Pandian Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

Pandian Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of A1 and A3 resting on the sole testimony of eyewitness PW17 is sustainable, given the alleged exaggerations and contradictions in his evidence and the fact that A2 was acquitted on the same evidence. +4 more

Court's answer

Conviction can be recorded on the sole evidence of an eyewitness whose credibility is not doubtful; only the quality of the evidence matters, not the quantity, and PW17's evidence established that A1 and A3 committed the charged offences.

Ratio / Principle

Minor contradictions and discrepancies in a witness's deposition are not fatal to the prosecution case; following Kalabhal Hamirbhai Kachhot, only omissions amounting to contradictions in material particulars can discredit testimony.

Key takeaways

Non-conducting of an identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution case where an eyewitness is available and a specific overt act is proved against the accused.ratio¶¶157
There was no suppression of earlier complaints; PW17 informed PW1 and PW9 of the occurrence, and there is no material showing that PW1 or PW9 lodged any complaint with the police before PW17's complaint.ratio¶¶98

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal — Murder — Conviction under Sections 447 and 302 IPC by I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur (SSC No.39 of 2012, dt.22/04/2022) for the killing of Suresh on 20/05/2010 at a roof shed at Lakshathoppu — Appeals by A1 (Bala @ Auto Bala) and A3 (Pandian) dismissed and conviction confirmed. HELD: (i) Conviction can rest on the sole eyewitness whose evidence is cogent, consistent and credible — quality of evidence, not quantity, matters; (ii) minor contradictions and discrepancies are not fatal (relying on Kalabhal Hamirbhai Kachhot v. State of Gujarat, (2021) 19 SCC 555); (iii) non-conducting of identification parade is not fatal where an eyewitness is available and specific overt acts are proved; (iv) no suppression of earlier complaints — PW17 alone lodged the complaint after informing PW1 and PW9; (v) motive stood proved from the evidence of PW9 and PW17; (vi) ocular evidence tallied with postmortem findings (PW6/Ex.P5) establishing specific overt acts by A1 (iron pipe blow) and A3 (cutting the vocal cord with pichuvakathi); (vii) confession leading to recovery admissible under Section 27, Indian Evidence Act (recoveries of MO2, MO5, MO6 proved through PW4, PW10, PW11); (viii) acquittal of A2 and discharge of A4 confer no automatic parity benefit where specific overt acts are proved against the appellants. Sentences — life imprisonment with Rs.10,000/- fine (S.302 IPC) and one month SI with Rs.300/- fine (S.447 IPC), running concurrently — confirmed.

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserved 29/10/2025 Date of Pronounced 18/12/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

(1)Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2022:- Pandian : Appellant/A3 Vs. State rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukkottai Sub Division, Pattukkottai Town Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.220 of 2010) : Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the court below and to set aside the judgment of conviction, dated 22/04/2022 made in SSC No.39 of 2012 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur and to acquit the appellant/3rd accused.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Gandhi Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

1/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

(2)Crl.A(MD)No.473 of 2022:-

Bala @ Auto Bala : Appellant/A1

Vs. 1.State rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukkottai Sub Division, Pattukkottai Town Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.220 of 2010) : R1/Complainant

2.Ragupathi (R2 impleaded as per the order of this Court, dated 13/10/2025) : 2^nd Respondent/Victim

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the court below and to set aside the judgment of conviction, dated 22/04/2022 made in SSC No.39 of 2012 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur and to acquit the appellant/1st accused.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For 1^st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.M.Suri

COMMON JUDGMENT

2/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J. )

These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, in Special SC No.39 of 2012, dated 22/04/2022 and consequently to acquit the appellants/A1 and A3.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Raghupathi and the deceased Suresh are relatives and belong to SC community and they approached PW9-Loganathan for their avocation. There is a dispute over the land between PW9-Loganathan and others. In view of the motive, on 20/05/2010 at 12 'O' Clock, A1 with iron pipe, A2 with sickle and A3 with pichuvakathi (small curved knife) went to the roof shed at Lakshathoppu by TATA Sierra Car No.TN-67-X-7677 belonging to A2 and wrongfully trespassed into the roof shed. A1 assaulted the deceased Suresh with an iron pipe near his left ear and on the back of his head, causing bleeding injuries, due to which Suresh fell to the ground. Thereafter, A3 cut the vocal cord of the deceased Suresh with a pitchuvakathi (a small curved knife), causing his death. PW17 Raghupathi witnessed the occurrence with the aid of a torch light.

