Muthu Raj Vs The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

Muthu Raj Vs The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 29.07.2025

DELIVERED ON : 15.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A. (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

Muthu Raj Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.121 of 2022 T.Muthu Raja Appellant/Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.475 of 2022 vs.

State, represented by The Inspector of Police Saptur Police Station in Crime No.78 of 2013 Madurai District Respondent/Complainant in both cases

Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.113 of 2016.

For Appellant Mr.K.Manavalan in Crl.A.121 of 2022

For appellant Mr.N.Chandrasekaran in Crl.A.475 of 2022 For respondent Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar in both cases Additional Public Prosecutor

- - - - - - -

1/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

These criminal appeals have been filed by the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.113 of 2016 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2021 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

Three accused were involved in this case. The trial Court, finding the 3^rd accused (Chinnasamy @ Anwarraja) not guilty of the offence under Section 212 IPC (which was the only charge framed against him), acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and further finding the accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 read with 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced them vide judgment dated 30.12.2021 as under :

Provision of law under which convicted	Sentence
376 IPC	Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo three years simple imprisonment.
302 IPC	Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo three years simple imprisonment (Fine amount of Rs.4,00,000/- ordered to be paid to the dependents of the deceased as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C., after expiry of the appeal period and subject to the decision of the appeal.
Section 201 read with 302 IPC	Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

Shorn of minute details, the prosecution case in a nutshell

is as under:

3.1 The deceased in this case is one Muthulakshmi who is alleged to have been raped before being murdered. Vimala (P.W.1) is the daughter of the said Muthulakshmi and her husband Vairamani (not examined). She gave a complaint on 14.05.2013 at about 4.00 a.m. stating that she, her younger brother Jagadeesh (P.W.7) and Muthulakshmi were living in a hut in their 4 acre field at Malayandipuram, and Vairamani, their father, was constructing a house at Chinnavandari Colony and he was staying there; on 13.05.2013, a little after 6.00 p.m., Muthulakshmi went to take bath in their motor pump set in the field and since she did not come back even after a long time, she, Jagadeesh (P.W.7) and her cousin Sumathy (PW 18-who was there in their house on 13.05.2013) went in search of her; finding their efforts futile, she informed her father Vairamani over phone, pursuant to which, Vairamani and Rasayya (cousin of P.W.1) came in a two wheeler and joined Vimala (P.W.1) and others in their search; while so, to the south-west of their well, they found bloodstained maize stalks crushed and broken; they also saw bloodstains all along their way, a bloodstained coir rope and a

3/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

wooden stick; fearing that something had happened to Muthulakshmi, Vimala (P.W1) and others went near the well and found the dead body of Muthulakshmi floating in the well; suspecting that somebody would have murdered her while attempting to rape her and thrown her body inside the well, Vimala (P.W.1) and her uncle Manikandan (P.W.2), went to Saptur Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 (complaint) on 14.05.2013 at 5.00 a.m.

3.2 On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P.1), Ms.Yamuna (P.W.20), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Saptur P.S. Crime No.78 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P28) which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate through Mr.Nagendrakumar (P.W.16), Grade-I Police Constable on 14.05.2013 at about 03.30 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.

3.3 Thereafter, Yamuna (P.W.20) handed over the case for investigation to Dharmalingam (P.W.21), Circle Inspector, who continued the investigation and based on the statements recorded from the witnesses coupled with secret information, he arrested the appellants/AA 1 and 2 and Chinnasamy @ Anwar Raja/A3 and during the course of investigation, he altered the case from one under Section

4/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

302 IPC to Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC read with 34 IPC against the appellants/AA 1 & 2 and under Section 212 IPC against A3.

3.4 On appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of Session, Madurai and taken up on file as S.C.No.113 of 2016 and later made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai for trial.

3.5 The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants and under Section 212 IPC against the third accused.

3.6 On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 22 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.43 and M.O.1 to M.O.20 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances against them, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. On the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document marked.

5/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

3.7 The Trial Court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, by judgment dated 30.12.2021 acquitted the third accused and found the appellants/AA 1 and 2 guilty and convicted and sentenced them as tabulated in paragraph 2 supra.

3.8 Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, the present criminal appeals have been filed by AA 1 and 2.

