P.Azhagesan Vs the State Rep.by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

P.Azhagesan Vs the State Rep.by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.20 of 2015 dated 22.11.2018 stand confirmed. The appellant, who is on bail, is directed to immediately surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and be confined to jail to undergo the sentence, failing which the respondent police shall secure and produce him; he is entitled to set off under Section 428 CrPC for detention already undergone.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal (S.C.No.20 of 2015, dated 22.11.2018) should be set aside. +4 more

Court's answer

The evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 clearly establishes that the accused (A1) alone caused the stab injury on the deceased amid the previous enmity over the pathway dispute.

Ratio / Principle

The Court disbelieved P.W.3's claim to be an eyewitness because P.W.1, in complaint Ex.P.1, named P.W.2 and one Arjunan as standing nearby rather than mentioning her son P.W.3.

Key takeaways

The accused's head injury does not prove that the deceased attacked him: Ex.P41 records only a simple injury; the plea that the deceased caused the injury was raised for the first time before this Court even though the accused, while cross-examining witnesses, had specifically stated he never sustained any injury at the relevant time; and his complaint was closed as mistake of fact.ratio¶74
The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be strictly applied to Indian conditions; a witness may improve or exaggerate certain aspects, and such exaggeration alone is not a sole ground to discard testimony otherwise proved by other evidence.ratio¶75
There is a difference between related witnesses and interested witnesses; related witnesses who would normally be present with the deceased are natural witnesses, and their evidence cannot be completely discarded merely because they are relatives of the deceased, relying on the Apex Court's recent elaboration of this distinction in K.P.Tamilmaran (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman, JJ., 12.11.2025) dismissed Crl.A.No.585 of 2019 and confirmed the conviction of R. Azhagesan (A1) under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.20 of 2015 (22.11.2018) for fatally stabbing his adjacent land owner Murugesan during a previous enmity over a pathway. Held: (i) the testimony of related eyewitnesses (the deceased's wife P.W.1 and brother P.W.2, with P.W.5) credibly fixed the stab blow on the accused — related witnesses are not interested witnesses, relying on K.P. Tamilmaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493; (ii) falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be strictly applied in India, so the acquittal of A2 & A3 did not erode the evidence against A1; (iii) the extra judicial confession to the VAO (Ex.P9) and the seizure of M.O.1 were disbelieved because the accused was already facing an FIR under Section 302 IPC and would have been in police custody, yet their rejection did not weaken the cogent eyewitness account; (iv) the accused's head injury (Ex.P41, simple injury) was attributed to a fall while fleeing, his counter-complaint/FIR being closed as mistake of fact; post-mortem findings corroborated death by sharp-weapon injury. The appellant, on bail, was directed to surrender forthwith, with set off under Section 428 CrPC.

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.11.2025

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

R.Azhagesan ... Appellant/A1

-vs-

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Belukurichi Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.63 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of conviction made in S.C.No.20 of 2015 dated 22.11.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal under Section 302 IPC.

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

1/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)

Challenging the sentence imposed by the Trial Court under

Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment, the present appeal came to be filed.

Originally, there were three accused in this case. A2 & A3 were charged for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and the 1^st accused

/ appellant herein was charged under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted A2 and A3 from the charges, whereas the appellant / A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 22.11.2018 made in S.C.No.20 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years. The period of remand already undergone by the accused was directed to be set off . Aggrieved by the order of the learned the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court

2/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

3. Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:

3.1. The deceased (Murugesan) and the appellant are adjacent

land owners and there was a previous enmity over the pathway. On 15.05.2023, while P.Ws.1 & 2 (wife and brother respectively) were standing in front of their house and P.W.3 and others were standing on the road, the deceased came in his motor cycle with a cane of milk. As soon as he got down from the bike, A1 to A3 came there and questioned as to why he is not allowing other land owners to use the pathway. A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and A1 stabbed the deceased and ran away from the spot. The accused, while running away fell down and sustained injury on the backside of the head.

3.2. P.W.2 rushed the deceased to the hospital in 108

Ambulance and the deceased was reported dead on the way to hospital. P.W.9 / Medical Officer had first seen the dead body of the deceased in the hospital and noticed 2x1 cm laceration on the left chest and sent the body to the mortuary. P.W.9 also issued a report (Ex.P15) and P.W.1 immediately lodged a complaint Ex.P1 dated 15.05.2023 before P.W.13, who registered

3/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

a case in Crime No.63 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P22 and forwarded the same to the Court with a copy to the Investigation Officer

(P.W.14).

