Victim's wife and State appealed against acquittal of five accused of murder. The High Court found interpolations in the complaint, contradictions in last seen evidence, unproved motive and doubtful confession-based recoveries; the chain of circumstances was broken, so it declined to disturb the acquittal.
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.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.02.2025
Pronounced on : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
Crl.A(MD)No.294 of 2020: Easwari
.. Appellant/Victim Vs.
1.Gopal @ Karungopal 2.Kanniyappan 3.Gurusamy @ Palkara Gurursamy @ Kakkayan 4.Senthilkumar @ Senthil 5.Malayali .. Respondents 1 to 5 / A1 to A5 6. State through, The Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, Karur District. (In Crime No.39/2018) .. 6th Respondent/Complainant
_____________ Page No. 1/22
PRAYER:
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 07.07.2020 in S.C.No.25 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur and to set aside the acquittal order passed against the accused Nos.1 to 5.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Ananda Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for M/s.APN Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
for R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Kirubakaran for R3 & R4 :Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar for R5 :Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R6
Crl.A(MD)No.476 of 2021:
The Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, (Crime No.39/2018) State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.. Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.Gopal @ Karungopal
_____________ Page No. 2/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
4.Senthilkumar @ Senthil
5.Malayali
.. Respondents / A1 to A5
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(a)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 07.07.2020 in S.C.No.25 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and
R.POORNIMA, J.
Crl.A(MD)No.294 of 2020 is filed by PW-1/wife of the
deceased. Crl.A(MD)No.467 of 2021 is filed by the State. These two Criminal Appeals are against the judgement of acquittal passed on 07.07.2020 in S.C.No.25 of 2019 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur.
Page No. 3/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
3.Thiru. Rajmohan, the Inspector of Police (PW-17) took up the investigation, went to the spot, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P-23) and rough sketch (Ex.P-24). Conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-25). Sent the body of Amalraj to the Government Hospital, Karur with request letter to conduct autopsy. Suspected incriminating materials like blood stained soil, empty liquor bottles and the two wheeler bearing registration No: DL 6 SR 7168 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-26.
_____________ Page No. 4/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
5.On the same day, at about 14.30 hours, Senthilkumar (A-4) and Malayali (A-5) were arrested near Uppidaimangalam – Santhaipettai Gate, while both were proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Registration No:TN-59-BE-4885 Honda City 110 DREAM. They both confessed their guilt and the receipt of Rs.25,000/- each from Gurusamy (A-3) for assisting A-1 to A-3 to kill Amalaraj. The two wheeler and the money were recovered from them under Mahazar Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-14.
_____________ Page No. 5/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
_____________ Page No. 6/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
East near Madukarai TASMAC shop. Then, near Munaiyanoor turn, he saw Amalaraj( deceased), A-1 to A-3 coming in two wheelers from West. Next day, Amalraj was found dead in the land of Pichaimuthu.
1.tyJgf;f bew;wpapy; 7x 2cm
_____________ Page No. 7/22
2.,lJ gf;f bew;wpapy; 5x 2cm
2.,lJ gf;f bew;wpapy; 5x 2cm
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
3.tyJ gf;f fd;dj;jpd; nkw;g[wj;jpd; cs; gFjpapy; 3x 2cm
4.,lg;gf;f fd;dj;jpd; nkw;gFjpapd; btspg;gFjpapy; 4x 2cm fhzg;gl;lJ.
10.In his postmortem report Ex.P-20, he had opined that the death
could have occurred due to shock and haemorrhage sustained due to neck injury. Rigor mortis passed off. The lab reports, Ex.P-38 and Ex.P-39 though found human blood in the sample collected, the serology test was inconclusive regarding the group.
11.PW-12 to PW-15 are the police constables, who assisted PW-17,
the Investigating Officer in the investigation. PW-18 is the Inspector, who succeeded PW-17, completed the investigation and filed the final report.
12.The trial Court found that being a case of circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory without break in the chain. The contradiction among the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the interpolation in the complaint correcting
_____________ Page No. 8/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
the name and adding the word few others, delay in lodging the complaint had created doubt about the first information. Hence, the accused were acquitted for want of proof beyond doubt.
13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, in support of the appeal against acquittal submitted that, the deceased Amalraj borrowed money from Krishnan few years back and in the money transaction, there was dispute between Amalraj and Krishnan. In that dispute, Krishnan was murdered. Being enraged by this, A-1 and A-2, who are the brothers of Krishnan, met during the death of Krishnan’s wife hatched conspiracy along with A-3 to A-5 to kill Amalraj. A-3 agreed to arrange for the murder and received money from A-1. Thereafter, on 26.02.2018, A-1 to A-3 went to the house of the deceased and took him to an isolated place by deceit. A-5, offered liquor to Amalraj, on consumption of liquor, Amalraj fell inebriated. Taking advantage, A-4 and A-5 held the legs of the deceased; A-1 and A-2 held the hands of the deceased. A-3 cut the throat of the deceased with soori knife-M.O 3.
_____________ Page No. 9/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
14.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 40 exhibits and 23 material objects.