4 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that:

i. The trial Court had failed to take into consideration the contradictions and embellishments in the case of the prosecution, the delay in the vital witnesses informing the police about the grave occurrence and also the delay in their statements reaching the Court.

ii. Admittedly, majority of the witnesses are close relatives of Muthulakshmi. The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of Boopathy (P.W. 3) [wife of the cousin of Vimala (P.W.1)] who is said to be the solitary eyewitness to the occurrence of rape and murder. Strangely, she has not disclosed the same to anyone immediately after the

6/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

occurrence which makes her evidence highly unreliable and unbelievable; further, PW 4 and PW 11, who are said to have seen the appellants around the place of occurrence, have not disclosed the same either during the search of Muthulakshmi or immediately after finding her body and preferring the complaint to the police and are said to have dislosed the same to the police with considerable delay; in such circumstances, their testimony also is highly doubtful.

iii. Though the incident is said to have taken place on the night of 13.05.2013, Boopathy (P.W.3) is said to have informed her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) one week after the occurrence; admittedly, Lingaraj (P.W.10) who is the husband of P.W.3, was also a suspect in this case and in such circumstances, her evidence cannot be accepted on its face value since there was a possibility of her attempting to shield her husband and divulge suspicion towards the accused; under such circumstances, the trial Court erred in believing the testimony of Boopathy (P.W.3) and convicting the appellants.

iv. Nonexamination of Vairamani (Muthulakshmi's husband) causes a dent in the prosecution case.

7/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

v. Though several material objects were collected from the scene of occurrence, the report of the scientific analysis is inconclusive.

Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent, would submit that:

i. the accused, after committing rape and getting their thirst for carnal pleasure quenched and satiated, had assaulted her with weapons and after committing murder, had thrown her body into the well; though the material witnesses are stated to be the close relatives of Muthulakshmi, Boopathy (P.W.3) had categorically spoken about seeing the accused committing the crime and fleeing from the scene of occurrence;

ii. the evidence of Boopathy (P.W.3) is corroborated by the evidence of Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W. 11), who have seen the accused fleeing away with weapons from the scene of occurrence; though there is some delay in recording their statements, it is on account of fear of the accused and the trial Court rightly appreciated their deposition and finding that the delay is only on account of fear of the accused, had rightly found the appellants guilty of the offences.

8/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

6 . On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the appeals.

7 . Having heard both sides, to test the correctness or otherwise of the judgment under appeal, it becomes imperative for this Court to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses a little threadbare at the cost of prolixity.

7.1 Vimala (P.W.1) who is the daughter of Muthulakshmi and author of the complaint (Ex.P.1), after deposing as to in what way she is related to some of the prosecution witnesses, deposed that one Chellayee and Muthuraj (P.W.8) are her neighbouring farm owners and that they were residing at Chinnavandari Village from 2013; her father is constructing a new house after demolishing their old house and hence, her father was staying in the construction site; she, her mother Muthulakshmi and her younger brother Jagadeesh (P.W.7) were staying in a hut erected in their field; on 13.05.2013, Sumathi (P.W.18) her cousin had come to stay along with them and that her mother, after completing her household work, after 6.00 p.m., went to take bath in the pump set in their field; since her cousin was with her,

9/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

she did not accompany her mother and she and her cousin were staying at home; as her mother did not return home for a long time, she went along with Jagadeesh (P.W.7) and Sumathy (P.W.18) in search of her mother and intimated the same to her father, viz ., Vairamani; thereafter, her father and Rasaiya (P.W.9) also came to the field; Sumathy (P.W.18) intimated the same to her brother Rajesh (P.W.4) and immediately, Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W.11) came to the field and all of them went in search of Muthulakshmi; at that time, they found maize stalks crushed and broken with bloodstains and along their way, they saw bloodstains, a bloodstained coir rope and a wooden stick; fearing that something had happened to her mother, Vimala (P.W.1) and others went near the well in which they found her dead body floating; she (P.W.1) and her uncle Manikandan (P.W.2) went to the police station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) on 14.05.2013 at 5.00 a.m.; thereafter, she went along with police to the field and Dharmalingam (P.W.21) Inspector of Police, came to the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. and took the body of her mother in an ambulance. She further deposed that after arrest of the accused, Boopathy (P.W.3), wife of Lingaraj (P.W.10), came to her house and informed her father Vairamani and Manikandan (P.W.2) about the gruesome occurrence which she saw hiding in the maize field

