Dismissed¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, v. Venkatesh Kumar

Madras HC11 Nov 2025CRL A/1741/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed State criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025) against acquittal of Venkatesh Kumar under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC for the death of his wife on 01.06.2018 at Pattabiram. Oral dying declaration theory rejected as PW14 found deceased unable to speak; injuries on accused and unexamined material objects/CCTV raised doubt; Section 498-A acquittal upheld based on Ex.P10 RDO report ruling out dowry harassment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused upheld. ¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused upheld.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC despite evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 regarding cruelty and demand of money/dowry. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not require any interference, since the cruelty allegations were not substantiated in cross-examination and the Revenue Divisional Officer's report (Ex.P10) ruled out dowry demand.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There was no eye witness to the occurrence; PW14, who reached the spot at the first instance, stated the deceased was not in a position to speak, making the theory of an oral dying declaration spoken to by PWs 1, 3 and 4 highly doubtful and improbable.

¶12

Key takeaways

The nature of injuries on the accused (cut injuries on chest and other parts beyond a self-inflicted neck cut) and non-examination of seized material objects forensically, including unfiled CCTV footage, create serious doubt about the prosecution theory; the defence version cannot be ruled out.ratio¶11
No merit was found in the appeal to reverse the order of acquittal.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State appeal against acquittal — Accused charged under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC for murder of his wife and cruelty — Trial Court (Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvallur) acquitted the accused — Held: acquittal under Section 498-A requires no interference as cruelty allegations were improvements not substantiated and RDO report (Ex.P10) ruled out dowry demand — No eye witness to occurrence; alleged oral dying declaration to PWs 1, 3 and 4 highly doubtful since PW14, first to reach spot, stated deceased was not in a position to speak — Injuries on accused inconsistent with purely self-inflicted neck cut; material objects not sent for forensic examination and CCTV footage not filed, creating serious doubt — Defence version cannot be ruled out — Appeal dismissed.

¶1

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.11.2025

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶7

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Inspector of Police Pattabiram Police Station Tiruvallur District ... Appellant/Complainant [Cr.No.681/2018] -vsVenkatesh Kumar ... Respondent/Accused

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C/419 of BNSS. against the acquittal rendered in judgment 13.09.2024 made in Sessions Case No.79 of 2019 on the file of learned Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvallur by allowing this criminal appeal.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

¶10

1/20

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶13

Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.N.Arunkumar

¶15

¶16

2/20

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)

¶20

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶21

The prosecution has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment

¶22

of the trial Court acquitting the accused for the charge under Sections 302

¶23

and 498-A IPC.

¶24

The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶25

2 (i) The deceased is the wife of the respondent / accused and PW1 is

¶26

the mother of the deceased. The deceased and the accused fell in love with

¶27

each other and they got married on 01.06.2017. Thereafter, they set up a

¶28

house at Ambattur. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused started

¶29

torturing the victim demanding money to purchase a separate house.

¶30

Therefore, a rental house was set up near the house of PW1 at Pattabiram

¶31

itself. At the time of marriage, 36 sovereigns of gold was given to the

¶32

deceased and three sovereigns of gold was given to the accused. As the

¶33

accused demanded for a separate house, PW1 gave a sum of Rs.15,00,000/3/20

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 to the land owner to purchase a property by selling 36 sovereigns of jewels,

¶36

remaining 7 lakhs was borrowed by the deceased from the Bank and the

¶37

accused gave only Rs.1,25,000/-. Due to some dispute between husband and

¶38

wife, they got separated, the deceased came to PW1's house. 2(ii)

¶39

Thereafter, the accused called the deceased under the pretext of first marriage anniversary and the deceased also went to the accused house on 01.06.2018. On that day, at about 09.30am, PW2, the landlord of the house

¶40

where the accused and the deceased were residing informed PW1 that the accused cut the deceased and attempted to murder her. PW1 and PW3, who

¶41

is the son of PW1, rushed to the house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with severe injuries and the accused also tried to commit suicide by self-inflicting injuries on neck. The deceased was grappling for life and informed PW1 and PW3 that the accused asked money from the deceased, as she refused to give, he stabbed and both were taken to the

¶42

hospital. Thereafter, Ex.P1 complaint was filed in the police station. PW14,

¶43

4/20

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 (Venkatesan), who is the son of PW2, was living in the first floor and the accused and deceased were living in the ground floor. On the date of

¶46

occurrence, on hearing the sound, PW2 rushed to the spot and saw both husband and wife lying in the pool of blood. On hearing the news from PW2, PW14 also rushed to the spot. The public also gathered and saw the

¶47

accused and deceased lying in the pool of blood and they were not in a position to speak.