15.Through these evidence the motive, last seen, medical
evidence and recovery on confession well proved and sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances. Despite reliable evidence like PW-1 to PW-4 overweighing minor contradictions, the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case. The finding of the trial Court is perverse and without proper appreciation of the evidence. The trial Court erred in considering the antecedent of the deceased instead of considering the positive evidence against the accused.
16.In the appeal against acquittal filed by PW-1, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that:-
a) No serious contradiction between the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 to brush aside their congent evidence as not reliable.
b) A-1 Gopal @ Karungopal, A-2 Kanniappan, Krishnan, Mahalingam and Rasammal ( mother of the deceased) are siblings. The deceased is the son of Rasammal. Earlier, the deceased married the daughter
_____________ Page No. 10/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
of Mahalingam but deserted her and started living with PW-1, a married lady. In a money dispute the deceased along with others killed Krishnan and the murder case against the deceased and others is pending. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the Deceased, who spoiled the life of Karpagam, the daughter of their brother Mahalingam and also killed other brother Krishnan in a money dispute, A-1 and A-2 had a strong motive to eliminate the deceased. The motive spoken by PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-7 not disproved by the defence. However the trial Court failed to consider the trite law that in case of circumstantial evidence motive plays a vital role and a prime link in the chain.
c) Through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3, the prosecution has established without any pale of doubt, that A-1, A-2 and A-3 came to the house of Amalraj (the deceased) on 26/02/2018 at 2.00 pm and took the deceased along with them. PW-2 and PW-4 had seen them together going in their respective vehicles. The next day, Amalraj was found dead in the land of Pachaimuthu. The blood stain clothes of A-1 (MO 3) and A-3 (MO 7 and MO 8) recovered under Mahazars in the presence of VAO. Therefore, the last seen theory as well the recovery of the blood stains clothes of A-1 and A-3 is the strong link in the chain of circumstances which points the guilt of
_____________ Page No. 11/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
the accused to the crime. Hence, the Court below ought to have convicted the accused .
d) The Court below ought not to have disbelieved the recovery based on confession, because the VAO does not belong to that village. The reason assigned by the trial Court to disbelieve seizure of incriminating material evidence on the confession is not legally sustainable.
e) The trial Court erred in carried away by the antecedent of the deceased without appreciating the clinching evidence placed by the prosecution through circumstances, the information given by the accused persons, which were exclusively within their knowledge disbelieved by the trial Court. This has lead to miscarriage of justice.
17.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused submitted that, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence incriminating the accused persons. The motive alleged is not spoken by any independent witnesses or proved through documentary evidence. The vague statements of the interested witnesses cannot be elevated to reliable evidence.
_____________ Page No. 12/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
a.The corrections and interpolations in the complaint as well as in the FIR remains unexplained by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW-1, on 26.02.2018 at about 2.00 pm A-1 to A-3 came to her house and from the street called the deceased for peace talk. At that time, her sister Tulasi PW-3 was also with them in the house. Whereas, PW-3 had deposed that, among A-1 to A-3, only A-3 came inside the house and called Amalraj for peace talk. A-3 was inside the house for about 10 minutes. This contradiction has made the evidence of A-1 and A-2 unreliable.
b.PW-2 and PW-4, who were examined by the prosecution to prove that they saw the accused A-1 to A-3 along with the deceased at the relevant point of time, had miserable failed to mention the time they saw the deceased alone along with the accused persons together.
c.PW-3, in her chief examination, had not said anything about the deceased last seen in the company of A-1 to A-3 to corroborate PW-1 and PW-2. Like wise, PW-4, in the cross examination, admits that he did not inform to PW-1 or PW-2 that he saw the deceased along with A-1 to A-3 on 26.02.2018 near Madukarai TASMAC shop. Thus, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are contradictory and not consistent to hold the deceased was found in the company of the accused soon before his death.
_____________ Page No. 13/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
d.PW-1, in her chief examination, had deposed that PW-2 and PW-4 informed that they saw the deceased along with A-1 to A-3 even before she gave the complaint-Ex.P-1. If that is true, then in Ex.P-1, she would have mentioned about the information given by PW-2 and PW-4. The vital fact not found in the earliest document, but introduced later by the prosecution found to be false from the contradictions among the witnesses.
e.The complaint, time of occurrence and recovery in this case stands unproved. The trial court had taken note of the antecedent of the deceased only to rule out whether there is any other probability than what the prosecution has projected. PW-1 had admitted that there are several enemies to her husband. By surmises the respondents were wrongly prosecuted.
18.Heard the rival submissions put forth by the learned counsel.
19.It is a case of acquittal. No direct evidence, but only evidence for last seen together and the confession to VAO available in support of the prosecution. The trial court found the prosecution evidence is weak. Chains of circumstances broken and the recovery is highly doubtful. In view of multiple criminal cases against the deceased, the trial Court had oppined
_____________ Page No. 14/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
there is a probability that the offence might have been committed by somebodyelse also and not the accused persons.
20.The litmus test in an appeal against acquittal is whether the view of the court below is probable or need to be interfere for its perversity. If the view of the trial court is also possible, the said possible view need not be substituted with another probable or possible view by the appellate court. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeals are deserved to be dismissed. Sine does not satisfy the twin test and the accused persosn been bestowed with double benefit by the trial Court.