10/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

on 13.05.2013 at 7.30 p.m.; Boopathy (P.W.3) told them that the accused 1 and 2 committed rape of Muthulakshmi one after the other and at that time, as Muthulakshmi yelled saying that she would complain to the villagers, the accused abused her and assaulted her with a wooden log and palai aruval; after Muthulakshmi became unconscious, the accused threw her body into the well; when Vimala (P.W.1) asked Boopathy (P.W.3) as to why she did not inform the same to her at once, she (P.W.3) replied that since she was scared, she did not inform the same to anyone and only after the arrest of the accused, she informed Lingaraj (P.W.10). Vimala (P.W.1) further deposed that thereafter, she (P.W.1) and her uncle Manikandan (P.W.

2) lodged a complaint with the police.

7.2 P.W.2 (Manikandan), younger brother of Muthulakshmi and

maternal uncle of Vimala (P.W.1), had corroborated the evidence of Vimala (P.W.1) with regard to the missing of her sister, search made along with the family members, finding the body of Muthulakshmi inside the well and the information received from Boopathy (P.W.3) about the occurrence after a week.

11/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.3 Boopathi (P.W.3) who is said to have witnessed the occurrence i.e., Muthulakshmi being raped and murdered and being thrown into the well, deposed that six years ago, during the month of Chithirai, she had been to the field of Muthulakshmi to get masala; at that time, she heard the hue and cry of Muthulakshmi; when she went there, she saw Muthuraj (A1) ravishing Muthulakshmi followed by Muthuraja (A2); when Muthulakshmi shouted, the accused abused her and Muthuraj (A2) assaulted her with a palai aruval and Muthuraj (A1) assaulted her with a wooden log and thereafter, strangulated her neck; while Muthuraja (A2) carried Muthulakshmi on his shoulder, Muthuraj (A1) caught hold of her legs and both of them joined together and threw her body inside the well and later, went towards western side; she did not inform this incident to her husband for a week and only after the arrest of the accused, she informed the same to her husband (Lingaraj-P.W.10) and thereafter, when her husband asked her as to why she did not inform him the same immediately, she replied that since she was scared, she did not inform the same to anyone; thereafter, her husband took her to Muthulakshmi's house where she informed Vairamani, Manikandan (P.W.2) and Vimala (P.W.1); on their instruction, she went to the police station and informed the same; later, she was taken to the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Usilampatty,

12/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

where her statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. was recorded and marked as Ex.P2.

7.4 Rajesh (P.W.4) who is Muthulakshmi's nephew, deposed that on 13.05.2013, his sister Sumathi (P.W.18) had been to Muthulakshmi's house to stay along with her cousin (Vimala-P.W.1) in the field; between 8.30 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., his sister called and informed him that his aunt, who had gone to take bath, had not returned; hence, he (P.W.4) went along with his father (Murugesan - P.W.11) to Muthulakshmi's field and on their way, they saw two persons viz ., Muthuraj, son of Mayan and Muthuraja, son of Thangavel, who were carrying aruval in a perturbed mood; thereafter, they joined their family members in the search for their aunt. He further deposed that at that time, they found that maize stalks were crushed, broken and found with bloodstains and along their way also, they saw bloodstains, a bloodstained coir rope and wooden stick; when they neared the well, they found the dead body of Muthulakshmi floating in the well and thereafter, he was enquired by the police, to whom he informed about the meeting of the accused by him and his father on the way to the field.