3.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the defacto

3/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022 complainant, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2010

for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC. After completing the investigation, since the deceased belonged to SC community, the Section was altered from 302 IPC to under Sections 120-B, 447, 307, 302 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Act, the the respondent Police laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and the same was taken on file in PRC No.28 of 2022. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and it was taken on file as SSC No.39 of 2012 and thereafter, the same was made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, for disposal.

4.After completing the formalities under the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there were prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused persons, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA), Act against A1; under Sections 447, 302 r/w 34 and 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act against A2 and under Sections 447, 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against A3. Before framing charges, A4-Santhanam filed a petition in Crl.M.P No.506 of 2012 in SC No.39 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, to discharge him from the case and the same was

4/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022 allowed, on 30/07/2012 and so, he was discharged from the case.

5.After framing charges against A1 to A3, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, totally 21 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW21 and 25 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P25, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7.

6.After completing examination of the prosecution side witnesses, when the accused namely A1 to A3 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

7.After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the learned trial Judge found the guilty, who are appellants herein namely A1 and A3, for the offences under Sections 447 and 302 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced them to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.300/-, in default further imprisonment of one week for the offence under Section 447 IPC and also convicted them and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of one year SI. It is ordered that the 5/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

sentences imposed on Accused 1 and Accused 3 shall run concurrently. A1 was not found guilty of the offences under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act; A2 was not found guilty of the offences under Sections 447, 302 r/w 34 and 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act; and A3 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 307 /w 34 IPC and they were acquitted from the above charges.

8.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been preferred by A1 and A3 as appellants separately. Since both appeals are arising out of the judgment, dated 22/04/2022 in SSC No.39 of 2012, they are taken together for disposal.

9.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the evidence of PW17 is highly exaggerated and unbelievable and cannot be relied upon; that the conviction based on solely on the evidence of P.W.17 is erroneous; The trial Court accepted the evidence of PW17 only for convicting A1 and A3; From the very same evidence, the trial Court acquitted A2, which is contrary to proper appreciation of evidence in deciding the case; No identification parade was conducted by the prosecution to prove their case; The appellant/A1 along with other accused were total strangers to the prosecution witnesses and therefore, an identification parade is essential to identify the accused and to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt; The material

6/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

witness (PW17) who was the eyewitness to the occurrence has categorically deposed before the trial Court that all the accused were identified only at the police station, that too, after one week from the date of the occurrence, whereas

PW18-Investigating Officer in his evidence, has clearly deposed that all the accused were arrested only after one and half months from the date of registration of the FIR; A1 was arrested on 27/06/2010, and A2 and A3 were arrested on 03/07/2010; The said fact was not properly considered by the trial Court; The evidence of PW1 is against the prosecution theory and she has clearly deposed before the trial Court during evidence that she identified the accused, per contra, in her statement recorded by the Police Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it was stated that in the Police Station she identified all the accused persons; So the evidence of PW1 does not support the case of the prosecution; in this case, the earlier complaint given by PW1 was suppressed by the prosecution and there was also no explanation on the side of the prosecution for the same; The evidence of PW9 is unbelievable and exaggerated one and against the prosecution theory; The evidence of PW9 would reveal that a separate complaint was given by him, but in this regard, no explanation was offered on the side of the prosecution in this regard; The admitted fact of the prosecution is that three accused persons were trespassed into the field of PW9 and committed the offence in the night hours; Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, no light is available in the scene of occurrence and with the help of torch light only, the accused were seen by PW17, but whereas the evidence of PW17 is unbelievable 7/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022 one; During his evidence, he has stated that there is no electric pole light available at the scene of occurrence; Therefore, the evidence of PW17 is nothing, but exaggerated; The offence under Section 447 IPC would not be attracted against A1, whereas there was no evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case; According to the prosecution, PW9 is the owner of the occurrence place; but no document was produced by PW9 to show that he is the owner of the said property; PW1, PW9 and PW17 had given the complaints before the respondent Police with regard to the occurrence, but there was no explanation from the prosecution side with regard to the earlier complaint and also the complaints given by PW1 and PW9; The case was registered only based on the complaint given by PW17 alone. He would further submit that the learned trial Judge also failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and erroneously convicted A1 and A3, whereas A2 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Further, he would submit that the trial Court discharged one of the accused namely V.Santhanam, who was arrayed as A4 and who had motive with PW9; but the trial Court convicted only A1 and A3 alone; In this case, totally 4 accused, one of the accused was discharged from the charges by the trial Judge, vide order, dated 30/07/2012 in Crl.M.P No.506 of 2012 in Special SC No.39 of 2012; From the very same evidence, A2 was acquitted, whereas the trial Court erroneously convicted A1 and A3 alone; Therefore, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse and the Judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and 8/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2022 is to be allowed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(1)Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in [(2003)11 SCC 488)];

