Uncategorized

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl. A(MD)No.439 of 2023 Selvam : Appellant(s) Vs. The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station

by Sekar Reporter · Published April 16, 2026 · Updated April 16, 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 08.04.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 16.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl. A(MD)No.439 of 2023

Selvam : Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

Crime No.124 of 2013. : Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimantram (FTC), Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.214 of 2013 dated

29.03.2021 and acquit the appellant.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Ramasubramanian

For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the judgment of the

Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District, made in S.C. No.214 of 2013, dated 29.03.2021, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

Offence

Sentence

Sec. 302 of IPC

Life imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count, in default to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.

Sec. 506(2) of IPC

7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

The above sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused person fell in love with one Muneeshwari and married her. The accused person was suspecting his wife on the ground that she was having an illicit relationship with the deceased Sakthi Ganesan. The said Sakthi Ganesan had a wordy altercation with the accused. At one stage, the wife of the accused person not able to take it anymore committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, along with two children. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.58 of 2013 for offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.

3. With the above motive in mind, on 14.04.2013 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused was sitting near a water tank adjacent to Aaha Hotel with an intention to murder Sakthi Ganesan. He attacked him with bill hook (MO1). The deceased, in order to save his life, ran towards Therkuppatti and the accused chased him and hacked him on his back.

The mother of Sakthi Ganesan, namely Muthupechi; the wife of Sakthi Ganesan, namely Rajalakshmi @ Lakshmi; and Sakthi Ganesan’s daughter Parasakthi were sitting at the corner of the house alley. They saw the deceased running for his life and he stumbled and fell down in front of PW3’s firewood shop. The accused hacked him with MO1 all over the body, by abusing him that only because of him his entire family was ruined. Sakthi Ganesan died on the spot. Muthupechi and Rajalakshmi screamed for help. On seeing them, the accused person hacked them with MO1 and as a result, Muthupechi and Rajalakshmi sustained grievous injuries. The wife of Sakthi Ganesan, Lakshmi died on 16.04.2013 and the mother of Sakthi Ganesan, Muthupechi died on 22.05.2013.

4. For the sake of convenience, Sakthi Ganesan will be identified as D1, Rajalakshmi @ Lakshmi will be identified as D2 and Muthupechi will be identified as D3.

5. The defacto complainant/PW1 is the sister of D1. She, along with others, took D2 and D3 to Virudhunagar Government Hospital from where they were referred to Madurai Government Hospital. PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW24 at about 00.30 hours on 15.04.2013. Based on which, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.124 of 2013 for offences under Sections 302, 307, 352, 336 and 506(2) of IPC.

6. PW25 took up the investigation and went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P15) and the rough sketches (Exs.P16 and P23) in the presence of witnesses. He also recovered MO8 and MO9 under mahazar Ex.P19 in front of PW1’s house. He also recovered MO4 and MO5 in front of the firewood shop where D1 was hacked to death under mahazar (Ex.P17). He also recovered MO6 and MO7 under mahazar (Ex.P18).

7. PW25 conducted the inquest on the body of D1 and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P20) in the presence of panchayathars. He made arrangement to send the body of D1 for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by PW20 and the postmortem certificate (Ex.P8) was issued. The following injuries were noted in the postmortem certificate:

“External Injuries:

1.Right upper limb – The hand disarticulated and hanging just above the level of wrist.

2.Left upper limb – Cut and disarticulated partially at the level of elbow and forearm is hanging.

3.Left foot – Cut injury from the middle of dorsum extending medially up to the medial border of sole of foot, exposing the bones.

4.Cut injury in the right shoulder about 8 x 4 x 4 cm -muscles also grit.

5.Cut injury in the middle of back measuring about 15 x 4 x 2 cm in size.

6. Cut injuries in the right parietal region of scalp 8 x 3 x 2 cm, underlying bone.

7.Cut injury in the occipital region about 7 x 1 x 2 cm with underlying bone exposure.

8.Cut injury in the left side of scalp with exposure of bone 4×2 cm.

9. Cut injury above the level of upper lip, upper part of face from the lower part and extending.

10.Cut injury near the left eye 3 x 1 cm.

Internal Examination:

•Thorax: Ribs intact.

•Lungs: injured.

•Abdomen: Liver, spleen, kidneys – pale – no haemoperitoneum

•Peritoneal cavity: Approximately 2 litres of blood present (haemoperitoneum).

•Stomach: Fully digested material minimal amount present.