13/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.5 Amudha (P.W.5) is the Village Administrative Officer, Saptur and she deposed that while she was working as V.A.O. of Vandari Village, on 14.05.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., the Village Assistant viz. , Guruvan (not examined) informed her that the body of a woman was found floating in the well belonging to one Vairamani situated in Survey No.222/1 at Malaiyandipuram; thereafter, she and the said Village Assistant, went there and saw the dead body of Muthulakshmi, who was clad in red colour blouse and black colour inskirt and identified the same as M.Os.1 and 2. She further deposed that the Inspector of Police, Peraiyur, inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) and rough sketch (Ex.P.4), in which, she and the Village Assistant affixed their signatures; M.O.3 is bloodstained mud, M.O.4 is mud without bloodstains and Ex.P.5 is the recovery mahazar for recovering wooden log and coir rope, which were marked as M.O.5 and M.O.6 respectively (identified by her); Ex.P.6 is also recovery mahazar for M.O.7 (blue colour checked male shirt), M.O.8 (red colour inskirt), M.O.9 (white colour inskirt), M.O.10 (red colour plastic bangle piece) and M.O.16 (rose colour saree). She further deposed that Ex.P.7 is also recovery mahazar for M.O.17 (1 litre bottle filled with well water) and M.O.18 (1 litre can filled with water taken from motor pipe) which were also

14/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

identified by her; thereafter, the dead body was taken out from the well with the help of villagers and Ex.P.8 is the recovery mahazar in respect of Exs.P.9 and P.10 - photos of gold jewels; on 21.05.2013 at 4.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Peraiyur, contacted her over mobile phone and informed that the accused were hiding in a banana grove; after receiving the said information, she went to Peraiyur along with the Village Assistant and Inspector (P.W.21) and the Inspector (P.W. 21) arrested Muthuraj (A1), Muthuraja, (A2) and Chinnasamy @ Anwarraja (A3), who attempted to escape; the accused disclosed their identities and thereafter, the Inspector recorded their statements in front of her and obtained her signature and also the Village Assistant and those statements were marked as Exs.P11 to P16 which were identified by her; thereafter, they went to Malaiyandipuram field of Muthuraj (A1) and he handed over the clothes, which were seized under Ex.P.17 (recovery mahazar); her signature and the signature of the Village Assistant were obtained, which were identified by her. She further deposed that thereafter, Muthuraja (A2) handed over palai aruval and shirt under recovery mahazar (Ex.P.18) which were marked as M.O.13 and M.O.14 respectively and thereafter, the Inspector of Police examined her.

15/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.6 Velumayil (P.W.6) is a Foreman in the Electricity Board. He is the witness for the arrest of the accused.

7.7 Jagadeesh (P.W.7) is the son of the MuthulakshmiVairamani couple and brother of Vimala (P.W.1). He reiterated the evidence of Vimala (P.W.1).

7.8 Muthuraj (P.W.8) is a neighbouring field owner. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile witness.

7.9 Rasaiya (P.W.9) is also a neighbouring field owner. He is a hearsay witness.

7.10 Lingaraj (P.W.10) is the husband of Boopathy (P.W.3) and a close relative of Muthulakshmi. He is also a hearsay witness. He deposed what was narrated to him by his wife Boopathy (P.W.3). He further deposed that his wife told him about the occurrence only two days after the incident and that too, only after arrest of the accused and thereafter, he (P.W.10) and his wife Boopathy (P.W.3) went to Muthulakshmi's house and informed her family members about the occurrence.

16/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.11 Murugesan (P.W.11) is the brother-in-law of Muthulakshmi.

He deposed that Rajesh (P.W.4) is his son and during the month of May 2013, since it was a vacation, his daughter Sumathy (P.W.18) had been to his sister-in-law's house (Muthulakshmi's house) and on the date of occurrence, he got the information that his sister-in-law was found missing; he went to the field in search of Muthulakshmi with his son Rajesh (P.W.4) and at that time, he and Rajesh (P.W.4) saw the accused in the opposite side armed with an aruval and they were in a perturbed mood and they (P.W.4 and P.W.11) found the body of Muthulakshmi in the well.

7.12 V.Gurusamy (P.W.12), Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined to depose about the availability of power supply on 13.05.2013 near the scene of occurrence.

