Appeals against conviction under Sections 449, 302 and 380 IPC for the murder and robbery of a woman at home. The High Court upheld the trial court's reliance on last-seen evidence, identification parade, recoveries and forensic reports, confirming life imprisonment and other sentences.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 11.03.2025
Pronounced on : 02.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 and Crl.A.(MD).No.263 of 2022
Crl.A.(MD).No.263 of 2021
Raja ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Srivaigudam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ...Respondent/Complainant (Cr.No.246 of 2014)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment in S.C.No.145 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi dated 22.03.2021 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand Senior Counsel for Mr.Pon Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor
1/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
Crl.A.(MD).No.263 of 2022
Isakkimuthu ... Appellant/Accused No.2
Vs.
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Srivaigudam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ...Respondent/Complainant (Cr.No.246 of 2014)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment in S.C.No.145 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi dated 22.03.2021 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIM A, J. )
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 in the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in S.C No. 145 of 2017 by convicting and 2/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence U/s.302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s.380 of IPC.
(a) The complainant is the husband of the deceased
Gomathi. He was living with his wife Gomathi at Teppakulam Street, Srivaikuntam. On 17.06.2014, he left the house at 09.00 a.m. to visit Utchimahaliamman Temple to conduct a special prayer, while his wife remained alone in the house. He returned to the residence at 06.00 p.m. and found that the second and third room’s doors were open, and the television was switched on. Upon entering the fourth room, he found his wife's dead body in a pool of blood with a deep cut injury on her front neck 10 sovereigns of Mangalsuthra and 1 sovereign gold stud were 3/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
found missing. The studs had been cut and removed from her ears. He suspects that someone killed his wife for jewels worth about Rs. 2,40,000/-.
(b) He lodged complaint (Ex.P1) before the Srivaikuntam Police Station and the same was received by Ms.Dhanalakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.14) who registered FIR in Crime No.246 of 2014, for the offences punishable under sections 302 & 380 of IPC (Ex.P.11). She forwarded the original FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam through Special Sub Inspector Mr. Ananthamuthuraman at 20.45hrs and forwarded the copies to other officials. A copy was sent to the Inspector of Police, Srivaikuntam (P.W.18) for investigation.
(c) The Inspector of Police (P.W.18), Srivaikuntam after receipt of the FIR, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of witnesses Sankaranarayanan and Subramanian, he recovered blood stained earth (M.O.19) and ordinary Earth (M.O.20) in the presence of the same witnesses at 21.40 hrs under recovery mahazar (Ex.P.3). He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayathars Krishnaiyyar, Revathi, Ganapathysankara Narayanan and prepared 4/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
inquest report under Ex.P16.
(d) On 18.06.2014, he recorded the further statement of P.W.
1 and his daughter Lalitha, his son-in-law Raja Ramasami and recorded their statements. He also examined the neighbours and recorded their statements.
(e) Dr. Athishiyamani, (P.W.15) conducted post-mortem on
the dead body and found the following injuries;
External injuries
1. cut injury in left ear lobe about 2cm (ear lobe divided),
2. deep cut injury over the anterior aspect of neck from 5 cm below right side of angle of mandible, 10cm below the chin, to 5cm below the right mastoid of size (20x7x5cm) exposing muscle, throat major vessels, throat separated just below hyoid cartridge.
3. Abrasion 5x5cm over the left side wall of
the chest
Internal injuries:
Opening of thorax: No bone injury, lungs congested, petechial haemorrhage present over the lungs. Hyoid bone: intact. Stomach 500ml of undigested food materials. Heart normal in size, chambers empty. Liver normal size congested, Kidneys – pale. Intestine
5/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
distended with gas, Uterus: normal empty on cut section. Head: Hematoma 6x6cm over the occipital side of the scalp, no bone injury, membrane intact, no intra cerebral haemorrhage, Spinal column no fracture / dislocation.
Cause of death: Death due to shock and haemorrhage, due to injuries sustained.
(f) P.W.15 issued the post-mortem report (Ex.P.13). After
receipt of post-mortem report, the dresses of the deceased viz., Saree, Blouse, ash colour skirt and inner wear were collected by the Grade I Constable Hari Haraputhiran (P.W.11) and handed over the same to the investigating officer in Form-95.
(g) The Investigation Officer examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. During investigation, he found that some other jewels worth of Rs.5,55,000/- and LG phone of deceased were also found missing . The witnesses informed that somebody came to the house for repairing AC and they would have committed the offence.
