Appeal against conviction for rape and murder of a child. Court upheld conviction based on last seen testimony of P.Ws.14, 15 and 18, confession-led recovery of the deceased's anklets sold to P.W.20, Section 164 statements and post-mortem evidence.
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)No.305 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
Jeyakumar : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.81 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni dated 24.11.2016 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
J U D G M E N T
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in S.C.No.81 of 2010 dated 24.11.2016.
appellant and sentenced him, as detailed below:
| Penal Provisions | Sentence of Imprisonment |
Fine Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 376(2)(f) IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- i/d to under go one month rigorous imprisonment |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- i/d to under go one month rigorous imprisonment |
| 404 of IPC | Three years Rigorous imprisonment |
Rs.5,000/- i/d to under go six months rigorous imprisonment |
| 302r/w.201 IPC | Three years Rigorous imprisonment |
Rs.5,000/- i/d to under go six months rigorous imprisonment |
| The | sentences shall run co | ncurrently |
3.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
3.1. On 11.06.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased and her
2
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
family members were watching a cultural program (Aadal Padal) in a temple festival, and at that time the deceased went to drink water but she did not return back. On 12.06.2009, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent police, who registered a case in Crime No.383 of 2019, and on 16.06.2009 the respondent police found the dead body of the deceased. On 23.06.2009, the police arrested the accused, and he made a confession that he raped the deceased and murdered her.
3.2. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police
laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, and the same was taken on file as P.R.C. No.9 of 2010.
3.3. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session, and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.81 of 2010 and made over to the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 302, 404, 302 r/w.201 of IPC.
3
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
3.3. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 31 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.31, and 39 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.39, and 10 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.10.
3.4. After examination of prosecution witnesses, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the charges as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was any document marked.
4
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
5
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
lastly seen the deceased with the appellant; however, he turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Once the last seen theory was not proved, the entire case of the prosecution has become highly doubtful and therefore, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the appellant and the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant is to be acquitted.
6
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
Station at Theni, and the police registered the case under Girl missing and thereafter they investigated the case and laid a charge sheet. Though there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the prosecution has proved the case through circumstantial evidence. The ingredients of the circumstantial evidence also proved by the prosecution. Further, P.W.15 saw the appellant and the deceased/victim were talking together in front of the house of the appellant on the date of occurrence. P.W.14 saw the appellant on the same night lifting a TV box at about 11.00 p.m., and going in an auto and he stand nearby forest area. Further, P.W.20 stated that the appellant sold the anklet of the deceased to him and he handed over the same to the police. Based on the confession given by the appellant, anklets were recovered and from PW.20 who is a gold smith. The appellant only handed over the dresses of the deceased and also informed about where he sold the anklet of the deceased based on that the same was recovered. Therefore, there is motive in this case. However, the deceased went to the house of the grandmother for drinking water and she had to pass the house of the appellant and at that time the appellant was sitting in front of the house and when he enquired the deceased where she was going, she informed that she was
7
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
going to her grandmother's house for drinking water and he informed that he would provide water, therefore she called the victim inside the house and while drinking water the water split on the dress of the victim, at that time he got tempted and raped the victim and in order to hide that he killed the victim. Therefore, in cases of this nature, motive is not necessary. Therefore, there are witnesses who saw the appellant and the deceased together, and soon after the occurrence, the appellant was found alone and therefore, from the evidence of P.W.14, 15, 18 and 20, also recovery and confession of the appellant, the prosecution has proved the case under circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant and thereby, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
the incident. He stated that on 11.06.2009 he, along with his family members, had gone to his mother-in-law’s house for the festival, and at
9
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
that time, a cultural programme (Aadal Paadal) was being held. While they were watching the programme at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased told him that she would go home to drink water, but she did not return. He thought she had fallen asleep at home. After returning from the programme, when he enquired his mother-in-law, she told him that the deceased had not come home. Immediately, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 12.06.2009 and searched for his daughter in and around the nearby areas. Thereafter, he was informed by P.W.15 that he had seen the victim talking with the appellant on the night of the occurrence. He immediately informed the same to the police, who arrested the appellant and recorded his confession. Though the confession given to the police is not admissible in evidence, the materials recovered pursuant to the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are admissible. The witnesses who had seen the appellant with the deceased were also produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
his statement was recorded on 29.07.2009. He stated that he saw the
10
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
appellant and the deceased talking together in front of the appellant’s house at about 10.30 p.m. As per the evidence of P.W.1, his daughter left at 10.30 p.m. to her grandmother’s house to drink water. The statement of P.W.15 corroborates that he saw the appellant and the deceased together around the same time. However, when examined before the Court, P.W.15 turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution. Even so, in his chief examination, he admitted that he saw the appellant and the deceased on the same night in the village. P.W.14, whose statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stated that on 11.06.2009 he saw the appellant lifting a TV box at about 11.00 p.m. Similarly, P.W.18 made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that he saw the appellant carrying a TV box in an auto, alighting near a forest area with the same box. P.W.20 also gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stating that the appellant had sold him the anklets of the deceased. Upon police enquiry, P.W.20 handed over the anklets, which were subsequently recovered based on the appellant’s confession.
11
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
post-mortem, together with the confession statement leading to recovery, Ex.P.8—the statement of P.W.18 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.—and Ex.P.27, the prosecution has proved the last seen theory. In cases of this nature, motive is not of much significance. The only motive that could be gathered from the evidence is that when the deceased child went home to drink water out of thirst, the appellant lured her into his house, committed rape upon her, and thereafter, fearing the consequences of his act, murdered her to screen the offence. So far as the last seen theory is concerned, as stated by P.Ws.14, 15, and 18, they have clearly spoken about having seen the deceased with the appellant shortly before the occurrence. Further, as far as recovery is concerned, P.Ws.14 and 20 have spoken about the recovery of the anklets of the deceased, and the evidence of the doctor also supports the prosecution case. Therefore, from the above said materials, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
12
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
charged offences. The prosecution has successfully proved its case through circumstantial evidence, and the conclusion of the trial Court is fully supported by the materials on record.
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial
Court, and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,)
13.10.2025
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To:
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni
2.The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
14
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN,J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.
aav
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2022
13.10.2025
15
2 issues framed by the court
Did the prosecution prove through circumstantial evidence that the appellant committed rape and murder of the eight-year-old victim?
Was the last seen theory and recovery of anklets sufficient to uphold the trial court's conviction?
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Jeyakumar
The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District
P.Velmurugan
L.Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