7.13 Dr.Sivakumar (P.W.13), Assistant Doctor, Headquarters Hospital at Usilampatty, deposed in his evidence that after receipt of the requisition letter from the Peraiyur Circle police, he conducted post-mortem on the body of Muthulakshmi on 14.05.2013 at about 2.30 p.m., and issued post-mortem report. He found the following injuries on the body of Muthulakshmi:

17/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

"1.Multiple Punchered wounds

(a)Right Occipital region 2x1x1 cms

(b)Below Right Eye 2x1x1cms (c)Above Right Eye 2x1x1 cms (d)Chin 2x1x1cms

2.Lacerated wound - Left Ear- Upper lobe tear extending from Right upper lobe downwards & back 10x2x1cms

3.Contusion over the Right Lateral aspect of Neck 7x2 cms

4.External Genitalia

a)Lacerated wound Left Vulva lower 3rd 2x1x1cms

b)Lacerated wound Right vulva inferior end 2x1x1cms c)Vaginal tear Lower end of Right side 2x1 cms Not extending to Skin. Semen like fluid present."

He sent visceral samples to the Forensic Science Department and after

examination, he received the viscera report (Ex.P.20). He gave his final opinion that due to head injury and failure of lungs and heart, Muthulakshmi would have died and the said report is marked as Ex.P21. He opined that since there were external injuries in vagina and semen was also found, there was a chance of Muthulakshmi having been subjected to rape before her death.

7.14 Muthulakshmi (P.W.14), a teacher and the owner of the

land in which the accused were arrested, is a witness for arrest of the accused.

18/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.15 Dr.Saravanan (P.W.15) who examined the accused medically, deposed that at the time of examination, no injuries were found on the body of the accused and he had sent the semen of both the accused for examination, for which he had given Ex.P.22 and Ex.P. 23 (certificates). He deposed that there is nothing to suggest that they were impotent.

7.16 Nagendrakumar (P.W.16), Head Constable, Peraiyur Police Station, deposed that he handed over the post-mortem report to the Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatty at about 21.30 hours on 15.05.2013 and also the vaginal swab taken from Muthulakshmi to the Forensic Laboratory, Madurai.

7.17 Hariharasudhan (P.W.17), Head Constable, Saptur Police Station, deposed that he handed over the requisition letter for postmortem of Muthulakshmi to the Government Hospital, Usilampatty and after post-mortem, he handed over the body of Muthulakshmi to her younger brother and the dresses worn by Muthulakshmi were seized under Form-91 and handed over to the Inspector of Police.

19/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.18 Sumathi (P.W.18) is the niece of Muthulakshmi and the cousin of Vimala (P.W.1). She corroborated the evidence of Vimala (P.W.1) with regard to the missing of Muthulakshmi and the complaint given.

7.19 Vijayendran (P.W.19), Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, deposed that he had examined four microscope glass slides handed over by Nagendrakumar (P.W.16) and after examination, sent the biological report (Ex.P.24) to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty. He further deposed that he conducted serology test and issued serology report (Ex.P.25); he conducted test on the material objects and found bloodstains on the clothes and thereafter, issued biological report (Ex.P.26); he conducted test on the material objects and opined in the serology report (Ex.P.27) that he was unable to give a conclusive opinion as regards the blood group.

7.20 Yamuna (P.W.20), Sub Inspector of Police, deposed that she received the complaint (Ex.P.1) from Vimala (P.W.1) and her uncle Manikandan (P.W.2) and registered a case in Saptur P.S. Crime No.78 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the complaint (Ex.P.1) and First Information Report (Ex.P.28) to the Inspector of Police, Peraiyur and other higher officials for further action and investigation.

20/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

7.21 A.Dharmalingam (P.W.21), Inspector of Police, Peraiyur,

deposed that on receipt of complaint (Ex.P.1) and FIR (Ex.P.28), he visited the place of occurrence on 14.05.2013 at about 06.00 a.m. and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.3) and rough sketch (Ex.P.4) in the presence of Amudha (P.W.5), VAO and Village Assistant Guruvan; on the same morning at 7.00 a.m., he recovered a 250 cm. long coir rope (M.O.6), a 48 ½ cm. long bloodstained wooden log (M.O.5), bloodstained mud (M.O.3), mud without bloodstain (M.O.4), bloodstained maize stalk (M.O.15) through recovery mahazar (Ex.P.5); on the same day at 07.15 a.m., he recovered a pink colour saree (M.O.16), red colour inskirt (M.O.8), white colour inskirt (M.O.9), blue checked men’s shirt (M.O.7) and red colour broken plastic bangle piece (M.O.10) in the presence of witnesses through recovery mahazar (Ex.P.6); he also recovered water from the well filled in a plastic bottle (M.O.17) and water from motor pipe filled in one litre can (M.O.18) under recovery mahazar (Ex.P.7); he recovered one pair of stud with pink colour stone with flower (M.O.9), M-size gold thali with Chokkar Meenakshi picture with one pair with Gundu (M.O.10) through recovery mahazar (Ex.P.8); thereafter, the above said jewels were returned to Vimala (P.W.1) as per the order in Cr.M.P.No.2802/2013