3.3. The Inspector of Police (P.W.14) took up the

investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5), rough sketch (Ex.P23) in the presence of P.W.6 (Sahadevan), conducted inquest over the dead body (Ex.P24) and finally gave requisition to the hospital for conducting post-mortem. P.W.10 / Medical Officer attached to the Salem Kumaramangalam Hospital conducted post-mortem over the deady body and noted the following injuries:

“STAB INJURY OVER LEFT SIDE OF CHEST 4CMS BELOW LEFT NIPPLE AND IT IS SITUATED 121CMS ABOVE LEFT FOOT M-3.5x0.5XCAVITY DEEP (9CMS), EDGES ARE CLEAR CUT WITH ACUTE ANGLE.

NO OTHER EXTERNAL INJURIES SEEN ON THE BODY”

P.W.10 / Medical Officer issued Ex.P17 / post-mortem certificate and after

obtaining viscera report gave his final opinion to the effect that the

4/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury on the chest under Ex.P18.

3.4. In the meanwhile, while P.W.8 / VAO was in his office,

the accused appeared before him on 16.05.2013 at 9.00am and gave extra judicial confession (Ex.P9) admitting the guilt and thereafter, P.W.8 handed over the accused along with a special report (Ex.P10) to the Inspector of Police. Police examined the accused in the presence of P.W.8, recorded the admitted portion in the confession statement (Ex.P14) and seized M.O.1 from the accused under Mahazar (Ex.P13). Initially, P.W.14 laid a final report omitting A2 & A3 and during pendency of investigation, prosecution took up an application to include A2 & A3, which was allowed by the Trial Court.

3.5. In order to bring on the guilt of the accused, 14 witnesses

have been examined on the side of the prosecution, exhibited 42 documents and 6 Material Objects were marked. On the side of the defence, neither witnesses were examined nor exhibits marked. The Trial Court, after

5/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

analyzing the entire evidence and materials, acquitted A2 & A3 from the charges and sentenced the appellant / A1 to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the accused has filed the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. In fact, the accused also sustained injury on the head and he also lodged a complaint under (Ex.P34) and FIR (Ex.P35), which clearly indicates that only the deceased hit the accused on the head and thereafter, the accused was sent to the hospital. The certified copy of Accident Register (Ex.P41) shows that the appellant also suffered laceration. He further submitted that though prosecution projected that there was earlier FIR against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Crime No.63 of 2013, the accused has not been arrested and it was projected as if the accused himself gave extra judicial confession before VAO, admitting his guilt. Such theory is improbable and unbelievable. He also submitted that the Trial Court, having disbelieved the evidences of eyewitnesses, convicted the accused. Finally, it was argued that the

6/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that

eyewitnesses clearly established the guilt of the accused and the deceased was taken to the hospital by the eyewitnesses, whose evidences were corroborated medically through P.W.9 / Medical Officer. That apart, P.W.5 has also seen the accused, stabbing the deceased and running away from the place of occurrence. The alleged injury sustained by the accused on the backside of the accused was only due to the fall, which has been clearly established by all witnesses. Merely because the accused lodged a complaint later that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution and therefore, the Trial Court rightly imposed the imprisonment for life. The judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.

We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

7/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

Prosecution relied upon P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 as eyewitnesses

to the occurrence. P.W.4 has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and occurrence took place in front of the house of P.W.1 and the deceased. This fact has not been disputed. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that while she was sitting in front of her house, her husband came in a motor bike and unloaded the milk cane. At that time, the accused along with others, due to previous enmity over the pathway dispute, started quarrel with her husband and stabbed the deceased with M.O.1. On hearing his sound, P.W.2 / brother of the deceased, who was standing nearby rushed to the spot and took away the deceased to the hospital in 108 Ambulance. Ex.P.1 came to be lodged by P.W.1. P.W.3 / son of the deceased has spoken about the incident and P.W.5 has also seen the accused / A1 stabbing the deceased and running away from the place. From the evidence of eyewitnesses, it is clear that only the accused caused injury on the deceased. According to eyewitnesses, there was a pathway dispute between the deceased and the accused, who are land owners.

