Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the evidence of PW1, son-in-law of the deceased and therefore an interested/relative eyewitness, whose presence and conduct at the scene are doubted and whose version allegedly contradicts the medical evidence, is reliable enough to sustain the conviction. +5 more

Court's answer

The presence of PW2 to PW4 at the scene of occurrence is not acceptable, because the evidence of PW1 does not state that they were present at the time of occurrence.

Ratio / Principle

While confessions before police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the recovery portion leading to discovery is admissible under Section 27; PW12 categorically stated that the appellant gave the confession statement in his presence and recovery of MO1-knife and MO2-bloodstained shirt followed, the admissible portion being marked as Ex.P15 with PW12 as signatory.

Key takeaways

On re-appreciation, the evidence of PW1 is consistent, cogent, reliable and credible; being a relative witness is not by itself a ground to reject his evidence where it is corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports.ratio¶87
The injuries spoken to by PW1 (chest, backside, thigh) tally with the postmortem findings, and the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage with injury to vital organs (thorax and liver); the appellant's contention that PW1's version does not tally with medical evidence is not acceptable.ratio¶71
The injury on the accused is adequately explained: he made no police complaint about it, produced no medical record and no doctor was examined; per his own confession, while stabbing the deceased on the chest the deceased held his right wrist tightly and the knife struck his palm, and PW1 testified that after stabbing he pulled out the knife and fled. The appellant's contention on this point cannot be accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022 (decided 18.11.2025; judgment by P.Velmurugan, J., bench including L.Victoria Gowri, J.): Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC by Ramachandran, sole accused, against his conviction in S.C.No.84/2017 dated 11.07.2022 (Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul) for the offence under Section 302 IPC arising from Crime No.130/2016, Natham Police Station - stabbing death of Rajendran on 25.03.2016 following a dispute over collection of tamarind fruits. Appeal DISMISSED; conviction and sentence (life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, default three months simple imprisonment) affirmed. Findings: presence of PW2-PW4 rejected as PW1's account omits them; confession portion leading to discovery admissible under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, recovery of MO1-knife and MO2-bloodstained shirt proved through PW12 (Ex.P15); PW1, though a relative (son-in-law) eyewitness, is consistent, cogent, reliable and corroborated by postmortem evidence (death by shock and hemorrhage with thoracic/liver injury) and biological/serological reports showing human blood on recovered materials; the accused's palm injury is explained through his own confession; non-examination of the treating doctor and non-marking of the Accident Register, and investigation lapses generally, cannot discredit the eyewitness.

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18.11.2025

CORAM :

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

Ramachandran

... Appellant/Sole Accused

vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District. In Crime No.130/2016 ... Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment in S.C.No.84/2017 dated 11.07.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused from the charge levelled against him.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkateswaran For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUAN, J. )

Page No.1 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records relating to the judgment in S.C.No.84/2017 dated 11.07.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/sole accused from the charge levelled against him.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Rajendran and the accused Ramachandran are neighbours. There was a previous dispute between them with regard to plucking of tamarind fruits from the tamarind tree stands in the house of the accused. On 25.03.2016, the accused through coolie labourers collected the tamarind fruits which fallen down from the tamarind tree stands in front of the

house of the deceased, during which, there was heated argument between the deceased and the accused, whereby, the accused abused the deceased. In continuation of the said incident, on 25.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m., when the deceased was herding goats in the mud road leading to a Crusher of one Manivasagam situated on the west of Thondapuri on Manakkatur – Sendurai road, Natham Taluk, the accused armed with a knife, waylaid him, scolded the deceased and stabbed him with a knife