21/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

dated 20/06/2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Usilampatti, as interim custody; the photos of the jewels were marked as Exs.P.9 and P.10; in continuation of investigation, he conducted inquest on the body of Muthulakshmi at the maize field in the presence of the witnesses; Ex.P.29 is the inquest report; he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements on 14.05.2013 and thereafter, sent the body of Muthulakshmi for postmortem through Hariharasuthan (P.W.17); the post-mortem was conducted on 14.05.2013 at 02.30 p.m. at the Government Hospital, Usilampatti; the post-mortem report was marked as Ex.P.19; the viscera report was marked as Ex.P.20; the final opinion of Dr. Sivakumar (P.W.13) was marked as Ex.P.21 and on 16.05.2013, sperm slides were taken from the body and sent to the Forensic Department for analysis; on 20.05.2013, he examined PW6 to PW9 and recorded their statements; further, on a tip off, he went to the vacant field of Muthulakshmi (P.W. 14) at KKG Nagar, where one lorry TN-67-X-9679 was hidden inside the Karuvela trees; he found the accused in the lorry and arrested them on 21.05.2013 at 04.00 a.m., in the presence of Amudha (P.W. 5), VAO and Village Assistant; during investigation, all the three accused gave voluntary confession, which was recorded in the presence of Amudha (P.W.5), VAO and Village Assistant; the admitted

22/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

portions of the confession statement of the accused were marked as Exs.P.37, P.39 and P.40 respectively; on the basis of the admitted portions of the confession, on 21.05.2013 at about 08.00 a.m., he recovered lorry TN-67-X-9679 (M.O.20) through recovery mahazar (Ex.P.39); he also recovered bloodstained small checked blue color lungi (M.O.11) and bloodstained cement colour blue colour brown colour with light black colour half sleeved shirt (M.O.12) at the maize field of Muthuraj (A1) through recovery mahazar (Ex.P.17); he also recovered bloodstained yellow colour border with green colour cotton dhoti (M.O.19), bloodstained white colour half shirt (M.O.14) and a 33 cm. long palai aruval (M.O.13) in the maize field of Muthuraja (A2) at Malayandipuram, Annaikaraipatti through recovery mahazar as Ex.P18.

7.22 Dharmalingam (P.W.21) further deposed that during investigation, Boopathi (P.W.3) who is said to have witnessed the occurrence, stated that she saw the occurrence hiding in the maize field on 13.05.2015 at about 07.30 p.m.; as she was scared, she did not inform the occurrence to anyone immediately and after arrest of the accused, she informed the same to her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10); thereafter, both of them informed the same to Vimala (P.W.1), her relatives and the police; in the meantime, Muthuraj (A1) and

23/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

Muthuraja (A2) were sent for medical examination; the medical certificates in respect of Muthuraj (A1) and Muthuraja (A2) issued by Dr.Saravanan (P.W.15) were marked as Exs.P.22 and P.23 respectively; the material objects were sent to Forensic Department for analysis; the report of semen analysis is marked as Ex.P.24 and serology report is marked as Ex.P.25; further, the dress, weapons, mud and maize stalk were also analyzed and the biological report in respect of the same is marked as Ex.P.26; serology report is marked as Ex.P27; thereafter, he (P.W.21) was transferred.

7.23 Shanmugam (P.W.22), Inspector of Police, deposed that since Dharmalingam (P.W.21) was transferred, he took up further investigation and examined Dr.Sivakumar (P.W.13) and Vijayendran (P.W.19), Assistant Director of Forensic Department and recorded their statements; after completing the investigation, he filed a final report against Muthuraj (A1) and Muthuraja (A2) for the offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC read with 34 IPC and as against Chinnasamy @ Anwarraja (A3) for the offence under Section 212 IPC.

