The Inspector of Police v. Selvaraj

Madras HC28 Nov 2025RT(MD)/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Death sentence confirmation; witness murdered to prevent deposition; rarest of rare doctrine; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab; Section 195A IPC; related/interested eyewitnesses; sniffer dog and defective investigation; Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. referred trial; Section 415(2) BNSS appeals; Crime No.56/2022; S.C.No.119 of 2023, II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) (FAC), Tirunelveli; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; P.Velmurugan and L.Victoria Gowri JJ.; decided 28.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Referred Trial allowed: death sentence imposed on A1 (Selvaraj) by the trial Court confirmed and to be carried out as directed by the trial Court; convictions and sentences on A2 to A8 maintained; all the Criminal Appeals (Crl.A(MD)Nos.790, 921, 796, 786 & 418 of 2025) dismissed. ¶262

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶262

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.2025 in S.C.No.119 of 2023 passed on the appellants (A1 to A8) by the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) (FAC), Tirunelveli, is liable to be set aside and the appellants acquitted. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

On re-appreciation, the evidence of eyewitnesses PW1 to PW5 is cogent, consistent and reliable, inspires the confidence of the Court, and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; hence no interference with the trial Court's judgment and sentence is warranted.

¶233

Ratio / Principle

Lapses in investigation (including use of a sniffer dog) and minor contradictions regarding timing of the complaint, registration of the FIR and presence of the investigating officer are not grounds to disbelieve the prosecution case, motive having been clearly established and arrest, confession and recovery proved through independent witnesses.

¶230

Key takeaways

The fact that the related eyewitnesses did not save the deceased does not render their presence at the scene doubtful or their evidence unbelievable, eight armed accused having arrived unexpectedly and A6 to A8 commanding the assault from the bank.ratio¶178
The motive - to prevent the deceased from giving evidence against the accused in S.C.No.57/2018 (Crime No.78/2016) arising from Crime No.80/2012 political rivalry - stands proved by oral and documentary evidence.ratio¶225
Precedents cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case; the contradictions cited by the appellants are not material contradictions going to the root of the prosecution case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) confirms the death sentence awarded to A1 (Selvaraj) and dismisses the criminal appeals of A2 to A8, upholding the trial Court's judgment in S.C.No.119 of 2023 for the canal murder of the deceased committed to prevent him from undergoing cross-examination as prime witness in S.C.No.57/2018 (Crime No.78/2016). Held: (i) ocular evidence of PW1 to PW5, though related, is cogent, consistent and corroborated by the postmortem certificate recording 16 ante-mortem cut injuries; (ii) failure of witnesses to save the deceased, minor contradictions, and investigative lapses (including use of a sniffer dog) do not discredit the prosecution case; (iii) motive - silencing the witness - stands proved. Applying Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, the Court held the case 'rarest of rare': murdering a witness to prevent testimony is an attack on the justice-delivery system, attracts Section 195A IPC, and defeats the object of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. Death sentence on A1 confirmed; A2 to A5 (life imprisonment) and A6 to A8 (Section 148 IPC) sentences stand.

¶1

R.T(MD)No.1/2025 & Crl.A(MD)Nos.790, 921, 796, 786 & 418/2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on Delivered on 04.11.2025 28.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

R.T(MD)No.1 of 2025 and Crl.A(MD)Nos.790, 921, 796, 786 & 418 of 2025

¶7

R.T(MD)No.1 of 2025 :

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.56/2022

... Complainant

vs.

Selvaraj

... Respondent/A1

Prayer:- Referred Trial filed under Section 366 (1) of Cr.P.C., on the judgment of conviction sentence dated 03.03.2025 passed in S.C.No. 119 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

¶14

For Complainant : Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

Page No.1 of 49

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Janaki Vs The Inspector of Police

The Branch Manager Vs Keerthika

A.Karuppaiah Vs S.Raja