(2)Jafar Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 238);

(3)George Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3730);

(4)P.Sasikumar Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in [(2024)8 SCC 600];

(5)Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. Statae of Gujarat [(2023)9SCC 164];

(6).Nazim and others Vs. State of Utharakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2117); and

(7)Venkatesha and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine SC 129).

10.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/A3 in

CrlA(MD)No.473 of 2022 would submit that the motive was also not proved by

the prosecution; The trial Court failed to appreciate the charge under Section 120(B) IPC as against A4, which was not proved and he was discharged, 9/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

however, A3 was convicted for the offences under Sections 447 and 302 IPC

which is highly unbelievable and other persons were acquitted in respect of similar charges on the ground of the same benefit of doubt; The complaint was preferred by PW17 before the respondent Police, on 21/05/2010 at about 04.00 am, per contra, during his cross examination, he has stated different version; There are contradictions between the witnesses regarding the availability light in the place of occurrence; whereas lot of contradictions and exaggerations and improvements and therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt; When two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused has to be taken into consideration; The trial Court failed to consider the criminal jurisprudence and erroneously, convicted A1 and A3, especially when A4 was discharged from the charges. Therefore, the judgement of conviction recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appeal filed by A3 is liable to be allowed.

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State would submit that the prosecution case has been proved through the eyewitness; PW17 is the only eyewitness and he also gave the complaint to set the law in motion; The credibility and testimony of the sole eyewitness has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt; the quantity of the witnesses is of no significance and only the quality of the witness is significance, and merely because some of the witnesses had turned hostile, it does not a ground to reject

10/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

the evidence of PW17, who is the eyewitness in this case; Therefore, in this case, the prosecution has proved the charges through the eyewitnesses and also recovery; Though in the case of an eyewitness, motive is not significant to decide the case; From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is proved that the deceased was working under PW9 in the disputed land along with PW17; Once the prosecution has proved the presence of PW17, who is the defacto complainant, unless his evidence is disproved, there is no need to discard, as in this case, the presence of PW17 was established and both PW17 and the deceased were relatives, who were working under PW19 who is the owner of the property namely the occurrence place and mere non-conducting of the identification parade is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW17; and a combined reading of the evidence of PW17 and PW9 and the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and issued the Postmortem Certificate, the ocular evidence tallied with the medical evidence and there is specific overt act against A1 and A3 and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and recorded a conviction against A1 and A3; Since because one of the accused got acquittal, based on the benefit of doubt, in the absence of specific overt act, the other accused are not automatically entitled to get the acquittal, when there is specific overt act against those accused and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 are not tenable; Though A4 was discharged, it does not mean that A1 and A3 are

11/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

also entitled to get acquittal on the sole ground that A4 was discharged; The Court has to see the specific evidence during the trial and also the materials collected during the investigation; Once the prosecution is able to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt against any of the accused, they are liable to be convicted and in a criminal case, there is no question of “similarly placed persons” theory being applicable; Every case has got its own facts and merit and if more than one accused alleged to have been involved in a criminal case and if

some of the accused are acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, the other accused are not automatically entitled to get acquittal on the ground that the other accused have been acquitted and therefore, in this case also, the grounds taken by the appellants are not tenable and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against these appellants/A1 and A3 and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and convicted them and there is no merit in these appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda etc., Vs. State of Karnataka (2023 LiveLaw (SC)225) .