8 . Now, the points that emerge for consideration in the instant appeals are as follows:

24/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

i.

i. whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt; and

ii. whether the Trial Court is right in convicting and sentencing Muthuraj (A1) and Muthuraja (A2) as stated in paragraph 2, supra.

9 . Muthulakshmi, who is the deceased in this case is a 40 year old lady and on 13.05.2013, at about 07.30 p.m., she went to take bath in the well in her field and since she did not return to her house even after a long time, her family members went in search of her and eventually, they found the body of Muthulakshmi in the well on the night of 13.05.2013 and on the next day, at around 5.00 a.m. Vimala (P.W.1) and Manikandan (P.W.2) gave a complaint to Saptur Police Station. After investigation, all the three accused were arrested by the police. Muthuraj (A1) and Muthuraja (A2) were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC and Chinnasamy @ Anwarraja (A3) was prosecuted for the offence under Section 212 IPC . The trial Court, relying on the evidence of Boopathy (P.W.3), who is said to have witnessed the occurrence on the night of 13.05.2013 and also on the basis of the evidence of Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W.11), who are said to have seen the accused near the place of occurrence armed with aruval in a perturbed mood,

25/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

acquitted Chinnasamy @ Anwarraja (A3) and convicted and sentenced Muthuraj (A1) and Muthuraja (A2) as set out in paragraph 2, supra.

10. Concededly, even according to Boopathy (P.W.3), a close relative of Muthulakshmi and the sole eyewitness to the occurrence, out of fear, she did not divulge about the occurrence to anybody for a week fearing reprisal by the accused and she first divulged about the occurrence to her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) only after a week after the accused were arrested by the police, after which, they (P.W.3 and P.W.10) went to the house of Muthulakshmi and informed about the incident to Vairamani, Vimala (P.W.1) and Manikandan (P.W.2). Further, Boopathy (P.W.3) is said to have divulged about the occurrence to the police only on 21.05.2013 after which her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatty, on 28.06.2013. As already stated, since the Trial Court has convicted the appellants inter alia on the basis of the deposition of Boopathy (P.W.3), sole eyewitness to the occurrence, Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W.11), it becomes all the more necessary for this Court to carefully analyse whether the depositions of Boopathy (P.W.3), Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W.11) which are pivotal and assume greater significance, are cogent, reliable, trustworthy and inspire the confidence of this Court.

26/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

11. At the cost of repetition, this Court points out that it is the clear-cut deposition of Boopathy (P.W.3) that owing to fear, she divulged about the occurrence to her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) only after a week. At this juncture, it is apropos to note that Boopathy (P.W.3), in her cross-examination, candidly admitted that her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) was also taken to the police station on suspicion and he, along with Muthuraj (P.W.8) and Murugesan (P.W.11), was kept under custody and examined on suspicion. Having been an eyewitness to the occurrence and especially when her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) was taken to the police station on suspicion, it is beyond the ken of this Court as to why she did not divulge about the occurrence to anyone. Further, what Boopathy (P.W.3) has kept within herself is not a simple issue but a rape of her close relative by two persons followed by murder of the same person. That apart, it is highly unnatural for a close relative who had seen a ghastly crime to keep quiet without disclosing the same to anyone out of fear. In fact, at least, to save her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10) from the clutches of police, she could have very well tipped off the police and nothing prevented her from doing so, except her unfounded and baseless fear. This Court is unable to understand as to how a prudent person can abstain from divulging

27/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

about the rape not by one, but by two, consecutively, followed by murder of the same person.

12. It is also noteworthy that while it is the deposition of Boopathy (P.W.3) that she divulged about the occurrence to Lingaraj (P.W.10) after a week, it is the categorical deposition of Lingaraj (P.W. 10) that his wife told him about the occurrence after two days. In the considered opinion of this Court, this variation and inconsistency in the deposition of Boopathy (P.W.3) and Lingaraj (P.W.10), makes their testimony doubtful and shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case and hence, this variation and inconsistency cannot be slightly brushed aside. Under such circumstances, the evidence of Boopathy (P.W.3) cannot be accepted on its face value, as there exists a real possibility of her attempting to shield her husband Lingaraj (P.W.10).

