Dismissed¶139

Janaki v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Nov 2025CRL A(MD)/456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder-conspiracy criminal appeals dismissed; conviction for killing of husband sustained purely on circumstantial evidence (motive, 'last seen' theory, recovery) despite absence of eye-witness; Sections 120-B, 302, 109, 364, 428 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Indian Evidence Act; Section 374/374(2) CrPC appeals; extra-marital affair as motive; credibility of PW1/PW3/PW4/PW8 upheld; no perversity in trial Court's findings; sentences confirmed; Tirunelveli; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Motive and conspiracy have been clearly established by the prosecution from the evidence of PW1 and PW8. ¶119

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶139

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in relying on the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW8, contended by the appellants to be uncorroborated, planted and insufficient to incriminate the appellants. +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

The evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW8 is cogent, consistent, reliable and credible, inspires confidence, and there is no reason to discard it.

¶134

Ratio / Principle

Motive and conspiracy have been clearly established by the prosecution from the evidence of PW1 and PW8.

¶119

Key takeaways

The 'last seen' theory has been clearly established from the evidence of PW3 and PW4.ratio¶119
Recovery has also been established beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, coupled with motive and conspiracy.ratio¶119
Although there is no eye witness, the prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence, whose ingredients the Court identified as motive, last seen theory and recovery.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (common judgment authored by P. Velmurugan J.; bench included L. Victoria Gowri J.), dismissed Crl.A.(MD)Nos.456, 493 and 518 of 2022 preferred by A3-Janaki, A2-Raja @ Ayirai and A4-to-A7 (Manickam, Sudalai, Anthonyammal, Anthonyraj) against their conviction in SC No.116 of 2017, dated 28/06/2022 (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli) for the conspiracy-murder of Bhagyaraj, husband of A3, who had objected to A3's liaison with absconding A1. With no eye-witness, the Court upheld the conviction wholly on circumstantial evidence: motive and conspiracy proved through PW1 and PW8; 'last seen' theory through PW3 and PW4; recovery proved through PW5 and PW6 and rendered admissible via Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding the bar of Section 25; postmortem and forensic reports showing unnatural death. The evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW8 was held cogent and credible, and no perversity was found in the trial Court's appreciation. The convictions and sentences (10 years RI plus Rs.1,000 fine for A3-A7 under 120-B r/w 302 IPC; life plus Rs.1,000 fine for A2 under 302 r/w 34 IPC; life plus Rs.1,000 fine for A3 under 302 r/w 109 IPC, served consecutively) were confirmed and the police directed to secure the appellants forthwith.

¶1

CRL.A.(MD).Nos.456,493 and 5187of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date of Reserved	04/11/2025
Date of Pronounced	28/11/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.A(MD)Nos.456, 493 and 518 of 2022 (1).Crl.A(MD)No.456 of 2022:- Janaki : Appellant/A3 Vs. State: Through Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.125 of 2016) : Respondent/Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected with the judgment rendered by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, in SC No.116 of 2017, dated 28/06/2022 and to set aside the same and consequently to acquit the appellant/A3. For Appellant : Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

1/21

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tvl. Sree Kalaiyappa Saw Mill

Raj @ Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

The Branch Manager Vs Keerthika

A.Karuppaiah Vs S.Raja

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parvathi