has also not been explained.
25.Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are stated to have sustained certain injuries, their version implicating all the family members of the accused in parrot-like repetition, coupled with the delay in sending the statements of the witnesses to the Court; the contradictory statements of the eyewitnesses; the complete variance with regard to time of occurrence between the prosecution version and the witnesses’ statements; the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused side members, would clearly probabilise the fact that the witnesses have spoken against the accused only due to previous enmity and the prosecution has not come out with the true version. The other side version is totally suppressed and the injuries sustained by the accused have not been explained. There is no whisper, whatsoever, in the entire investigation about the nature of injuries sustained by the accused. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has not whispered anything about the injuries sustained by the accused. He has not even made an attempt to note that the other side also sustained injuries and that they were admitted in the hospital. Further, there are many infirmities in the statements of the socalled eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, as found above. Therefore, we are of the clear view that it is unsafe to convict the accused for such a huge crime, particularly when one version is totally suppressed by the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are also highly doubtful and improved in every stage and they have not come out with the true version, and the very time of occurrence is also highly doubtful.
26.Further, yet another aspect we have noticed is that the trial Court has committed a grave mistake in not even recording the explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court has just marked the initials and none of the accused’s explanation has been recorded in the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is also in violation of the very procedure contemplated under law. The trial Court has mechanically passed an order of conviction, relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, without appreciating the entire evidence to find out the whether those evidences are reliable or conviction can be made based on such evidence. The trial Court has mechanically approved the prosecution version as if the statements of the prosecution witnesses are gospel truth.
27.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 all the accused.
28.In such view of the matter, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.09.2018 in S.C.No.84 of 2009, is set aside, and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 23.10.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Polur Police Station,
Polur,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR , J. and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
Crl.A.Nos.641 of 2018 & 160 of 2019
23.10.2025