8/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

Admittedly, the deceased and the accused are neighbouring

land owners, which was nowhere disputed by the accused. Though the prosecution projected as if P.W.3 (son of the deceased) is also one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, we are not inclined to believe the said version for the simple reason that if P.W.3 really was an eyewitness, P.W.1 would have certainly mentioned his name in Ex.P.1, whereas she stated in the complaint that P.W.2 and one Arjunan were standing nearby the road. The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 clinchingly established the fact that it was the accused, who caused stab injury on the deceased.

Though much emphasis has been made to the complaint (Ex.P34) lodged by the accused to contend that only the deceased attacked the appellant on the same day at 6.00pm, pursuant to which, an FIR (Ex.P35) has also been filed and the accused was sent to the hospital as per Ex.P41, on perusal of Ex.P41, it is seen that the Medical Officer treated the accused and noted in the AR copy that accused suffered only simple injury. Be that as it may, it is the specific evidence of eyewitnesses that the accused, after stabbing the deceased, while running away from the place,

9/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

fell down, as a result of which, the accused sustained injury on the head.

For the first time the plea was raised before this Court that the said injury was caused by the deceased. It is relevant to note that when the witnesses were cross examined by the accused, it was specifically stated by the accused that he never sustained any injury at the relevant point of time. Therefore, marking of Ex.P41 in support of his injury will not help him any more. Moreover, the complaint lodged by him was also closed as mistake of fact.

The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court, having disbelieved the evidence of eyewitnesses to extend the benefit of doubt to A2 & A3, ought to have believed the evidence of the accused also. We are not in a position to accept such contention for the reason that the Doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be strictly applied to Indian conditions. A witness may improve certain aspects and give an exaggerated version and such version alone may not be believed by the Court by considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, however, that may not be a sole ground to

10/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

discard the entire testimony of the witness, which is otherwise proved by other evidence.

In the given case, admittedly, versions of eyewitnesses

clearly show that there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the accused and the presence of the accused on the spot was duly proved. After stab injury caused by the accused, the deceased was taken to the hospital in 108 Ambulance by P.W.2. The accused has not made any foundation to believe his stand that on account of the attack by the deceased, he sustained injury. In the cross examination, an attempt was made as if the deceased himself fell down on the rod kept in the farm to remove the husk (exocarp) of coconuts, but, however such stand is without any basis.

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that P.W.2 is a related witness, having familial connection with the deceased and therefore, his evidence cannot be reliable. It is relevant to point out that though P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 are related witnesses, there is a difference between related witnesses and interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are the one, who

11/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

have some motive or grudge to implicate the accused for some purpose to ensure that he is convicted without any reason, whereas related witnesses are the parties, who would be normally present along with the deceased in the house and their presence would suit to the circumstances. Merely because such witnesses happened to be relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be completely discarded.

We feel it appropriate to refer to a recent judgment of the Apex Court, in which the distinction between related witnesses and interested witnesses has been elaborately dealt with, in the case of

K.P.Tamilmaran vs. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493 , holding as under:

Another plea taken by the defence is that many witnesses who have deposed against them, such as PW-49, PW1, PW-15, are interested witnesses. PW-49 for example being the step-mother of Murugesan, the boy who was killed. Now, so far as witnesses being interested witnesses is concerned, it is a settled position of law that the Court cannot ignore the testimonies of witnesses only because they are close relatives of the victim. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 716 notes:

“28…No doubt that, merely because the witnesses are interested and related witnesses, it cannot

12/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

be a ground to disbelieve their testimony. However, the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinised with due care and caution. Upon scrutiny of the evidence of such witnesses, if the court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy, then there is no bar on the court in relying on such evidence.”

