it is a reversal judgment and the accused have to be heard on the question of sentence in respect of the mitigating circumstance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 12/02/2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.456 of 2019
State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.
(Thiruvannamalai East P.S.,)
(Crime No.691 of 2011 … Appellant
Vs.
1. A.Ravi
2. K.Devadoss
3. M.Ammurose
4. K.Ranjan
5. A.Venkatesan
6. K.Manjunathan
7. K.Karunanithi
8. V.Suryaprakash
9. P.Raja
… Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to call for records and set aside the judgment dated 21.12.2017 made in S.C.No.111 of 2014 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai and convict the respondents / accused 1 to 9.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Mr.P.Pugalenthi
*****
JUDGMENT P.VELMURUGAN, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 21.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.111 of 2014 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, whereby the respondents/accused (A1 to A9) were acquitted of the charges under
Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. Due to previous enmity between the parties, on 14.01.2011, the defacto complainant Vathukaran @ Elumalai (P.W.1) was attacked and sustained injuries at the hands of certain persons belonging to Adaiyur Village. In connection with the said incident, cases and counter cases were registered between both groups, which further worsened the dispute between them.
2.2. In the above background, on 23.04.2011, Ramesh, son of P.W.1,demanded repayment of a sum of Rs.3,000/- due from Lokesh, a resident of Adi Annamalai Refugee Camp. As the amount was not repaid, Ramesh took a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-03-SE-509, which had earlier been given to Karthikeyan, son of Ravi, first accused. On coming to know of the same, the accused developed further enmity against Ramesh. On 24.04.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., A1 to A3 came to the house of P.W.1 and criminally intimidated him and his son Ramesh with dire consequences.
2.3. On 25.04.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and his son Ramesh went to a digital banner shop situated at Tiruvannamalai Nagar, all the accused, due to previous enmity and with the common intention of murdering Ramesh, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as aruvals, knives and swords. On seeing the accused, P.W.1 and Ramesh attempted to escape. However, the accused chased and attacked Ramesh indiscriminately with deadly weapons. Due to the said assault, Ramesh sustained grievous injuries. Ramesh was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, where he was declared brought dead.
2.4. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of thedeceased / P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.691 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC against A1 to A9. After completion of investigation, the police altered the provisions of law into Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC and filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Magistrate, after complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, as the offences were exclusively triable by that Court.
The case was thereafter taken on file by the learned District and Sessions Judge as S.C.No.111 of 2014.
2.5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20, 42 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P42 and 16 material objects were produced as M.O.1 to M.O.16.
2.6. After completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which they denied as false. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.
2.7. Upon full-fledged trial and on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned District and Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 21.12.2017, acquitted all the accused holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents/accused (A1 to A9) of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC is against law, the weight of evidence and the overall probabilities of the case. According to him, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has erroneously acquitted all the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to take note of the sufficient and reliable evidence available on record to establish the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. The materials placed by the prosecution clearly prove that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and acted in furtherance of their common object. The trial Court also failed to properly appreciate that all the accused shared a common object and that the prosecution has proved the same through consistent and cogent evidence, thereby attracting Section 149 IPC.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that there is clear evidence to show that the deceased was wrongfully restrained by the accused prior to the occurrence and, therefore, the offence under Section 341 IPC has also been established by the prosecution. However, the trial Court failed to consider the same in the proper perspective. It is his further submission that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through sufficient oral evidence, documentary evidence, medical evidence and scientific evidence. The trial Court failed to cumulatively assess these materials and instead adopted a hyper-technical approach in discarding the prosecution case. He would also submit that merely because a few witnesses turned hostile, the entire prosecution case cannot be rejected. It is a settled principle that the reliable portion of the evidence of hostile witnesses can be relied upon. The trial Court failed to apply this settled principle while appreciating the evidence on record.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would draw the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1, who has clearly spoken about the participation of each of the accused, the deadly weapons used by them, the formation of unlawful assembly, the wrongful restraint of the deceased and the overt acts committed by each accused which resulted in the death of the deceased Ramesh. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the said evidence. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to consider the Post-Mortem Report, Chemical Analysis Report and Serology Report in their proper perspective. A proper appreciation of the said medical and scientific evidence would clearly establish the prosecution case. The failure to do so has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the trial Court failed to consider the admissible portions of the confessional statements of A6 Manjunathan, A7 Karunanithi, A8
Suryaprakash and A9 Raja @ Raman and the recovery of incriminating articles pursuant thereto, which clearly connect all the accused with the commission of the offence and establish their liability under Section 149 IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals that all the nine accused participated in the commission of the murder of the deceased Ramesh and, therefore, all the accused ought to have been convicted and punished by invoking Section 149 IPC. The trial Court erred in acquitting all the accused, including A6 to A9, despite there being sufficient evidence against them. He would also submit that the trial Court failed to consider the settled legal position that refreshing the memory of witnesses is permissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act and has wrongly disbelieved certain witnesses on untenable grounds. Further, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.16 and other material witnesses has not been properly appreciated, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law, perverse and liable to be set aside, and therefore prays that the appeal be allowed.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused submitted that the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused is sound, well reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. According to him, the trial Court has analysed both the oral and documentary evidence in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies. Several important witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. In such circumstances, the trial Court was justified in viewing the prosecution case with caution. The evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses is not wholly reliable and lacks sufficient corroboration from independent sources. Therefore, the trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The learned counsel also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the formation of an unlawful assembly, the existence of a common object or the specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, the trial Court rightly held that the charges were not proved.