13. Next, it is the case of the prosecution that Rajesh (P.W.4), Muthulakshmi's nephew and Murugesan (P.W.11), Muthulakshmi's brother-in-law, reportedly saw the accused near the scene of occurrence and around the time of occurrence. It is pertinent to observe that though they were said to have seen the accused armed with an aruval in a tensed mood near the place of occurrence and

28/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

around the time of occurrence, it is only Rajesh (P.W.4), that too during investigation by the police, who had disclosed the same to the police and Murugesan (P.W.11) had not disclosed anything about having seen the accused near the place of occurrence and around the time of occurrence while he was kept in police custody on suspicion and this crucial aspect, in the considered opinion of this Court, causes a grave suspicion resulting in a dent in the case of the prosecution.

14. Another important aspect which is to be taken note of is that Vairamani, Muthulakshmi's husband, was not examined on the prosecution side. No doubt, he was not staying with his family comprising Muthulakshmi, his daughter Vimala (P.W.1) and his son Jagadeesh (P.W.7) because of the fact that he was constructing a house near the place of occurrence. But, that, by itself, cannot be a good reason for not examining him. Supposing he was not a part of the search team, it can be, to some extent, said that he was not examined. To be noted, on the contrary, upon being informed by Vimala (P.W.1) about the missing of Muthulakshmi, Vairamani, along with Rasayya (P.W.9), had rushed and joined the hunt for Muthulakshmi. It is beyond the apprehension of this Court as to why Vairamani (Muthulakshmi's husband) was not examined when her

29/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

other relatives were examined on the side of the prosecution.

15. Next, it is no doubt true that Dr.Sivakumar (P.W.13) had opined that due to external injuries found in Muthulakshmi's vagina and the presence of semen in it, there was a chance of Muthulakshmi having been subjected to rape before her death and the vaginal swab was also sent for examination. It is also not in dispute that Vijayendran (P.W.19) deposed that he found semen in the slides. But, concededly, Vijayendran (P.W.19) has not given an opinion, much less a conclusive opinion, as to whether the semen in the slides matched with the semen of the accused which were also sent for examination. Thus, this Court has no incertitude in observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to adduce sufficient scientific or forensic evidence to prove their case.

16. According to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer used the services of fire service department personnel, photographer and sniffer dog for bringing the appellants to book. But, neither any of the fire service personnel nor the photographer was examined by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is constrained to observe that there does exist a defect in the investigation with regard to the

30/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

scientific aspect.

17. Apart from the above, there is a delay in sending the statements of the witnesses to the Court which aspect also creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Superadded, there are several missing links and doubts which is indeed a remissness in the investigation.

18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to advert to the judgment of the Apex Court in PARAMJEET SINGH @ PAMMA V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [(2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 439) , wherein,

on the standard of proof in a criminal trial, it was held as follows:

"Legal Issues

Standard of Proof:

A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal

31/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide :Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Anr., AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).

In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1957 SC 637), this Court observed :

"12......Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between may be true' and must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence [before an accused can be convicted]."

Thus, the law on the point may be summarised to the effect that in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

19. Applying the above principle laid down by the Apex Court

as regards standard of proof in a criminal trial and on a careful appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of Boopathy (P.W.3), Rajesh (P.W.4) and Murugesan (P.W.11), we come to the conclusion that their testimonies

32/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

are highly doubtful and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants based on the unreliable evidence of Boopathy (P.W.3) which is not corroborated by medical or forensic evidence.

20. In view of the above discussion, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the appellants/A1 and A2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges. Bail bond, if any executed by the appellants, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them.

21. In the result, the impugned the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2021 made in S.C.No.113 of 2016 by the Trial Court is set aside and as a sequel, these criminal appeals stand allowed.

(A.D.J.C., J.) (R.P., J.) 15.10.2025

raa/cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

33/34

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

Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

and

R.POORNIMA, J.

raa/cad

To:

The Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram Madurai

The Inspector of Police Saptur Police Station Madurai District

The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

Pre-delivery common judgment in Crl.A(MD)Nos.121 and 475 of 2022

10.2025

34/34

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