¶48

2(iii) According to PW3, he also went along with PW1 and found his

¶49

sister in a pool of blood as also the accused with several injuries. According

¶50

to PW3, the deceased informed him that accused only stabbed her. PW4,

¶51

who is the friend of PW3, accompanied PW3. According to him, when he visited the place of occurrence, the deceased has informed that the accused stabbed her as she refused to pay the amount demanded by the accused. PW5 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and according to him, there was earlier

¶52

complaint alleging cruelty against the accused and the same has been

¶53

5/20

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 registered in Cr.No.153 of 2018 and PW5 advised both husband and wife to

¶56

lead a normal life. PW6 also accompanied PW1 to the police station and

¶57

gave Ex.P1 complaint and in his presence Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) was prepared and material objects MO1 to MO3 were seized by the police. PW7 has also seen body of the deceased. The police recorded the

¶58

confession of the accused in the presence of PW8. PW9 also signed the confession of the accused and put his signature in Ex.P9 (Seizure Mahazar).

¶59

PW10, the Revenue Divisional Officer, at the relevant point of time

¶60

examined the statements of the witnesses and gave a report stating that

¶61

death is not due to the dowry harassment and his report has been marked as

¶62

Ex.P10. PW12, who is the neighbour, also seen both husband and wife lying in the pool of blood. PW16 examined the deceased on the date of occurrence at 10.15 and noted the following injuries:

¶63

i) Cut injury of size 3 x 2 cm above the right shoulder

¶64

ii) Blood clot of size 10 x 2 cm in the front side of neck

¶65

6/20

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 iii) Cut injury of size 5 x 2 x 5cm in the right side chest

¶68

iv) Cut injury of size 5 x 3 x 5cm in the right side chest

¶69

v) Two cut injuries below the left side chest of size 5 x 3 x 5cm

¶70

and 3 x3x5cm

¶71

vi) In the upper abdomen two cut injuries of size 3 x 3 x5 cm and

¶72

4 x 3 x 5 cm

¶73

vii) Two cut injuries on the latral aspect of right elbow joint of

¶74

size 3 x 2 cm and 2 x 1 cm

¶75

viii) Cut wound of size 3 x 2 cm in the left hand

¶76

ix) Bone fracture in the left arm

¶77

x) Cut wound of size 3 x 2 x 5 cm in the right side of the back

¶78

xi) Two cut wounds on the left side hip upper part of size 5 x 3 x

¶79

5 cm and 7 x 3 x 7 cm

¶80

xii) Two cut wounds on the left side hip upper part of size 5 x 3 x

¶81

5 cm and 7 x 3 x 7 cm

¶82

xiii) Cut wound of size 6 x 3 x 8 cm on the upper side left hip and

¶83

7/20

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶86

in the right side buttocks

¶87

xiv) Cut wound of size 7 x 4 x 7 cm on the right thigh and old

¶88

wound scar was seen on her left hand and right thigh

¶89

PW13 (Dr.Muralidharan) has deposed that post-mortem was

¶90

conducted by one Dr.Rajesh and since Dr.Rajesh died, he is deposing on his

¶91

behalf. The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P12.

¶92

According to PW13, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due

¶93

to various stab injuries. PW17, after receipt of the FIR (Ex.15) registered

¶94

by the Station House Officer, went to the place of occurrence and prepared

¶95

Observation Mahazar and rough sketch and recorded the statement of witnesses and also seized blood stained materials from the place of

¶96

occurrence under Exs.P17 (Seizure Mahazar) and sent the same to the

¶97

Court under P18 (Form 91) and also forwarded the copy to the Revenue

¶98

Divisional Officer for further enquriy. PW17, sent the deceased to the

¶99

hospital and also gave a requisition for conducting post-mortem. After

¶100

recording the statements he has also seized the material objects from the 8/20

¶101

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶102

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 accused, namely dresses of the accused on 13.06.2018. He arrested the

¶103

accused at the bus stand after his discharge from the hospital, recorded

¶104

confession in the presence of witnesses (Pws 8 and 9), seized the material objects and sent the same to the Court and took steps to forward the material objects collected during investigation to the forensic examination. After completing the investigation, handed over the case file to the Inspector of Police for filing final report. PW18 finally laid the final report against the accused.

¶105

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18

¶106

witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P25 and produced

¶107

M.Os.1 to 8.

¶108

After trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the

¶109

prosecution has not proved the case and acquitted the accused. The accused

¶110

faced charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

¶111

Challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred

¶112

9/20

¶113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶114

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶115

the present appeal.

¶116

10/20

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 6. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that

¶119

the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of Pws 1, 3 and 4, who

¶120

have clearly spoken about where the accused and deceased were residing and the oral dying declaration made before PWs1, 3 and 4 has also been not considered by the trial Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted the trial Court failed to apply presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The motive aspect has also been clearly established through recovery and has also clearly spoken to by the Investigating Officer.

¶121

Heard Mr.N.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

¶122

respondent and perused the entire materials placed before this Court.