Page No.2 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

on his right and left chest, backside, left thigh, lower jaw and ribs repeatedly. The son-in-law of the deceased/PW1 who followed the deceased from behind at the time of occurrence attempted to catch the accused, however, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Natham, where he was declared dead. On the complaint-Ex.P1 given by PW1, the respondent/police registered a case in Crime No. 130/2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of IPC against the appellant. After investigation, the respondent/police laid a charge sheet before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.10 of 2016. After completing the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Principal District & Sessions Court, Dindigul, took the case on file in S.C.No.84 of 2017 and made over the case to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, which framed the charges for the commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 of IPC. In order to substantiate the case during trial, on the side of the prosecution, totally 17 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17

Page No.3 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to Ex.P22, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and 2 documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

After completion of the evidence of the prosecution side witnesses, the accused/appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses and he denied it as false. On conclusion of the trial and hearing of the arguments on either side, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 341 and 294(b) of IPC and convicted the accused

for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the judgment and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

Page No.4 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

would submit that the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful; when the accused overtook PW1 with knife to attack the deceased, PW1 who was going behind the deceased did not make any attempt to save the deceased nor he has made any alarm about the assault, as such, PW1's evidence is unbelievable; the evidence of PW1 is not supported by any independent witness nor corroborated by documents; PW1 stated that he took the deceased with bleeding injuries to the hospital, however, the bloodstained dress of PW1 was not recovered which creates doubt over his presence in the scene of occurrence; the evidence of PW1 is unreliable since it is contrary to the medical evidence; there are vital contradictions between the evidences of PW1 and PW3-elder brother. P.W.1, in his complaint, has not stated anything about the presence of the other witnesses, P.W.2 to P.W.4, which creates a serious doubt regarding the correctness of Ex.P1complaint, and this doubt is further strengthened by the unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate’s Court; PW1 is none other than the son-in-law of the deceased, as such, he is an interested witness; arrest and recovery was not proved; non examination of Ambulance driver and the doctor who treated the deceased and non marking of

Page No.5 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

Accident Register of the deceased are fatal to the prosecution's case; the prosecution failed to explain the injury sustained by the accused and not produced the wound certificate of the accused which is fatal to the prosecution; non examination of independent witness creates serious doubt over the genesis of the prosecution case; the injuries mentioned in Ex.P12-postmortem report do not tally with the evidence of PW1; PW15doctor who conducted autopsy deposed that the injuries were possible out of scuffle and it was corroborated by the abrasion injuries; the evidence of PW5 also shows that she saw the accused rolling the deceased and also there is an injury on the accused which would suggest that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case and therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence, the judgment and sentence of the trial Court are liable to be set aside.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

submit that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by examining eye-witness/PW1, PW15-postmortem doctor and also the recovery through confession statement. Though PW2 to PW5 were cited

Page No.6 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

as eye-witnesses, the trial Court disbelieved their evidence. But however, without the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, the evidence of the doctor/PW15 who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and Ex.P9-postmortem report, PW12-independent witness to confession of the accused and recovery. Exs.P20 and P21-Biological report and Serological report are tallied with the injury sustained by the deceased and human blood was detected on the recovered materials. Though there are contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses that are only minor contradictions which will not affect the case of the prosecution. The trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant for the charged offence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the records.

The specific case of the prosecution is that there was

enmity between the accused and the deceased regarding plucking of tamarind fruits from the tree standing in the house of the accused. On 25.03.2016, the accused through coolie labourers collected the tamarind

Page No.7 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

fruits which had fallen down from the tamarind tree standing in front of the house of the deceased, during which, there was a heated argument between the deceased and the accused, by which, the accused abused the deceased. In continuation of the said incident, on 25.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m., when the deceased was herding goats on the mud road leading to a Crusher of one Manivasagam situated on the west of Thondapuri on Manakkatur – Sendurai road, Natham Taluk, the accused armed with a knife, waylaid the deceased, scolded him and stabbed him with a knife on his right and left chest, backside, left thigh, lower jaw and ribs repeatedly. The deceased was brought dead to the Government Hospital, Natham. In order to substantiate the case during trial, on the side of the prosecution, totally 17 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to Ex.P22, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and 2 documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