8. The learned counsel would further submit that the alleged recoveries and confessional statements do not inspire confidence and have not been proved in the manner known to law. The medical and scientific evidence also do not conclusively support the prosecution version. The trial Court, after considering all these aspects, rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is his final submission that the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view based on the evidence available on record. In an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or wholly unsustainable, the appellate Court ought not to interfere. Since no such ground is made out in the present case, he prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. The specific case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmitybetween the parties, an earlier occurrence had taken place in which P.W.1 / the defacto complainant / father of the deceased Ramesh, was attacked by the accused party and sustained injuries. In connection with the said occurrence, cases and counter cases were registered between both groups and the enmity between them continued. As a consequence of the said cases, both groups were required to sign periodically before the police station as part of the bail conditions. In the said background, a further dispute arose between the parties relating to repayment of a sum of Rs.3,000/-. As the amount was not repaid, the deceased Ramesh took a two-wheeler which had earlier been given to one of the persons connected with the accused. On coming to know of the same, the accused developed further enmity against the deceased and his family and subsequently criminally intimidated P.W.1 and his son with dire consequences. According to the prosecution, on the date of occurrence, when P.W.1 and his son Ramesh had gone to the police station and signed in compliance with the bail conditions and were proceeding towards the town, all the accused, due to previous enmity and with the common object of murdering the deceased Ramesh, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as aruvals and knives. On seeing the accused, the deceased attempted to escape from the spot. However, the accused chased him, wrongfully restrained him and attacked him indiscriminately with deadly weapons, causing multiple injuries all over his body.
11. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20, marked 42 documents as Exs.P1 to P42 and produced 16 material objects. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.691 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with 149 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and taken on file in S.C.No.111 of 2014.
12. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant, father of the deceased and an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.1 has deposed that he is residing at Aadaiyur village and that the deceased Ramesh is his son. He has stated that he knows all the accused and that there was previous enmity between both groups even prior to the present occurrence. He has spoken about an earlier incident in which his younger brother was assaulted near the Mariamman Temple at Aadaiyur, and about the subsequent attack on him at his residence, during which he sustained knife injuries to his stomach and thigh and was treated at the Government Hospital, Puducherry. In connection with the said occurrence, he lodged a complaint and the opposite party also lodged a complaint, resulting in cases and counter cases. Both parties were thereafter required to sign periodically before the police station as part of the bail conditions. P.W.1 has further deposed that on the date of occurrence, he and his son
Ramesh went to the police station and signed in compliance with the bail conditions and thereafter proceeded towards the town. When they were near the bank situated next to the Corporation shop, A1 Ravi came there and on seeing him, the deceased Ramesh started running out of fear. The accused chased him and P.W.1 also followed them and witnessed the entire occurrence.
13. P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the overt acts committed by each of the accused. According to him, A2 Davadoss attacked the deceased with a billhook and inflicted cut injuries on the left and right side of the neck. A1 Ravi attacked the deceased with a chopper and slashed him on the head. A9 Raja also attacked the deceased with a chopper and caused further cut injuries on the head. A6 Manjunathan stabbed the deceased on the chest with a knife. A3 Amburose stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest with a knife. A4 Ranjan stabbed the deceased on the thigh with a knife. A7 Karunanithi stabbed the deceased on the right thigh with a knife. A8 Suryaprakash stabbed the deceased on the stomach with a knife. As against the fifth accused/Venkatesh, P.W.1 has clearly stated in the Ex.P1 complaint that he participated in the attack and assaulted the deceased with a deadly weapon.
