this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1 and A2. The trial Court was perfectly right in convicting A1 and A2 and sentencing them in the manner stated supra. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to secure the presence of the accused/appellant for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. [N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K, J.]

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 22.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl. A. (MD)No.620 of 2023
1.Thomas Selvam
S/o.Royappan @ Murugesan
321 Nallakeni Street, Therkutheru
Muthalagupatti Dindigul
2.Suresh Anthony
S/o.Royappan @ Murugesan
321 Nallakeni Street, Therkutheru
Muthalagupatti Dindigul .. Appellants/accused 1&2
Vs.
State through the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town Police Station,
Dindigul District
Crime No.199/2017 ..Respondents/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2022 in S.C.No.186 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran for first appellant
Mr.P.Suresh for 2nd appellant
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabakar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The appellants (A1&A2) have filedthe present appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul made in SC No.186/2017 dated 09.12.2022 wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
Rank of the accused Offence (IPC) Sentence
A1 and A2 341 one month simple imprisonment
A1 and A2 302 Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
A1 and A2 506(II) simple imprisonment for three months
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Rajkumar was the younger brother of PW1. There was a civil dispute between the family of PW1 and the family of the accused persons. The mother of PW1 had initiated a civil suit against her brother Royappan @ Murugesan and she succeeded in the civil suit and had also taken possession of the property. The appellants herein, who are the sons of the said Royappan, developed an enmity with the family of PW1. With this motive, the accused persons are said to have conspired and decided to do away with the deceased and as a consequence, on 17.06.2017 at about 8.15 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding near Thomaiyar Church in his two wheeler, four accused persons intercepted him and threatened him and A1 attacked the deceased with MO1 in the forehead, back of the head and shoulder and caused multiple injuries. A2 is said to have attacked with MO2 knife on the chest and right wrist. A3 and A4 are also alleged to have attacked the deceased with weapons. The incident is said to have taken place in the presence of the brothers of the deceased, who are PW1 to PW3.
3. The deceased was rushed to Government Hospital, Dindigul at about 8.40 a.m. and was treated by PW9, who issued the accident register
Ex.P12. From there the deceased was moved to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and was treated by PW12, who issued the accident register Ex.P14. The deceased died on 17.06.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. and this was recorded by PW11, who informed the police regarding the same.
4. PW1 gave the complaint (Ex.P1) to PW13 on 17.06.2017 at 9.30
a.m Based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P15) came to be registered in Crime No.
199/2017 for offences under Sections 341, 307 and 506(III) IPC.
5. The investigation was taken up by PW14 and he went to the scene of crime at about 10.30 a.m. on 17.06.2017 and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P16) and rough sketch (Ex.P17). He also seized the
bloodstained earth, earth without bloodstain, a plastic vessel, a silver vessel and also a two wheeler (MO16 to MO20) under Athatchi Ex.P18. He recorded the statements of all the eye witnesses and others under section
161(3) Cr.P.C.
6. When he went to the hospital at about 2 p.m., he found the deceased in an unconscious state and therefore was not able to record his statement. PW14 received the intimation about the death of the deceased and hence, he prepared the alteration report Ex.P19 and altered the offence to Section 302 IPC.
7. On 18.06.2017, the investigating officer went to the hospital and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 8.00 a.m., to 9.00 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdars and other witnesses and prepared the inquest report Ex.P20.
8. All the accused persons were arrested around 1 p.m. and based on their admissible portion of the confession statement, material objects were seized under seizure mahazars.
9. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem was conducted by
PW10, who issued the autopsy report (Ex.P13), wherein, the injuries sustained by the deceased were noted as follows:
“Appearances found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished body of a male aged about 32 years. Finger and toe nails are blue.
The following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body,
Surgically sutured wound noted on the following areas with following measurement
(A) Head
(1) Scalp frontal side. Right side 7cm x 0.5cm x bone deep.
(2) Scalp frontal side, 6cm away from wound no.1. 9cm x 0.5cm x bone deep.
(3) Scalp left parietal region. 8cm x 0.5cm x bone deep.
(4) Left side of the chin. 6cm x 1cm x bone deep.
(B)Neck:
(5) Lower part of the neck measuring 3cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep.
(C) Chest
(6) Right side of chest measuring 9cm x 1cm x muscle deep.
(7)Left side of the chest near the center-7cm x 1cm x muscle deep.
(D)Right upper limb:
(8) over the wrist and palm 7cm x 1cm x bone deep.
(9) over the base of middle, ring and little finger 7cm x 2cm x bone deep.
(10)outer aspect of forearm measuring 9cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep.
(E) Left Upper limb:
(11) Inner aspect of arm-5cm x 1cm x muscle deep
(12) Over Left wrist measuring 5cm x 1cm x bone deep.
(13) Outer aspect of palm measuring 4cm x 1cm x muscle deep.
(14) Upper aspect of forearm measuring Icm x 1cm x muscle deep.
(15) Lower part of forearm measuring Icm x 1cm x muscle deep.
(F) Lower Limb:
(16) Just below the left knee measuring 6cm x 1cm x bone deep.
(17) Just below the right knee measuring Icm x 1cm.”
10. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW15 and at which stage, the entire investigation was almost completed and PW15 laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, which was taken on file in PRC No.15/2017.
11. After service of copies to the accused persons under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed under Section 209 IPC and was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, which was taken on file in SC No.186/2017.
12. The trial Court framed the charges against A1 to A4 for offence under Sections 120(b), 341, 506(II) and 302 IPC and the accused persons denied the charges.
13. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Ex.P1 to
P24 besides MO1 to MO23.
14. The incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313 (i)(b) of Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
15. The defence examined DW1 as witness but did not rely upon any documentary evidence.
16. The trial Court had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1 and A2 and accordingly convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated supra. A3 and A4 were acquitted from all charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the same, A1 and A2 have approached this Court and filed the present criminal appeal.
17. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on eitherside and the materials available on record.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 to PW3 are the brothers of the deceased and they were also interested eyewitnesses. Contradiction was elicited and therefore, their evidence cannot be entirely relied upon. However, since there is no corroboration for the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the benefit of doubt must be extended to A1 and A2 also as was done by the trial Court for A3 and A4. The fact that PW1 to PW3 were not present in the scene of crime is evident from the accident register marked as Ex.P12 and Ex.P14, which shows that at the earliest point of time, it was informed to the Doctor that two unknown persons have attacked the deceased, which has been noted in Ex.P12. In the subsequent accident register Ex.P14, it is noted as road traffic accident. Hence, the persons, who attacked the deceased and the manner in which the deceased died, is highly doubtful.
19. PW1 to PW3 are the brothers of the deceased. Just because theyare close relatives of the deceased, that by itself is not a ground to reject their eyewitness account.
20. PW1 besides explaining the property dispute has also given a graphical description of the manner in which A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with MO1 and MO2. The same is the case with PW2 and PW3.
21. The presence of PW1 in the scene of crime is substantiated by the fact that his bloodstained clothes MO5 and MO6 were handed over to the police and it was sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory under Form 95 and the Forensic Sciences Laboratory report marked as Ex.P23 shows that those clothes contained the bloodstains and it was identified as ‘B’ group of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 has not been discredited in the crossexamination. Therefore, apart from the eyewitness account of PW1, his presence in the scene of crime is further confirmed by the serological report, which shows that the clothes that were worn by PW1 contained the bloodstains of the deceased, who was taken to the hospital by PW1.
22. The entries made in the accident register regarding the persons,who brought the deceased or the reason for the injuries sustained may contradict the eyewitness account. However, insofar as the evidentiary value is concerned, it has been repeatedly held that the same cannot be taken to be a gospel truth since the primary duty of the Doctor at that point of time is only to save the life of the person and not to focus on the entries made in the Accident Register. Useful reference can be made to our recent judgment dated 25.03.2026 in Muthukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu [Crl.A.(MD) No.
123 of 2024).
23. The eyewitness account of PW1 to PW3 has not been discredited in the cross-examination. It perfectly tallies with the injuries that were noted in the accident register and in the postmortem certificate. Thus, the medical evidence is in tandem with the ocular evidence.
24. At this juncture, one of the ground that was raised by the learnedcounsel for the appellants must be considered. It was contended that for the very same evidence, A3 and A4 were acquitted from all charges and therefore, the same benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants (A1 and A2) also.
25. This Court carefully went through the judgment of the trial Court to understand the grounds on which A3 and A4 were acquitted in this case. The trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that PW1 to PW3 did not state in their evidence as to how they know A3 and A4. Apart from that the names of A3 and A4 were included by the subsequent statement that was recorded from PW1 to PW3 under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2017. Thus, the trial Court found that A3 and A4 have been roped in at a later point of time and PW1 to PW3 have not explained as to how they know about A3 and A4. Therefore, the benefit of doubt was extended in favour of
A3 and A4.
26. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such falsestatements made by PW1 to PW3 touches upon their integrity and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon in entirety.
27. This Court is not in agreement with the above submissions. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India. A Court is expected to separate the grain from the chaff and convict the persons for whom evidence is available. Useful reference can be made to a judgment in Sivasankaran and others v. State represented by the Inspector of police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District reported in 2019 (4) MLJ (Crl) 652.
28. In view of the above, even though the trial Court found the evidence of PW1 to PW3 to be entirely unreliable insofar as A3 and A4 are concerned, that does not automatically result in disbelieving them insofar as A1 and A2 are concerned. This is for the simple reason that A1 and A2 are known to PW1 to PW3 and the specific overt-acts of A1 and A2 has been mentioned and even in the earliest statement that was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the names of A1 and A2 is found and these statements have reached the Court almost immediately.
29. Insofar as the motive is concerned, it may not have any bearing in a case where there is a strong eyewitness account. In the case in hand, the motive has also been sufficiently proved by the prosecution by explaining the property dispute between the parties which went against the father of the appellants before the civil Court.
30. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1 and A2. The trial Court was perfectly right in convicting A1 and A2 and sentencing them in the manner stated supra. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to secure the presence of the accused/appellant for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K, J.]
22.04.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes/No RR
To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town Police Station, Dindigul
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section officer (English Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RR
Judgment made in
Crl. A. (MD)No.620 of 2023

22.04.2026