12.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in Crl.A(MD)No.473 of 2022 and perused the materials available on record.

12/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

It is the specific case of the prosecution that PW17 Raghupathi and the deceased Suresh were working as watchmen at the Latchatoppu field,

said to belong to PW9 Loganathan. There was a dispute over the land between PW9-Loganathan and others. In view of the motive, on 20/05/2010 at 12 midnight, A1 with an iron pipe, A2 with a sickle and A3 with a pichuvakathi (small curved knife) went to the roof shed at Lakshathoppu by TATA Sierra Car No.TN-67-X-7677 belonging to A2 and wrongfully trespassed into the roof shed. A1 beat the deceased with an iron pipe near the left ear and the back side head and caused bleeding injuries, due to which, deceased Suresh fell on the ground and A3 cut the vocal card of the deceased Suresh with the pichuvakathi (small cured knife). PW17-Ragupathi saw the occurrence with the help of a torch light.

14.In order to substantiate the charges framed against these appellants namely A1 and A3, the prosecution has totally examined as many as 21 witnesses and marked 25 documents, besides 7 material objects, which were exhibited.

15.Out of the 21 witnesses, according to the prosecution, PW17 is the eyewitness, who also gave the complaint (Ex.P1). Based on that complaint, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2010 under Ex.P11 and on registering FIR, the respondent Police investigated the matter and laid the

13/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

charge sheet as stated above.

16.A reading of the evidence of PW17 shows that both PW17 and

the deceased were working under PW9, who was the owner of the disputed property where the occurrence took place. At that time, PW17 and the deceased were in the occurrence place. On the date of the occurrence i.e., on 20/05/2010 at 12 midnight, A1 to A4 came to the occurrence place and attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and also tried to attack PW17, but he escaped from the attack and informed the occurrence to PW9, who is the owner of the said property under whom he was working. PW9 came to the spot and he also informed the police about the incident.

17.PW1 is the wife of the deceased, who also came to know about the incident and she also informed to the Police. However, PW1 and PW9 are not the eyewitnesses and only PW17 alone is the eyewitness to the occurrence and he only informed PW9, who is the owner of the property and PW1 who is the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the Police need not register all the complaints given by them, especially, it is the specific case of the prosecution that PW17 who is also one of the relatives of the deceased and both the deceased and PW17- coworker were present on the spot on the date of the occurrence.

14/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

18.From the evidence of PW1, PW9 and PW17, it is seen that PW17 only informed PW1 and PW9 about the occurrence and so, there is no question of suppression of the earlier complaints and there is no material to show that before filing the complaint by PW17, PW1 and PW9 gave any complaint before the respondent Police.

19.The evidence of the Investigating Officer clearly shows that there is only one complaint, which was given by PW17. After investigation, they filed the charge sheet and pending trial, A4 filed a petition for discharge and the same was allowed, on 30/07/2012 by the trial Court and therefore, the trial was proceeded against the other three accused persons namely A1, A2 and A3. The charges were framed against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 302 and 397 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act; against A2 the charges were framed for the offences punishable under Section 447, 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and against A3, the charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

20.A reading of the entire materials and the evidence of PW17 who is the eyewitness to the occurrence shows that he has clearly spoken about the occurrence and also the specific overt act against A1 and A3. A careful reading of the evidence of PW17 and also Ex.P12-Complaint, PW17 has clearly stated

15/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

about the specific overtact against A1 and A3.