(h) On 18.06.2014 at about 21.00 hours while conducting the vehicles checkup, the police officials stopped a motorcycle bearing
6/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
registration No.TN 67 M 5104 Bajaj CT 100 coming from north to south in which the accused were travelling. Upon enquiry A1 and A2 confessed about the crime and therefore the investigating officer arrested them in the presence of Mr. Sankarasubramanian, VAO and Sivasubramanian, Village Assistant. Their confession statement was also recorded under Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 in the presence of same witness. Based on the confession. He recovered blood stained knife and blood stained shirt, jewels M.O1 to M.O17 stolen from the house of P.W.1, and a toolkits bag from the vehicle TN 67 M 5104, Bajaj CT 100 bike, blood stained sandal colour shirt of A1in the presence of witnesses under recovery mahazar Ex.P6 to Ex.P8
(i) The Investigation Officer came to the police station with
the accused and the material objects at about 1.45 p.m, handed over the accused for remand. He informed the arrest of the accused to the P.W.1 and his daughter. A1 was identified by P.W.1 and stated that he came to his house for repairing the AC and identified the jewels stolen from his house.
(j) He sent the material objects through form-95 to the Judicial Magistrate Court. He also examined other witnesses and 7/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
recorded their statement. He sent requisition letter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to conduct identification parade. On 27.06.2014 at Central Jail, Palayamkottai, the Judicial Magistrate No-II, Sathankulam conducted the identification parade.
(k) On 14.07.2014, he sent a requisition letter through Head Constable Mr.Murugan to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam with a request to send the material objects for chemical analysis.
(l) On 17.07.2014, he recorded statement of other witnesses and on 21.07.2014 after completion of the investigation, filed a final report for the offences punishable under sections 449, 302, 380 of IPC.
(m) After receipt of the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam, taken up the case in PRC.No.79 of 2014 and he had issued summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused he had issued the copies to the accused free of cost under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the entire case records to the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, whereas the Principal District Judge after receipt of the same, made over to the learned 8/22
law.
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
I Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi for disposal according to the law.
(n) After receipt of the case, the I Additional District Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the defense counsel framed charges against the accused under sections 449, 302 r/w.380 of IPC and questioned the same to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claim to be tried.
(o) The matter was posted for trial. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.28 were produced, on the other side of the defense no documents produced, no witnesses examined.
(p) After full trial the I Additional District Judge held the 1st and 2nd accused found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 449, 302, 380 of IPC convicting and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo 9/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
simple imprisonment for three months for the offence U/s.302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s.380 of IPC.
Court, these present criminal appeals filed under the following among other grounds:
a) That the trial court ought to have seen that in the Rough Sketch Ex.P.15 the presence of Air Conditioner in the house of the PW1 has not been mentioned.
b) That the Trial Court ought to have seen that the P.W.18, who is the investigating officer in his cross examination, admitted that the cell phone number and the call details of A1 and P.W.1 were not investigated. Hence the very root of the prosecution linking the accused with the crime suffers from inconsistence and lack of evidence.
c) That the trial court ought to have seen that the P.W.7 in his evidence deposed that the death of the deceased was informed to P.W.8 over phone, then the P.W.8 came to the scene of occurrence and called the police and the police came to the spot within 10 minutes thereafter. Whereas, the P.W.8 deposed that, at about 7 pm returned to his house 10/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
after Court work and after reaching his house only he came to know about the death of the deceased. The above contradiction was not considered by the Trial court.
d) That the Trial Court ought to have seen that the P.W.8 in his evidence, stated that on 17.06.2014 at 3 pm, while he was leaving the house, he seen the 1st and 2nd accused leaving in their motor cycle in hurried manner. But P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that he left the home only by 4 p.m. In view of the categorical admission of the P.W. 1 it is highly improbable to believe the version of the P.W.8. This contradiction has been simply overlooked by the trial court without even any discussion, hence the conviction cannot be sustained.
e) As per the version of the P.W.1, he lodged the complaint at 8 pm, and only thereafter the police arrived at the scene of occurrence, whereas the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 shows that the police have arrived around 7 pm. The P.W.18 in his evidence, stated that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence at about 9 pm. The above contra statement of the witnesses has made the prosecution case doubtful.
f) That the Trial Court failed to see that P.W.10 in his evidence has stated that the accused produced the stolen jewels from the box of the motorcycle. Whereas the P.W.18, Investigating Officer has
11/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
stated that the accused produced the jewels from the petrol tank pouch. It has creates a serious doubt about the alleged recovery of jewels and weapon in the presence of P.W.10 is highly doubtful.