In cases where the crime is committed at the residence or a place near the residence of the deceased, it is the close relatives who are likely to be a witness to the crime. They are natural witnesses. This Court in State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512, while noting the difference between interested witness and related witness, observed as follows:

“6…By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. 7. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will

13/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously…”

A careful perusal of the post-mortem certificate Ex.P17

discloses that there was a cut injury over 5^th rib with incised wound over 4^th intercostel space and the injury corresponds to the injury no.1. Further, there was a wound seen over lower part of left ventricle M-3.2x0.5xcavity deep and the left lung collapsed. Thus, the post-mortem Doctor clearly opined that the death would have occurred on account of external injuries caused with a sharp weapon and therefore, a conclusion can be arrived at that the accused caused injury on the deceased with an intention to murder him, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR as against the accused has been registered at 10.00pm and the accused himself has gone to the Police Station at 10.30pm and lodged the FIR later under Ex.P35 and thereafter, he was sent to the hospital and treated for the injury, which fortifies the fact that the accused is in the custody of Police and therefore, the extra judicial confession Ex.P9 said to have been given by the accused to P.W.8 is highly unbelievable. We are also in agreement with the said submission.

14/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

Admittedly, FIR under Section 302 IPC has been registered against the accused and he himself went to the Police Station and later he was treated for simple injury (Ex.P41). Therefore, it could be inferred that the accused would have been in the custody of Police and his appearance before P.W.8 / VAO on the next day morning at 9.00am and confessing the crime cannot be believed and the seizure of M.O.1 is also highly doubtful.

Be that as it may, merely because the seizure of material objects from the accused has not been established that itself will not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of eyewitnesses, when their evidences were cogent and proved the specific overt act against the accused. Considering the nature of injuries caused and the evidences of eyewitnesses, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and we do not find any ground or merit in the appeal to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal

15/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

in S.C.No.20 of 2015 dated 22.11.2018 stands confirmed. It is made clear that the appellant / accused shall be entitled for set off in accordance with Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period of detention already undergone by him. As the appellant / accused is on bail now, he is directed to immediately surrender before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and on such surrender, he shall be confined in jail to undergo the period of sentence. It is further made clear that if the appellant fails to surrender before the concerned Court, the respondent police shall secure the appellant and produce him before the Magistrate and thereafter, he shall be confined to the prison.

(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,) 12.11.2025

Index: Yes Internet: Yes ar

Note: Issue order copy on 17.11.2025

16/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

To:

The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

The Inspector of Police, Belukurichi Police Station, Namakkal District.

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

17/18

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

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ar

Crl.A.No.585 of 2019

12.11.2025

18/18

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

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the conviction of the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal (S.C.No.20 of 2015, dated 22.11.2018) should be set aside.¶17
The court held
The evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 clearly establishes that the accused (A1) alone caused the stab injury on the deceased amid the previous enmity over the pathway dispute.ratio¶63
2.
Whether the injury on the accused's head, his complaint (Ex.P34), FIR (Ex.P35) and Accident Register (Ex.P41) show that the deceased attacked him first, indicating suppression of the genesis of the occurrence by the prosecution.medium confidence¶69
The court held
The accused's head injury does not prove that the deceased attacked him: Ex.P41 records only a simple injury; the plea that the deceased caused the injury was raised for the first time before this Court even though the accused, while cross-examining witnesses, had specifically stated he never sustained any injury at the relevant time; and his complaint was closed as mistake of fact.ratio¶74
3.
Whether the extra judicial confession (Ex.P9) given to P.W.8/VAO and the resulting seizure of M.O.1 are credible.medium confidence¶106
The court held
The extra judicial confession Ex.P9 and the seizure of M.O.1 cannot be believed: an FIR under Section 302 IPC was already registered against the accused, he himself went to the Police Station and was treated for a simple injury (Ex.P41), so it could be inferred he was in police custody, making his alleged appearance before the VAO the next morning at 9.00am to confess incredible.ratio¶106
4.
Whether the testimony of related witnesses (P.Ws.1, 2 and 5) can be discarded merely because they are relatives of the deceased.medium confidence¶86
The court held
There is a difference between related witnesses and interested witnesses; related witnesses who would normally be present with the deceased are natural witnesses, and their evidence cannot be completely discarded merely because they are relatives of the deceased, relying on the Apex Court's recent elaboration of this distinction in K.P.Tamilmaran (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 493).ratio¶86
5.
Whether the acquittal of A2 & A3 (partial disbelief of eyewitnesses) requires discarding the eyewitness testimony against A1, i.e., applicability of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.medium confidence¶75
The court held
The doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be strictly applied to Indian conditions; a witness may improve or exaggerate certain aspects, and such exaggeration alone is not a sole ground to discard testimony otherwise proved by other evidence.ratio¶75