14. According to P.W.1, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked his son indiscriminately. Due to the repeated attack by all the accused, the deceased sustained multiple cut and stab injuries all over his body and fell down at the place of occurrence. Immediately thereafter, an ambulance was called and the injured Ramesh was taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, where he was declared brought dead. P.W.1 then went to the Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station and lodged a complaint regarding the occurrence and the police registered a case and conducted investigation.
15. P.W.1 has also spoken about the motive for the occurrence by stating that his son had given a sum of Rs.3,000/- to a Sri Lankan refugee and, as the amount was not repaid, his son had taken a vehicle connected with them, which led to further enmity and threats from the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is consistent with the complaint given by him immediately after the occurrence, in which the names of the accused and the overt acts attributed to each of them have been clearly mentioned. The crossexamination has not elicited any material to discredit his testimony. His presence at the place of occurrence is natural and probable since he had accompanied his son from the police station after signing in compliance with the bail conditions. Merely because he is the father of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone. His testimony is cogent, consistent and trustworthy and inspires confidence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes the motive for the occurrence, the formation of unlawful assembly by the accused, their participation in the attack, the overt acts committed by each of them and the resultant death of the deceased
Ramesh.
16. Though some of the witnesses, namely P.W.2 to P.W.10, have turned hostile, and there was already a pending rivalry case between the parties which may have influenced the witnesses not to support the prosecution, the same is not fatal to the case. The fact that certain witnesses have turned hostile does not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case, as the offence has been established through other consistent and cogent evidence. It is well settled that the quality of evidence is more important than its quantity. If the testimony of a single eyewitness is found to be reliable and trustworthy, a conviction can be safely based upon such evidence. Merely because certain witnesses have turned hostile, the entire prosecution case cannot be rejected. The Court is always entitled to rely upon the credible and reliable portion of the evidence on record.
17. P.W.11 has deposed regarding the occurrence, though he could not state the specific weapons used. The incident occurred in 2011, while his evidence was recorded only in 2017, after a considerable lapse of time. Minor discrepancies or the inability to recollect minute details are bound to occur due to the passage of time and cannot be treated as material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case.
18. P.W.16, Dr. Kamalakannan, deposed that on receipt of requisition from the Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai East Police Station, he conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Ramesh, aged about 34 years, at the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. As per the postmortem certificate (Ex.P27), he noted the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. A cut injury extending from right neck 2 cm below right ear and 10 cm from midline to left side of neck 5 cm from midline wound crossing the midline of neck, Trachea exposed and cut.
2. Incised (punctured) wound on the right shoulder measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm.
3. Incised (punctured) wound on the right chest below the right clavicle measuring 3 cm × 1 cm × 3 cm.
4. Incised wound on the right chest, 1 cm from midline, measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm.
5. Incised wound on the right abdomen, 2 cm from midline, measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm.
6. Incised wound on the right thigh measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm.
7. Incised wound on the left abdomen measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm.
8. Lacerated wound on the right back measuring 6 cm × 2 cm.
9. Lacerated injury on scalp from right parietal region to right occipital region measuring 5 cm × 2 cm.
10. Cut injury on the back of neck extending from below right ear to left ear measuring 10 cm × 4 cm, bone depth.
On internal examination, he found fracture of the skull in the right parietal to occipital region. The trachea was exposed and cut. The cervical structures were exposed. The liver showed lacerated injuries, including one in the left lobe measuring about 2 cm × 1 cm and multiple lacerations in the right lobe. Other organs were pale. Viscera, including blood, stomach and its contents, intestines, liver, kidneys and hyoid bone, were preserved and sent for forensic and chemical examination. The forensic report revealed that no poison was detected. The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 12 to 18 hours prior to the postmortem due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by him. The postmortem certificate issued by him was marked as Ex.P27. The medical evidence thus clearly establishes that the deceased sustained multiple cut and stab injuries on vital parts of the body, including the head, neck, chest, abdomen, back and thighs, and that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from those injuries. The nature, number and location of the injuries, as spoken to by P.W.16, fully corroborate the evidence of the eyewitness regarding the manner of attack and the use of deadly weapons by the accused.
