State appealed against acquittal of 13 accused in murder case. High Court upheld acquittal, finding trial Court correctly disbelieved prosecution witnesses due to material contradictions with postmortem injuries and investigation flaws. Appeal dismissed.
Criminal appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal affirmed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRL.A(MD)No.138 of 2021
State rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.236 of 2011) ... Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
... Respondents /Accused 1 to 6, 8 to 13
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents / accused in S.C.No.441 of 2013 dated 07.02.2019 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and
1/11
them.
2 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
convict the respondents / accused for the charges framed against them.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.R.Anand For R-6 to R-12 : Mr.K.Veilmuthu
J U D G M E N T
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 07.12.2019 in S.C.No.441 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. By the impugned judgment, the Court below acquitted all the 13 accused.
The defacto complainant Shantha (P.W.1) is the wife of the deceased Muthu Pappa. The sister-in-law of the deceased was the President of Manakkadu Village Panchayat. The accused are the residents of Colony Street. A7 Arumugam, S/o.Chinnamadan had collected monies from several persons of Manakkadu and got them water connection without the knowledge of the Panchayat.
2/11
3 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
Arumugam was questioned by Muthu Pappa. Since Arumugam abused Muthu Pappa in a filthy language, Muthu Pappa with one Udhayakumar and his brother Solemon went to the local police station for lodging complaint on 17.07.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. They were waylaid and attacked with stones at about 5.00 p.m. near the bridge situated to the south of Manakkadu by Ganesan, Vinoth, Arumugam, Velraj and others. Udhayakumar and Solemon suffered injuries. Muthu Pappa escaped and came home. The injured Udhaya Kumar and Solemon lodged complaint with the police station. When at around 8.00 p.m., on the same day (ie.,) 17.07.2011 when Muthu Pappa was at his house talking to his brother Esakki Muthu, the accused Karuppusamy, Sudalaimani, Arumugam, Ganesan, Velraja and Vinoth came to the house of Muthu Pappa. When they tried to attack Muthu Pappa, to escape from them, Muthu Pappa ran into the filed. Some of the accused were hiding in the field. Muthu Pappa was wrongfully restrained. He was beaten with iron rods and killed. Shantha lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before Tirunelveli Taluk police station at around 23 hours.
Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 302 IPC. The Inspector of Police, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/11
4 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
Tirunelveli Taluk police statiion took up investigation. He went to the spot at around 11.30 p.m., and prepared Rough Sketch (Ex.P.14) and Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2). He examined the eyewitnesses. He arranged inquest to be conducted. Body was sent to Palayamkottai Government Hospital for conducting postmortem. Some of the accused were arrested at 5.00 p.m., on 19.07.2011 based on the confession statement of Marimuthu @ Vinoth. The weapons used for committing the crime were recovered under cover of mahazar. The remaining accused were also arrested in due course. After obtaining postmortem report and the serology report, final report was filed against the accused. It was taken on file in P.R.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli. Copies of the final report and other documents were served on the accused. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. It was taken on file in S.C.No.441 of 2013 and made over to the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 were marked. Incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/11
5 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
313 Cr.P.C. They characterised them as false. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 07.12.2019. Challenging the same, this criminal appeal has been filed.
arguments.
5/11
6 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
a) She named A1 to A5 in her complaint. Specific overt acts were also attributed to them. But in her testimony, she implicated A1 to A13 and also assigned specific overt acts.
b) In Ex.P.1 complaint, the place of occurrence was mentioned as house of the deceased. But in her deposition, she stated that the occurrence took place in the agricultural field of one Ponraj. The crime took place during night hours. In order to substantiate the assertion that the crime was witnessed, in the deposition before the trial Court, the witness introduced torch lights and street lights for the first time.
c) In Ex.P.1, it was stated that A1 to A3 were carrying sickles and A4 and A5 were carrying sticks. But during the deposition, P.W.1 stated that all the accused persons were armed with “Noka Kuchi Kambi”, a kind of iron rod.
6/11
7 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
and also the fact that there was delay in giving complaint and chose to disbelieve her evidence. There was also a gap of 200mts. between the local temple which had lighting facility and the place of occurrence. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge noted that what was deposed by P.W.1 in the trial Court was an improvement over her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
the accused. His evidence was also not in consonance with the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the manner of occurrence as well as the place of occurrence. Therefore, his evidence was also rightly rejected by the Court below.
not inform anyone about the occurrence till he was examined by the investigating officer. The trial Court came to the conclusion that his conduct was unnatural and his testimony was unbelievable. Ex.P.13
First Information Report was purportedly registered at 23 hours on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11
8 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
17.07.2011. But in the mortuary ledger, in the relevant column, crime number has not been mentioned. The dead body was admitted on 18.07.2011 at 1.10 am. If really FIR was registered at 11.00 pm., on 17.07.2011, certainly crime number would have been mentioned in the mortuary ledger(Ex.D.2). The FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate only at 12.30 p.m., on 18.07.2011. The distance between the police station and the learned Judicial Magistrate was hardly 2 to 3 Kms. The trial Court took into account the unexplained delay. The evidence of P.W.8 was also rejected because he was never examined during the course of investigation and no statement was recorded by the investigating officer. This was admitted by the investigating officer himself.
9 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
a change after seeing the nature of injuries noted down in the postmortem report. Only to match those injuries, it was projected that the accused persons used “Nokka kuchi kambi”.
10 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
judgment is not warranted. There is no merit in the appeal. This
criminal appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.POORNIMA, J.) 13th December 2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PMU
To:
10/11
11 CRL.A.(MD)NO.138 OF 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
PMU
CRL.A.(MD)No.138 of 2021
13.12.2024
11/11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons.
Whether the trial Court committed any error in rejecting the eyewitness testimony and acquitting the accused.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
G.R.SWAMINATHAN
R.POORNIMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