21.For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the deposition of

PW17 is extracted hereunder under:-

“.......ehd; gpd;dhYk; iyl; moj;Jf;bfhz;L brd;nwhk; gpd;g[wkhf ghyh vd;gth; ,q;F vJf;Flh ,Uf;fpwPh;fs; vd;W brhy;yp bfl;l thh;j;ij ngrp gpd; gf;fkhf Rnui\ ,Uk;g[ igg;ghy; moj;jjpy; mth; fPnH tpGe;Jtpl;lhh.; fPnH fple;j Rnui\ ghz;o fhypy; kpjpj;Jf; bfhz;lhh;. ghz;o Rnu\pd; eLKFfpy; kpjpj;Jf;bfhz;lhh;. rpth ifapypUe;j mwpthshy; Rnu\pd; jiyia mWj;jhh;. ehd; rj;jk; nghl;nld;. clnd vd;ida[k; rpth ifapypUe;j mhpthis bfhz;L tpul;odhh.; ghz;o jd; ifapypUe;j fj;jpahy; Rnui\ mWj;jhh;. ehd; Xog;ngha; vdJ Kjyhspaplk; jfty; brhd;ndd;. Kjyhsp te;J ghh;j;Jtpl;L fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njhk;.”

Therefore, PW9 the owner of the occurrence field, who engaged PW17 and the deceased for their work.

16/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

22.The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. She has clearly stated

that PW17 informed about the occurrence and she came to the occurrence spot and then, she took PW17 to the police station and they gave the complaint. Therefore, in this case, PW17 is the sole eyewitness, who also clearly stated about the specific overt act against A1 and A3.

23.From the evidence of PW1 and PW17, the presence of PW17 in the place of occurrence is believable and his evidence is also significant to this case. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Kalabhal Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [ (2021)19 SCC 555] , wherein it is observed as follows:-

“22.We also do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel that there are major contradictions in the deposition of PWs-18 and 19. The contradictions which are sought to be projected are minor contradictions which cannot be the basis to discard their evidence. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mohar [(2002)7 SCC 606] relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-State supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that convincing evidence is required, to discredit an injured witness. Para 11 of the judgment reads as under:-

� 11.The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the

17/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness. Similarly, every discrepancy in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal. A discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially cannot create any infirmity. In the instant case the discrepancy in the name of PW 4 appearing in the FIR and the cross-examination of PW 1 has been amply clarified. In cross-examination PW 1 had clarified that his brother Ram Awadh had three sons: (1) Jagdish, PW 4, (2) Jagarnath, and (3) Suresh. This witness, however, stated that Jagarjit had only one name. PW 2 Vibhuti, however, stated that at the time of occurrence the son of Ram Awadh, Jagjit @ Jagarjit was milching a cow and he was also called as Jagdish. Balli (PW 3) mentioned his name as Jagjit and Jagdish. PW 4 also gave his name as Jagdish.”

23.Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Naresh & Ors .. [(2011)4 SCC 324] In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that the evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons. Paragraphs 27 and 30 of the judgment which are relevant, read as under :

� 27.The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his

18/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] )

30.In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.

� 9.Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” [Ed.: As observed in Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186, p. 192, para 9.]

Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152], Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130 : AIR 2009 SC 331] , Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 334 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1352] and Sunil

19/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : JT (2010) 12 SC 287] .”

24.Further, in the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2000)8 SCC 457, this Court has considered the effect of the minor contradictions in the depositions of witnesses while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial. In the aforesaid judgment it is held that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of Para 42 of the judgment reads as under:

� 42.Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness. & & &�

Therefore, mere minor contradiction and discrepancy is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

20/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

24.The cases of this nature, when the sole eyewitness alone was present at the scene of occurrence, unless the credibility of the sole eyewitness is doubtful and the prosecution has relied on and the trial Court also found that the evidence of the sole eyewitness is cogent, consistent, reliable and also credible and when there is no reason to discard the evidence of the sole eyewitness, conviction can be recorded based on the evidence of the sole eyewitness. Only quality of the evidence is necessary and not the quantity of the evidence and therefore, a reading of the evidence of PW17, the prosecution has established that A1 and A3 have committed the charged offences.

25.Further, in this case, PW1 is the wife of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is the brother of the deceased. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, it is made clear that the deceased Suresh went along with PW17 for their work. From the evidence of PW17, it is seen that they were working together in the field of PW9 and therefore, the presence of PW17 is not doubtful and therefore, the prosecution has proved that PW17 is the sole eyewitness to the occurrence and the presence of PW17 in the occurrence place on the date of the occurrence is also believable. Though motive is not necessary, when the evidence of an eyewitness is clear, however, from the evidence of PW9 and PW17, the prosecution has also proved the motive.