g) That the blood stains found on the M.O.22 does not
indicate the presence of human blood. Therefore, the recovery M.O.22 is not the actual weapon used in the crime.
h) That the trial court has failed to see the material alterations in the original complaint of the P.W.1 marked as Ex.P1 with regard to the time of the complaint.
i) That the trial court has failed to see that the prosecution
has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove all the necessary circumstances constituting a chain without any snap.
j) It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the presence of P.W 1 to P.W.5 at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful and the trial court ought to have discarded the evidence of P.W. 1 to 5.
k) That the Trial Court ought to have seen that there is enormous delay in the F.I.R reaching the court.
12/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
occurrence. P.W.9 also stated that the accused informed him that he was going to repair the AC at PW1’s house. After two hours, he saw both the accused return in their vehicle in hurried manner.
A. The circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain
leading to only one logical conclusion, that the accused committed the crime. That should be no gaps or missing links.
B. Evidence must exclude all reasonable hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused
13/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
C. Each piece of circumstantial evidence must be credible, reliable, and consistent.
D. Motive is an important fact to be established by
prosecution, but motive is not always required to establish against the accused to commit the offence.
E. Conduct of the accused can be considered as part of the circumstantial proof.
F. Multiple independent piece of evidence support each other to strengthen the case.
14/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
hearing the calling bell. He identified the accused when the Judicial Magistrate conducted identification parade in the jail. He is an independent witness. In the rough sketch, Ex.P15, the Investigating Officer mentioned that the house of Gurusawamy, father of P.W.7 situated next to the house of deceased.
15/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
of occurrence, stated that on the date of occurrence at about 1.30pm, accused came to his shop in a two wheeler and purchased water bottles. Upon enquiry informed that they came to repair the AC machine in the house of P.W.1. At 3:00 PM, they crossed his shop in a speedy manner. He also identified the accused in Palayamkottai Jail before the Judicial Magistrate in the identification parade.
16/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
on the dead body. He issued the postmortem report under Ex.P.13. On perusal it revealed that the deceased was brutally attacked by the accused, before they committed the robbery the main injury that caused the death was deep cut injury over the anterior aspect of neck from 5 cm below right side of angle of mandible, 10cm below the chin, to 5cm 17/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
below the right mastoid of size (20x7x5cm) exposing muscle, throat major vessels, throat separated just below hyoid cartridge. It further
revealed that the accused cut off the deceased ear to remove the ear stud in a cruel manner.
the Investigating Officer at the time of confession, the same was sent to the chemical analysis with the blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence, P.W.11 constable handed over the dresses worn by the deceased after postmortem, the same was received by the investigating officer, and the same were also sent chemical analysis. P.W. 12, Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Lab, Ramnathapuram, issued biological report (Ex.P9) stating that blood stains found in all the items except item number two (ordinary Earth).
on the clothes worn by deceased at the time of occurrence, bloodstained earth recovered from the place of occurrence, bloodstains found in the shirt recovered from the 1st accused belongs to O group
18/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
with the blood stain found in the dresses worn by the deceased. Normally control blood samples used to be collected and sent for grouping test to match with the blood group of the deceased. In this case the control blood samples not collected but it is not fatal as the blood stain found in the dresses worn by deceased and the shirt worn by A1 were subjected to serology examination and found them belongs to same group to show that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime.
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
the accused dress takes with the blood group of the deceased, thereby the serology report link the accused with the crime. The ocular evidence supported with medical and forensic document establishes the guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
and after scrutinized the records, found the accused guilty and imposed sentence, no contra evidence available in favour of the accused. There is no merit or ground to set aside the judgment of the trial court. Hence these appeals are deserves to be dismissed.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.) .04.2025
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No gvn/rm
20/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
To
1. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi
2.The Inspector of Police, Srivaigudam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
21/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
G.JAYACHANDRAN J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
gvn/rm
Common Judgment in Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 & 263 of 2022
02.04.2025
22/22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether circumstantial evidence of last-seen witnesses, recovery of stolen jewels on confession, and serology matching blood groups established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether contradictions in witness testimony and non-collection of control blood samples vitiated the trial court's conviction.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Raja
Isakkimuthu
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Srivaigudam Police Station, Thoothukudi District
G.Jayachandran
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