21.The testimony of each of the prosecution witness when examined individually, this Court finds PW-1 complaint carries correction and interpolation. Apart from three known persons, who alleged to have come to her house and taken her husband along with them, an attempt been made to add few more unnamed persons by interpolation. By addition two more accused (A-4 and A-5) at the later point of time, the interpolation becomes more visible.
_____________ Page No. 15/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
22.Who is the scribe of Ex.P-1 id not identified. PW-1 had categorically said that it was not written by her. PW-2 who accompanied PW-1 not certain who wrote it and also not certain where it was written. When the prosecution rely on the last seen together theory, the proximity and the link in the chain should be intact. In this case, PW-1 says, the deceased left the house on 26.02.2018 at 2.00 pm. His body was found in a isolated field on the next day ie 27.02.2018 at about 9.00 am. No evidence placed before the Court to ascertain who saw the body first and when the police received the first information and from whom. PW-1 had deposed that the next day at 6.00 am she and her sister Thulasi( PW-3) went to police station and reported about the missing of Amalraj. Police came and enquired and went. Later somebody informed that the body of her husband is found in the field of Pichaimuthu at Kumaran Nagar, Pooncholai Pudur. She then again went to the police station to give the complaint. The evidence of PW-1 clearly indicates that the police was informed about the missing of Amalraj as early as 6.00 am and they have arrived to the house of the deceased. However the said information not registered a complaint. Only at 10.30 am, FIR regisered. The informant PW-1 had deposed in her cross that she gave complaint at 7.00 am and returned home at 8.00 am. On her complaint, the
_____________ Page No. 16/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
police came to her village and started the investigation even before 9.00 am. Whereas the FIR shows information received only at 10.30 a.m, this contradiction creates doubt whether Ex.P-1 is the first information or the earlier information suppressed and Ex P-1 prepared subsequently with intention to cover the real accused or contains exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.
23.When the evidence in the case of circumstantial evidence is appreciated the link between each of the circumstances, the Court used to examine carefully to answer the links are intact. Each one of the circumstances must be proved without any doubt. The conclusion must be logical and should lead, the accused ‘must be the person guilty of the offence’ and ‘not may be the person guilty of the offence’.
24.Motive, last seen together, confession and recovery are some of the important links in a case of circumstantial evidence. Each link on its own has to be tested and be satisfied that the same is proved beyond doubt. Further, the links must be without break to form a chain. In the instant case, only from the confession statements of the accused persons the previous
_____________ Page No. 17/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
motive, conspiracy and the execution are unravelled. We find no worthy reliable evidence to corroborate this fact.
25.The admissibility of the confession is limited to discovery of facts. It further requires unimpeachable corroboration. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequences of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offence. In this case, the recovery of blood stained clothes based on confession not confirmed to contain the blood of the deceased. The currency recovered from the accused persons not proved to have emanated from A-1 and paid to A-3 to A-5 for committing the crime. There is contradiction regarding the identity of the weapon used to commit the crime whether it was a knife used to slaughter goat ( ML mUf;Fk; fj;jp) or soori knife.
26.The analysis of the evidence as discussed above, we find the deposition of PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-7, the carry improvement and embellishments. Contradictions and manipulations in plenty.
_____________ Page No. 18/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
27.In Abdul Nassar -vs- State of Kerala(2025 SCC OnLine111)
recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated the principles that the Courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows:-
“(i). The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.
(ii). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated.
(iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
(iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
(v). The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt,
_____________ Page No. 19/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.”
On applying the above principles, we find that, the testimony of PW-1 regarding the visit of A-1 to A-3 to take her husband with them for peace talk suffers contradiction with PW-3 testimony.
28.The last seen theory introduced through PW-2 and PW-4 bristles with contradiction. Absence of any evidence that the information of last seen passed on by PW-2 and PW-4, coupled with contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 makes reliability of her testimony doubtful.
29.Above all, the proximity of the last seen and the time of death also not established by prosecution, either through PW-1 and PW-2 and through PW-2 and PW-4 independently or collectively. While so, this Court is bound to apply the trite principle that the accused by acquittal gains double benefit and the same need not be disturbed just because an alternate view also is equally probable.
_____________ Page No. 20/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
30.As a result, these Criminal Appeals stand dismissed.
[G.J.,J] & [R.P., J] 25.03.2025
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No
PJL
To
2.The Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, Karur District.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
_____________ Page No. 21/22
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J.
PJL/Ns
Predelivery Judgement made in Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
25.03.2025
_____________ Page No. 22/22
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of A1 to A5 for the murder of Amalraj in S.C.No.25 of 2019 should be reversed on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the last seen together theory and recoveries based on confessions formed an unbroken chain proving guilt beyond doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Nassar -vs- State of KeralaApplied¶27
(2025 SCC OnLine111) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Easwari
Gopal @ Karungopal
Kanniyappan
Gurusamy @ Palkara Gurursamy @ Kakkayan
Senthilkumar @ Senthil
Malayali
G.Jayachandran
R.Poornima
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