Reading of the evidence of PW1 who is the son-in-law

of the deceased shows that he has clearly spoken about the motive

Page No.8 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

behind the occurrence. He has further stated that both the appellant and the deceased are neighbours and adjacent to their house, there was a tamarind tree in which, the tamarind fruits ripened. At that time, the appellant collected the tamarind fruits through four persons which had fallen down from the tamarind tree, for which, the deceased objected stating that a case is pending in this regard. In response, the accused came to the house of the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences. PW1 further deposed that since the accused already threatened the deceased, when the deceased was herding goats, PW1 was also walking behind the deceased at a distance of 50 feet. At that time, the accused suddenly crossed PW1, scolded the deceased and stabbed him with knife on his backside and right and left chest and right side thigh and before PW1 could catch the accused, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. PW1 held the body of the deceased and subsequently, called 108 Ambulance and took the deceased to the hospital along with his sister. In the hospital, the deceased was declared dead and thereafter lodged the complaint-Ex.P1.

Though PW2 to PW4 have also stated that they had

Page No.9 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

seen the occurrence, reading of the evidence of PW1 does not state that at the time of occurrence PW2 to PW4 were also present and therefore, the presence of PW2 to PW4 is not acceptable. However, the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the appellant attacked the deceased due to the dispute between them regarding the collection of tamarind fruits. After the occurrence, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Natham, where he was declared dead and hence the body was sent for postmortem. PW15-Doctor conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased at 11.30 a.m., on 26.03.2016. He issued Ex.P9-postmortem report. PW15 Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organs (thorax and liver) 22 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. Subsequently during the investigation, the appellant was arrested and he voluntarily gave confession statement before the investigating officer in the presence of PW12 and also based on the confession, the police recovered MO1-knife and MO2-bloodstained shirt from the accused. Though the confessions made by the accused before the police officers are not admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, if the portion of the confession statement leads to the discovery of material

Page No.10 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

objects, such recovery portion alone is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW12 has categorically stated that the appellant gave the confession statement in his presence and based on that, recovery was effected. The admissible portion of the confession statement has also been marked as Ex.P15 in which, PW12 signed as a witness. From a combined reading of the evidence of PW1eyewitness, PW15-Doctor who conducted the postmortem, PW12witness to confession and recovery, Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P9-postmortem report along with final opinion given by the doctor, Ex.P15-admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused and also Exs.P19 and 20-Biological and Serological reports which proved that human blood was detected from the recovered materials in MOs.1 to 6, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the injuries as stated by PW1 do not tally with the medical evidence, PW1 has categorically stated that the deceased was attacked by the appellant on his chest, backside and also thigh. Even the postmortem report also clearly mentions about the

Page No.11 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

injuries sustained by the deceased which tally with the evidence of PW1. As per the opinion of the postmortem doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organs (thorax and liver) 22 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. The knife used for the attack was marked as MO1. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not explained the injury sustained by the accused, perusal of Ex.D1-Accident Register copy of the accused shows that the accused had been attacked by known person and sustained an injury, for which, he took treatment in a private hospital where for the injury below the right thumb finger, six sutures had been made. However, the accused had not made any complaint to the police regarding the injury sustained by him nor had he produced any medical record showing that he had taken treatment for that injury and no doctor was examined to prove the injury of the accused. The evidence of PW1 clearly shows that after stabbing, the appellant pulled the knife from the body of the deceased and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Further, the appellant himself admitted in his confession that while he

Page No.12 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

was stabbing the deceased on the chest, the decesed held the accused's right wrist tightly and at that time, the knife held by the accused moved up and down, in this process, the knife stabbed the palm of the accused and thereby an injury was caused in his hand. Therefore, the above contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.