•Skull: Skull bones fractured in multiple places. Died of multiple cut injuries ”

8. The dress worn by D1 (MO2 and MO3) was collected and sent to the Court under Form 95. PW25 recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

9. The investigation officer received the news of the demise of D2 on 16.04.2013. After conducting the inquest on the dead body of D2 at Madurai Government Hospital, he prepared the inquest report (Ex.P21) in the presence of panchayathars. The postmortem was conducted by PW23 and the postmortem report (Ex.P12) was issued by noting the following injuries:

“The following ante-mortem injuries are noted on the body:

1. A sutured oblique cut injury of size 18cm x 1cm x bone deep noted in right side of head. Extending from outer aspect of right eye, Right parietal region up to the right temporal region of scalp.

2. A sutured oblique cut injury of size 3cm x 1cm x bone deep noted right side of forehead 5cm above the right eye brow.

3. A sutured oblique cut injury of injury size 10cm x 1cm x bone noted bi parietal region of scalp 7cm above the centre of forehead.

On dissection Skull, scalp &dura:

Subscalpal contusion of size 25cm x 15cm noted in right fronto, parieto, temporo occipital region of scalp. Depressed fracture of size 6cm x 4cm noted right parietal region. Bone piece of size 7cm x 5cm removed in right temporal region & replaced with gel foam. Linear fracture of size 15cm noted in right temporo occipital region.

Note: All the cut injuries are having regular margins.

OTHER FINDINGS:

Peritoneal cavity – empty; Pleural cavities – empty; Pericardium – contains 15 ml of straw colour fluid; Heart right side fluid blood, left side empty; Coronaries – patent; Lungs – cut section congested; Larynx & trachea – normal; Hyoid bone intact; Stomach – contains 200ml of brown colour fluid nil specific smell, mucosa normal; Liver, Spleen & kidneys – cut section congested; Small intestine – contains 20ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa normal; Bladder – empty; Uterus – Enlarged of size 17cm x 14cm x 5cm noted, cut section contains foetus of size 15cm x 4cm noted; Brain – described.

OPINION:

“THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF

CUT INJURIES TO THE HEAD AND FACE AND ITS CORRESPONDING INTERNAL INJURIES SUSTAINED

BY HER”

10. On 28.04.2013 at about 7.00 a.m., the accused person was arrested in the presence of PW18 and another person and based on the confession given by the accused person, the bill hook (MO1) was recovered under Ex.P4. The accused persons was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation officer was in the process of recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.

11. The investigation officer received the news that D3 died on 22.05.2013. He conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P25) in the presence of panchayathars. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of D3 by PW23 and the postmortem certificate (Ex.P21) was issued by noting the following injuries:

“The following ante-mortem injuries are noted on the body:

1. A sutured, partly suture removed and oblique cut injury

18cm x 1cm x bone deep noted on left side of upper part of face and head extending from leti maxillary region to left temporal region.

On dissection: The wound directing inwards and down wards cutting the muscle and bone partly.

Note: The margins of the above wound were regular.

2. A lacerated injury 10cm x 3cmx bone deep noted on left parietal region. The wound was covered with pus materials and the margins were irregular.

On dissection of Scalp, Skull & Dura:

Contusion of scalp, dark brown in colour measuring 10cm x 4cm and 12cm x 4cm were noted on left temporo, parietal and left parietal region respectively. Bony deficit measuring Mem xem was noted on left parietal region. Diffused subdural hemorrhage & subarachnoid hemorrhage noted over both the cereoral hemispheres. Laceration of brain 6cm x 4cm x 2cm was noted on left parietal region. Cut section brain congested and edematous. Cerebro spinal Quid increased in volume.

OTHER FINDINGS:

Peritoneal cavity empty; Pleural cavities empty; Pericardium – contains 15ml of straw ? colour fluid; Heart – right side fluid blood. left side empty; Coronaries patent; Lungs-cut section congested; Larynx & trachea normal: Hyoid bone – intact; Stomach contains 100 mi of brown color fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa normal; Liver, Spleen & kidneys – cut section congested; Small intestine contains 20ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell. mucosa – normal: Bladder empty: I terusabsent: Brain described.

OPINION:

“THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF

CUT INJURY TO THE HEAD AND FACE. IT’S CORRESPONDING INTERNAL INJURIES AND THE CRANIO CEREBRAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY HER”

12. After the completion of recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and after obtaining the biological report, serological report and postmortem reports and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, which was taken on file in PRC No.48 of 2013. The learned Magistrate after serving the copies to the accused person under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case and the same was made over to Mahalir Neethimantram (FTC), Srivilliputhur, which was taken on file in S.C.No.214 of 2013.