21/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

26.The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased

was examined as PW6 and he also issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P5), in which, he has clearly mentioned about the injuries sustained by the deceased, which read as under:-

“(i).10 x 5 c.m. cut injury in the right neck. This injury went to the extent of showing the breathing tube. This injury extents from right side face bone to central bone of the chest. The fleshes below the neck bone were opened and the breathing tube was sawed;

(ii).4 x 3 c.m. depth torn injury in the back head;

(iii).3 x 2 c.m. contusion in the left face. It extends upto ear.

(iv).1 x2 c.m. cut injury in the left ear shell.

(v).3 x 2 c.m. cut injury in the left hand above the left ear.

(vi).2 x 1 c.m. cut injury in the back side of the head and there is 3 x 1 cm cut injury near the above part”.

27.Therefore, from the evidence of PW17 the eyewitness, PW6-Doctor, Ex.P5-Postmortem Report and Ex.P12-Complaint, the injuries sustained by the deceased were tallied. Therefore, from the evidence of the eyewitness, it is proved that there is a specific overt act against A1 and A3.

28.So far as the recovery is concerned, PW4, the Village Assistant of Pattukottai Town has spoken about the recovery. He has clearly stated that the 22/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

accused gave a confession statement, based on that, he also handed over the weapon used for the commission of the crime. Though, the confession statement recorded before the Police Officer is not admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, however, if it is leading to recovery is admissible as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW4 has stated about the recovery of MO2 and another confession witnesses namely PW10 and PW11 have stated about the recovery of MO5 and MO6. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution has proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt. When the eyewitness is available and when there is a specific overtact, non-conducting of the identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, the evidence of the sole eyewitness-PW17 was corroborated by PW9 and PW1 to the effect that immediately soon after the occurrence, PW17 informed PW9, who rushed to the spot and afterwords, he went to the Police and there, he informed to the wife of the deceased. Further, from the evidence of the Postmortem Doctor and the Postmortem Report, it is seen that the deceased sustained fatal injuries, which lead to his death and that his death was unnatural. So, from the evidence of PW17- Postmortem Doctor and Postmortem report (Ex.P5), the prosecution has proved that A1 and A3 have caused such injuries. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. While reappreciating the evidence, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW17 the so called eyewitness.

23/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

29.In the result, both Criminal Appeals are dismissed , confirming the

impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

(P.V.,J) (L.V.G.,J)

18/12/2025

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

er

24/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

To

1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai Sub Division, Thanjavur District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

25/26

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

Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN,J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI.,J er

Pre-Delivery common Judgment made in Crl.A(MD)Nos.374 and 473 of 2022

18.12.2025

26/26

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22/04/2022 in SSC No.39 of 2012 convicting appellants A1 (Bala @ Auto Bala) and A3 (Pandian) under Sections 447 and 302 IPC - one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- under Section 447 IPC and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC, sentences to run concurrently; A2 acquitted of the charges against him.¶¶24
Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur · 22/04/2022
Prior proceeding
On the complaint (Ex.P1) of PW17-Raghupathi, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.220 of 2010 (Ex.P11) in connection with the death of Suresh on 20/05/2010.¶¶87
Prior proceeding
After investigation, since the deceased belonged to SC community, the section was altered from 302 IPC to Sections 120-B, 447, 307, 302 r/w 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(PoA) Act; charge sheet laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and taken on file in PRC No.28 of 2022.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
Since the offences were triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, taken on file as SSC No.39 of 2012 and made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
Before framing charges, A4-Santhanam filed Crl.M.P No.506 of 2012 in SC No.39 of 2012 seeking discharge; the petition was allowed on 30/07/2012 and he was discharged.¶¶49
Prior proceeding
Charges framed against A1 under Sections 447, 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act; against A2 under Sections 447, 302 r/w 34, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act; against A3 under Sections 447, 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial: 21 witnesses examined (PW1-PW21), 25 documents marked (Exs.P1-P25) and 7 material objects exhibited (MO1-MO7); accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; no oral or documentary evidence adduced by defence.¶¶35