¶123

On a careful perusal of the entire prosecution case, it is seen that

¶124

the specific charge against the accused is that he caused cruelty on the

¶125

deceased and demanded money besides the accused has also caused her

¶126

death on 01.06.2018. Though the mother of the deceased (PW1) and the

¶127

11/20

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 brother of the deceased (PW3) have spoken about the previous cruelty said

¶130

to have been caused by the accused, in the cross-examination, the same has

¶131

not been substantiated. Their statement is nothing but an improvement for the first time. Even before the Revenue Divisional Officer (PW10), they have not made any statement regarding cruelty. In fact, the report of Revenue Divisional Officer (Ex.P10) also rules out the allegation of demand of dowry. Therefore, we are of the view that the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused from the offence under Section 498-A does not require any interference.

¶132

So far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused stabbed his wife repeatedly and thereafter he attempted to commit suicide by silting his neck. Though evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4, namely mother, brother and brother's friend were relied upon by the prosecution to prove the theory and they have

¶133

stated in one voice that when they reached the house of the deceased and

¶134

12/20

¶135

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶136

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 accused, after hearing the incident from PW2, the owner of the house, it is

¶137

the specific case of the PWs 1, 3 and 4 that the deceased was grappling for life and she has informed that only the accused stabbed her. According to prosecution, the said statement very well fits into dying declaration and the trial Court ought to have relied upon their statements.

¶138

13/20

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 10. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. PW2 is the

¶141

owner of the house. In her evidence, PW2 has clearly stated that accused

¶142

and deceased were residing in her house. On the date of occurrence at 07.00 am, the deceased went out and when PW2 asked the deceased where she is going, the deceased told PW2 that she is going to ATM to take the money. Thereafter, she did not know when the deceased came back. Later, only when PW2 heard the noise, she rushed to the spot and found both husband and wife lying in pool of blood inside the house. PW14 is the son

¶143

of PW2. His evidence would also show that immediately after his mother informed about the occurrence, he also rushed to the spot and public also gathered and police also reached the spot. PW2 and 4, who were the persons who reached the spot at the first instance, found both deceased and accused were lying in the pool of blood and PW2 has never stated that the deceased

¶144

was alive and grabbing for life. PW14, who reached the spot at the first

¶145

instance in the cross examination clearly stated that the deceased was not in

¶146

14/20

¶147

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶148

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶149

a position to speak and his evidence also clearly indicate that deceased has

¶150

not stated anything either to PWs 1, 3, 4& 14. Therefore, when the persons,

¶151

who reached the spot at the first instance, has seen the deceased lying unconscious and not in a position to speak anything, the theory of PWs 1, 3 and 4 that deceased gave a oral dying declaration is highly unbelievable. Though the prosecution has stated as if the accused attempted to commit suicide by slitting his neck, the fact remains that Medical Officer (PW16) who examined the accused, found injuries not only on the neck, but also noted several cut injuries on the chest and other parts of the body. The

¶152

following injuries were noted by PW16 over the accused:

¶153

i) One cut wound of size 9 x 1 cm in the front side of next ii) One cut wound of size 5 x 2 cm in the right hand iii) One cut wound of size 5 x 1 cm in the right side elbow iv) Three cut wounds of size 3 x 2 cm in the right hand v) Cut wound of size 3 x 2 cm on the left side chest vi) Cut wound of size 2 x 2 cm in the left side breast

¶154

Therefore, when a person has made an attempt to commit suicide

¶155

by silting neck, cut injuries on the chest and other parts may not be possible 15/20

¶156

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶157

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 by self-inflicting. It is to be noted that the case of the prosecution is that the

¶158

accused has made an attempt to cut his throat himself but injuries noted by

¶159

the Medical Officer is otherwise. Further, the prosecution has not made an attempt to find out any finger prints available. Though the material objects

¶160

were very much available and seized by the Investigating Officer, they were not subjected to forensic examination. This creates serious doubt. The accused has clearly explained that while they were in the house, some one barged into the house and attacked them indiscriminately. Though the Investigating Officer also in his evidence clearly admitted that he has collected the CCTV footage near the place of occurrence, the same has not

¶161

been filed for the reason best known to them.

¶162

Be that as it may, when the so called oral dying declaration

¶163

spoken to by PWs 1, 3 and 4 is highly doubtful and improbable, when

¶164

PW14, who reached the place of occurrence at the first instance, has clearly

¶165

16/20

¶166

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶167

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025 stated that the deceased was not in a position to speak anything, and she

¶168

never spoke anything either to PW1 or other two witnesses, the theory of oral dying declaration is highly doubtful. Therefore, merely on that basis, we are not in a position to believe the prosecution theory. The defence of the accused and nature of the injuries sustained by both husband and wife

¶169

cannot be ruled out. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal to

¶170

reverse the order of acquittal.

¶171

17/20

¶172

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶173

Crl.A.No.1741 of 2025

¶174

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.