13. The trial court framed charges against the accused person for offences under Sections 302 of IPC (3 counts) and 506(2) of IPC. The accused denied the charges.

14. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW25 and marked Exhibits

P1 to P26. They also place reliance upon MO1 to MO9.

15. The incriminating circumstances and evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as

false.

16. The accused did not examine any witnesses nor did he rely upon any documents.

17. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case and on appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.

18. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that out of 14 eyewitnesses who were examined on the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were all declared hostile. Therefore, that leaves only PW1, PW4, PW8 and PW9, whose evidence has been strongly relied upon by the trial court while convicting and sentencing the accused person.

19. It is submitted that PW1, who is the sister of D1 and whose evidence has been relied upon to prove the murder of D1 to D3, is wholly unreliable. It was submitted that PW1, who was the complainant, while giving the complaint (Ex.P1), has not mentioned the above “Aaha Hotel.” Only in the evidence, there was an improvement as if D1 was standing near Aaha Hotel when the first attack took place by the accused person. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the distance between Aaha Hotel to Pitchaikani wood shop, where D1 is said to have fallen down and the fatal blows were given by the accused person with MO1. It was further submitted that there were nearly seven houses and shops belonging to PW3 and it will not be possible for PW1 to see the first occurrence when D1 is alleged to have been attacked. The learned counsel further relied upon Ex.P16, which is the rough sketch in order to substantiate his submissions. The learned counsel also place reliance upon Ex.P1 to point out that what was recorded in Ex.P16, is only Rian Hotel and not Aaha Hotel.

20. The learned counsel further submitted that D1 could not have run from the first occurrence spot to the second occurrence spot after the fourth and fifth injuries sustained by him. The learned counsel pointed out to Ex.P15 and submitted that Aaha Hotel is not available. Thus, the learned counsel, by pointing out certain discrepancies in the eyewitness account where each of the murder took place, submitted that the eyewitness account on the part of the prosecution is not wholly reliable.

21. The learned counsel further submitted that many othereyewitnesses, were not examined on the side of the prosecution like Arumugam and daughter of the deceased D1 and D2.

22. This Court must keep in mind the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, reported in 1999 (5) SCC 96. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“7. … The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.

8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression ‘reasonable doubt’ is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. In the case in hand, there was a gruesome murder of three persons and the manner in which the murder had taken place and the deceased persons were attacked, would have caused panic in the locality. It is a case where D1 was chased and was done to death and thereafter, when D2 and D3 raised alarm they were done to death. D1 died on the spot. D2 died after two days and D3 died on 22.05.2013. Even though D2 died after two days and D3 died only on 22.05.2013, the investigation officer was not able to record the statements since they were unconscious right through. This Court went through the case diary and also inquired the investigation officer in order to ascertain the status of D2 and D3 after the incident.

24. The above judgment of the Apex Court makes it clear that thereal test before the Court is to carefully read the evidence given by the witnesses and satisfy itself as to whether it inspires the confidence of the Court. If the Court expects mathematical precision as a yardstick for convicting and sentencing accused persons, most of the cases will end in acquittal. Therefore, in the process of appreciation of evidence, the Court has to balance and consider all the materials and if the overall evidence available inspires the confidence of the Court, certain contradictions on the side of the witnesses, or omissions on the part of the investigation officer, should not derail a criminal case.

25. The motive that has been attributed by the prosecution is that the accused person suspected his wife to have an illicit affair with D1. Hence, she was subjected to cruelty and as a result, she committed suicide by self-immolation and in that process two of her children also died in the incident. It is this incident which, according to the prosecution, impelled the accused person to commit the dastardly act of committing the murder of three persons.

26. PW1, in her evidence, has stated that she was present alongwith D2, D3 and her brother and at which point of time, they heard the cries of D1. They found that the accused person was repeatedly attacking D1 with MO1, starting from near Aaha Hotel up to the fire wood shop belonging to Pitchaikani (PW3). Even in the rough sketch, it is sufficiently clear that there were lamp posts and sufficient light was available. The overt act attributed for D1 is also supported by the medical evidence in terms of autopsy report. PW1 has also spoken about the attack on D2 and D3. The attack on D3 was so severe that MO1 went very deep into the scalp and the accused person stood over the body of D3 and pulled out MO1. PW1, in order to save her life, went into the house and shut the door. Obviously, a reading of the entire deposition of PW1 shows that she was not giving an imaginary story about the incident and she has tried her best to explain the incident. It must be borne in mind that the witness was examined during the covid period through videoconferencing mode. All these factors must be kept in mind while analyzing the evidence of PW1.