19. The defence has not seriously disputed the injuries sustained by the deceased. Their principal contention is that the specific weapons were not shown to the doctor and that the witnesses were unable to identify which accused used which weapon. Having regard to the lapse of time between the occurrence and the recording of evidence, such minor omissions cannot be a ground to reject the otherwise reliable and cogent testimony of P.W.1.
20. Though some of the witnesses to the confession and recovery have turned hostile, they have admitted their signatures. Even assuming that the recovery has not been fully proved, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case when there is clear and reliable eyewitness evidence duly supported by medical evidence.
21. The next question that arises for consideration is whether therespondents caused injury to the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.1, the eyewitness and father of the deceased, along with Exhibit P1, it is clear that the respondents actively attacked the deceased and caused the injuries from which he died. P.W.1’s testimony is consistent and is fully supported by the medical and forensic evidence. It shows that A1 to A9 came together as an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and jointly assaulted the deceased. All the accused were present at the scene and participated in the attack, which resulted in multiple injuries to vital parts of the body, ultimately causing death. Considering the evidence as a whole, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused are guilty under Sections 147, 148, 341, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The evidence of P.W.1, together with the medical reports, is reliable and trustworthy.
22. The trial Court, however, failed to properly appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and the supporting medical evidence, and gave undue importance to minor contradictions and the hostility of certain witnesses. Such an approach is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is therefore liable to be set aside.
23. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal dated 21.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.111 of 2014 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, is set aside. The respondents/accused (A1 to A9) are found guilty and are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
24. Since this is an appeal against acquittal resulting in reversal, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to hear the accused on the question of sentence, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances involved in this case, before pronouncing the sentence. Accordingly, while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and convicting A1 to A9 / respondents 1 to 9 for the offences charged, this Court directs the Registry to post the appeal on 18.02.2026 for hearing the accused on the question of sentence to be imposed on them.
25. Post the Criminal Appeal on 18.02.2026 under the caption “For
Question of Sentence”.
[P.V.J.,] [M.J.R.J.,]
12 / 02 / 2026
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation case: Yes r n s Crl.A.No. 456 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
This Court, by judgment dated 12.02.2026, found the respondents/ accused (A1 to A9) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them accordingly. Since it is a reversal judgment and the accused have to be heard on the question of sentence in respect of the mitigating circumstances, the matter was directed to be listed on 18.02.2026 for hearing on sentence.
2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, today, respondents/A1 to A9 appeared before this Court.
3. Upon questioning, (i) the first respondent/A1 stated that he is in no way connected with the case and that, on the date of occurrence, he was not present at the place of occurrence, as he was working elsewhere, and that a false case has been foisted against him; (ii) the second respondent/A2 stated that he has not committed any offence and that a false case has been foisted against him; (iii) the third respondent/A3 has stated that a false case has been foisted against him and that, at the time of occurrence, he was undergoing a surgical operation and was not present at the place of occurrence; (iv) the fourth respondent/A4 stated that he has not committed any offence and that a false case has been foisted against him; (v) the fifth respondent/A5 stated that P.W.1 has not disclosed his name during trial and that no specific overt act has been attributed against him; (vi) the sixth, seventh and ninth respondents/A6, A7 and A9 stated that they are no way connected with the case and that a false case has been foisted against them; and (vii) the eight respondent/A8 stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence, as he was in the hospital assisting A3, who was undergone surgery.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
respondents/A1 to A9, on the question of sentence.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the grave nature of the offence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved that respondents/A1 to A9 committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, respondents/A1 to A9 are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Since the respondents have been awarded the sentence of life imprisonment for the major offence, this Court is of the view that, in order to meet the ends of justice, no separate sentence is required to be imposed for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Since it is a reversal judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on respondents/A1 to A9 alone is suspended till the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal. It is made clear that, if respondents/A1 to A9 have not preferred any appeal within the stipulated period or obtained any order of suspension, the appellant/State shall take necessary steps to secure them to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court.
[P.V.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
18.02.2026 ms
Note :
(i)Registry is directed to issue copy of the judgment by today itself (i.e, on 18.02.2026).
To
1. The District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Copy to: The Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison,Vellore.
P.VELMURUGAN. J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
r n s
Judgement in
Crl.A.No.456 of 2019
12 / 02 / 2026