Kolanjirajan Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kolanjirajan Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal allowed; impugned judgment dated 28.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai) set aside; appellant acquitted for all charges; bail bond, if any executed, stands cancelled; fine amount, if any paid, to be refunded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution evidence — particularly the testimony of the relative eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2, which is mutually contradictory and hearsay in nature, coupled with the non-examination of the deceased defacto complainant and of any independent witness — establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to be in the nature of hearsay: PW1 claimed she and PW2 saw the appellant abusing and threatening the defacto complainant, whereas PW2 stated he heard about the incident and the damage caused; although the occurrence was in a crowded, busy area, no independent person was examined as witness.

Ratio / Principle

There are serious lapses in the investigation and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 & PW2, the projected eye witnesses, which do not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction against the appellant.

Key takeaways

Non-production of the damaged push cart (signed for in Recovery Mahazar Ex.P2 but never produced as a Material Object, with no reason or explanation given) and of the wooden log allegedly used in the attack (never seized) is fatal to the prosecution case.ratio¶56
The Investigating Officer, PW5, gave no acceptable reason or explanation for the non-production of the damaged push cart and wooden log and for the non-examination of independent witnesses; additionally, there was a delay in sending the documents to the trial Court.ratio¶57
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) CRPC — ACQUITTAL FOR WANT OF PROOF — Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), 07.10.2025, allowed Crl.A.No.1261 of 2022 and set aside the judgment dated 28.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, acquitting the appellant of all charges under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (Crime No.940 of 2014). Held: (i) the defacto complainant died during trial and could not be examined; (ii) the two eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 were close relatives (sister and brother) whose accounts were mutually contradictory and hearsay in nature — PW1 claiming direct sighting, PW2 admitting he heard of the incident — and did not inspire confidence; (iii) despite a crowded, busy locality, no independent witness was cited or examined; (iv) the damaged push cart signed for in Recovery Mahazar (Ex.P2) was never produced as a Material Object, the wooden log allegedly used was never seized, and PW5, the Investigating Officer, gave no acceptable reason for these non-productions or for the non-examination of independent witnesses, besides a delay in sending documents to the trial Court; hence the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Bail bond cancelled; fine, if paid, to be refunded. Defence counsel had relied on Seerangan v. Forest Range Officer, Salem, 2005 CRI.L.J. 987 (non-production of properties).

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 28.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; sought to be set aside via appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC.¶16
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai (trial Court) · 28.09.2022
Prior proceeding
Occurrence of 28.11.2014, about 03.00 p.m.: appellant quarrelled with the defacto complainant (idly-shop vendor), abused and attacked him, damaged his push cart worth Rs.4,000/- and threw it into the river, and threatened him showing a wooden log; complaint (Ex.P4) lodged same day at 04.30 p.m.¶28
Prior proceeding
FIR (Ex.P3) registered by PW4, Special Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.940 of 2014 for Sections 294(b), 352 & 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.¶28
Prior proceeding
Investigation by PW5, Inspector of Police: scene visit, enquiries, statements, Observation Mahazar (Ex.P1), Rough Sketch (Ex.P5); appellant arrested at 06.00 p.m. and produced for remand.¶28
Prior proceeding
PW5 filed charge sheet before the trial Court on completion of investigation.¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial: prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs.P1 to P5; defence examined no witness and marked no document.¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial Court conviction for Section 294(b) IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/-, default one month Rigorous Imprisonment.¶20
Prior proceeding
Trial Court conviction for Section 352 IPC with two months Rigorous Imprisonment.¶21
Prior proceeding
Trial Court conviction for Section 506(i) IPC with one year Rigorous Imprisonment.¶22
Prior proceeding
Trial Court conviction for Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 with four years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, default one month Rigorous Imprisonment.¶23
Prior proceeding
Death of the defacto complainant during pendency of trial for some other reason, so he could not be examined as a witness.¶52
Prior proceeding
As printed in the judgment, on conclusion of trial the trial Court convicted and 'the lower appellate Court confirmed' the conviction (reproduced as printed; see self_check note).¶31