27. Even though PW3 was examined by the prosecution as aneyewitness, he only speaks about finding the dead body of D1 near his fire wood shop and he also heard about the murder of D2 and D3. Even though PW3 was treated as hostile witness, he confirms the fact that he saw the dead body of D1 near his fire wood shop.

28. PW4 is yet another eyewitness who speaks about the attack on D2 and D3 by the accused person. She obviously did not see the attack on D1 except noticing his dead body near the fire wood shop of PW3. Even in the cross-examination, the evidence of PW4 has not been discredited. Thus, there is a solid evidence in terms of eyewitness account of PW1 and PW4.

29. The next evidence to be taken note of is that of PW8. He is the owner of the Aaha Hotel. He has spoken about D1 coming to his hotel and eating chicken. He states that the accused person attacked D1 and D1 started running and he was followed by the accused person who continued to attack him with MO1.

30. The next is the evidence of PW9. He also speaks about the attack on D1 by the accused person. He was the one who was working as the master at Aaha Hotel. He states that the deceased was eating chicken in the hotel and at that point of time, the accused person attacked D1 and D1 started running and the accused person followed him and continued to attack him with MO1. The evidence of PW8 and PW9 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in terms of the sequence of events insofar as the attack on D1 starting from Aaha Hotel and just because the name of this hotel is not found in the rough sketch, that by itself will not discredit the evidence of PW1, PW8 and PW9.

31. After the incident, PW1, PW4 and PW15 had deposed that they informed for ambulance and the ambulance picked up D2 and D3 to Virudhunagar Government Hospital. In another ambulance, the deceased D1 was sent. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 shows that D2 and D3 who at that point of time were treated for the injuries sustained by them, were taken to Virudhunagar Government Hospital at about 8:00 PM. Ex.P8 also shows that D1 was taken to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital at about 10:00 PM. D2 and D3 were once again referred to Madurai Government

Hospital and PW1, who was staying at Virudhunagar Government Hospital, whose statement was recorded by PW16 at about 11:00 PM on

14.04.2013 and the FIR was registered. The FIR has reached the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai at 4.25 AM. Hence, there is no significant delay in the registration of FIR and sending the express FIR to the Court.

32. In a case of this nature, normally motive takes a back seat. However, motive has been clearly spoken to by PW1 and PW4. It has been corroborated by PW15.

33. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been acquitted in the earlier case that was registered in Crime No.58 of 2013 after the demise of his wife and two children by self-immolation. Therefore, it was contended that the motive aspect falls to the ground. The conviction or otherwise in the earlier case has nothing to do while deciding the issue of motive in this case. Admittedly, the case was pending when the incident took place.

34. Insofar as the evidence of PW19 doctor through whom Ex.P6 was marked, it establishes the grievous injuries sustained by D3. It is further substantiated by Ex.P13/postmortem certificate marked through

PW23.

35. PW19 was the one who gave the first-aid to D2 and the injuriessustained by her has been recorded in Ex.P7. It is further substantiated by PW22, who issued Ex.P12/postmortem certificate for D2.

36. PW19, PW22, PW23, who are the doctors have clearly deposed that the injuries sustained by D1 to D3 are capable of being inflicted with MO1. Eyewitnesses have identified the murder and have explained the manner in which D1 to D3 were attacked. In short, the ocular evidence is in line with the medical evidence.

37. Insofar as the arrest and recovery is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain discrepancies with respect to the place from where MO1 was recovered It is only a minor discrepancy and the overall evidence of PW18 read with the evidence of investigation officer PW25 clearly establishes the arrest and recovery of MO1.

38. In the considered view of this Court, a careful reading of the evidence of PW1, PW8, PW9, who are the ocular witnesses along with the evidence of PW19, PW20, PW22, PW23 coupled along with Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13, postmortem certificates, which are the medical witnesses and evidences, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The trial court, has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and has reached the finding and consequently, has convicted and sentenced the accused person. The same does not warrant the interference of this Court.

39. In the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.

[N.A.V., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

16.04.2026

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

PKN

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimantram (FTC), Srivilliputhur.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.