The further contention of the appellant that non examination of the doctor who treated the deceased and issued the Accident Register of the deceased and non marking of the same is fatal to the prosecution' case, it is to be noted that normally at the time of admission for treatment, the doctor only will see the injuries for the purpose of giving the treatment and record entries in the accident register, but however if the doctor finds that the deceased was brought dead, he will simply refer the body for postmortem. Reading of the evidence of the doctor and also the postmortem report and also the final opinion of the doctor proved that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organs (thorax and liver) 22 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Further it is a settled proposition of law that mere defect in the investigation or lapse on the part of the

Page No.13 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

investigation agency cannot be the ground for disbelieving the evidence of the eye witness. The eye-witness/PW1 has clearly stated about the enmity between the appellant and the deceased and he has also clearly stated about the specific overt act against the appellant and also identified the weapon during his cross examination. The accused and the deceased are neighbours and PW1 is the son-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, the identification of the accused or the deceased is not doubtful. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the medical evidencePW15 and further to strengthen the case of the prosecution, PW12 has spoken about the confession statement of the accused leading to recovery. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are only minor contradictions which will not affect the case of the prosecution. Exs.P19 and 20-Biological and Serological reports tally with the evidence of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and also the evidence of PW1/eye-witness.

While re-appreciating the evidence, this Court finds that the evidence of PW1 is consistent, cogent, reliable and credible and

Page No.14 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW1. Though PW1 is a

relative witness, but that is not the sole ground to reject the evidence of the relative witness when it is cogent, reliable and credible and also corroborated with the other evidences namely, medical evidence and forensic reports. Therefore, there is no need to reject the evidence of PW1 since because he is a relative witness. This Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. There is no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

[P.V, J.] [L.V.G, J.] 18.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala To

The Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Page No.15 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

Dindigul.

The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

The Section Officer Criminal (Records) Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page No.16 of 17

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

Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

bala

JUDGMENT MADE IN Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2022

DATED : 18.11.2025

Page No.17 of 17

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

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the evidence of PW1, son-in-law of the deceased and therefore an interested/relative eyewitness, whose presence and conduct at the scene are doubted and whose version allegedly contradicts the medical evidence, is reliable enough to sustain the conviction.¶34
The court held
The presence of PW2 to PW4 at the scene of occurrence is not acceptable, because the evidence of PW1 does not state that they were present at the time of occurrence.ratio¶62
2.
Whether the omission of PW2-PW4 from complaint Ex.P1 and the unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate's Court cast serious doubt on the correctness of Ex.P1 and the prosecution case.¶34
3.
Whether the injuries described by PW1 tally with the postmortem/medical evidence.¶38
The court held
The injuries spoken to by PW1 (chest, backside, thigh) tally with the postmortem findings, and the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage with injury to vital organs (thorax and liver); the appellant's contention that PW1's version does not tally with medical evidence is not acceptable.ratio¶71
4.
Whether the prosecution's failure to explain the injury sustained by the accused and to produce his wound certificate is fatal to its case.¶72
The court held
The injury on the accused is adequately explained: he made no police complaint about it, produced no medical record and no doctor was examined; per his own confession, while stabbing the deceased on the chest the deceased held his right wrist tightly and the knife struck his palm, and PW1 testified that after stabbing he pulled out the knife and fled. The appellant's contention on this point cannot be accepted.ratio¶76
5.
Whether non-examination of the doctor who treated the deceased, non-marking of the deceased's Accident Register, and lapses in investigation are fatal to the prosecution case.¶77
The court held
Non-examination of the doctor who treated the deceased and non-marking of the Accident Register are not fatal, since a doctor who finds the person brought dead simply refers the body for postmortem; the death from shock, hemorrhage and injury to the thorax and liver is established by the postmortem report and the doctor's final opinion.ratio¶77
6.
Whether arrest of the accused and the recovery effected pursuant to his confession statement were duly proved.¶34
The court held
While confessions before police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the recovery portion leading to discovery is admissible under Section 27; PW12 categorically stated that the appellant gave the confession statement in his presence and recovery of MO1-knife and MO2-bloodstained shirt followed, the admissible portion being marked as Ex.P15 with PW12 as signatory.ratio¶66