Rajababu Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by, The… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

Rajababu Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by, The… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges; bail bond, if any, cancelled; fine amount, if paid, to be refunded to the appellants; appellants to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants (A.2 and A.3) under Section 302 I.P.C can be sustained when the Trial Court acquitted the other accused persons on the same eyewitness evidence ascribing the same role — the principle of parity. +2 more

Court's answer

When eyewitnesses depose similarly against all the accused persons ascribing the same role in the occurrence, the Trial Court cannot convict the appellants alone while acquitting the other accused; all such accused are governed by the principle of parity.

Ratio / Principle

Denying the benefit of parity to the appellants when the other accused were acquitted would violate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amount to manifest injustice; it is the duty and obligation of the Court to extend the same relief to them.

Key takeaways

The inordinate delay in recording the statements of material eyewitnesses (recorded only on 13.09.2014, 8 days after the occurrence) and in sending those statements to the Court (only after about one year, with the final report) casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire prosecution story.ratio¶116-117
There was an unexplained 6-hour delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court although the police station and the jurisdictional Court are in the same campus; with no independent corroboration of P.W.3 and P.W.4, and the Trial Court having disbelieved their evidence qua the other accused, it becomes unsafe to rely upon their evidence to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants.ratio¶121

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under S.415(2) BNSS, 2023 against conviction under S.302 I.P.C — appellants/A.2 and A.3 convicted by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.200 of 2017 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, while all other accused stood acquitted — eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed similarly against all the accused ascribing the same role; applying the principle of parity (Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782), the Trial Court could not convict the appellants alone while acquitting the others, and denial of parity would violate Article 21 of the Constitution — further, an 8-day delay in recording the S.161(3) Cr.P.C statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4, despatch of those statements to the Court only after about a year along with the final report, a 6-hour delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court despite the police station and Court being in the same campus, absence of independent corroboration of the eyewitnesses, and non-recovery of the motorcycle allegedly used by the deceased (relying on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403) cast a cloud of suspicion on the prosecution case — conviction and sentence set aside; appeal allowed; appellants acquitted of all charges; fine, if paid, to be refunded; bail bonds cancelled; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.20275 & 20276 of 2025

1.Rajababu 2.Murugan ... Appellants/Accused Nos.2 & 3

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.331 of 2014). ... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and allow this Criminal Appeal.

1/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

For Appellants : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment of

conviction passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, thereby convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute

regarding the administration of a temple between the deceased and accused. Further, a dispute arose between them with regard to construction of a compound wall around the temple premises. In the year 2011, the deceased assaulted one Arunachalam/10^th accused, which resulted in enmity between the two groups. Further, the

2/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

deceased lodged a complaint against the accused. Due to the said motive, all the accused conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased. While being so, on 05.09.2014, at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused came there in an auto and waylaid him. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and 11 discriminatively assaulted him with sickles, causing his death on the spot. On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.331 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8.On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 before the trial Court.

3/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.2 and A.3 alone guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, A.2 and A.3 as appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, the unnatural conduct of P.W.3 and P.W.4 creates suspicion with regard to their very presence in the scene of crime. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint. However, she did not write the complaint herself and categorically admitted during her cross-examination that she explained the occurrence to a third party and read the complaint before lodging it

4/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

to the respondent police. After registration of F.I.R, it was sent to the Court with delay of 6 hours, for which there is absolutely no proper explanation by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014. The statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded after 8 days from the date of occurrence. Subsequently, their statements were sent to the Court only after a period of one year and that too along with the final report. There is no explanation by the prosecution for the huge delay in sending the statements to the Court, which creates doubt over the credibility of the case of the prosecution. Despite this, the Trial Court convicted the appellants. The statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C were recorded from P.W.3 and P.W.4 only on 13.09.2014 ie, after a delay of 8 days from the date of occurrence. They are supposed to be eye witnesses as projected by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer should have examined them on the date of occurrence itself.

5/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

6.In fact, the statements recorded from P.W.1 to P.W.3

dated 05.09.2014 were sent to the Court the very next day ie., on 06.09.2014 itself. The inquest report dated 05.09.2014 was also sent to the Court on 06.09.2014. That apart, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are close relatives of the deceased, which raises doubt about their impartiality and their actual presence at the scene of crime. Further, when the Trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 concerning the other accused persons, acquitting them, it is evident that the appellants, who stood in the same footing as of the other accused persons, were convicted by the Trial Court in a pick and chose method by showing partiality. There should not be discrimination when considering the testimony of others and the Trial Court should have acquitted the other accused persons as well, instead of convicting the appellants alone.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that as per the F.I.R, there were only 7 named accused

6/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

persons. However, the prosecution keep on adding more accused and finally, 21 accused persons were included in the charge sheet. When all the accused persons were standing in the same footing, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellants alone while acquitting the other accused. In fact, there was enmity only between 10^th accused and the deceased. However, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges as against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and even then, the Trial Court convicted the appellants.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that due to previous enmity, all the accused persons conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased. On the date of occurrence, all the named accused joined together, waylaid the deceased and indiscriminately attacked him with sickles, causing grievous injuries which led to his death on

7/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

the spot. The sickles were recovered and produced as materials objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The vehicle which was used by the accused was also produced as Material Object No.3. On the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1, the respondent registered the F.I.R, which was marked as Ex.P.13. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was subjected for postmortem and the postmortem report was marked as Ex.P.15. After the confession statements recorded from the accused, the respondent altered the charges and submitted alteration reports on two occasions, which were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. All the prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses, categorically deposed about the specific overt act of the appellants and the Trial Court rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The delay in sending the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, the vital documents were immediately sent to the Court along with F.I.R. Therefore, the prosecution has categorically proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and the

8/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court.

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10.There was enmity between the 10^th accused and deceased with regard to the construction of a compound wall around two Mutharamman Temples situated in Rastha Village, Tirunelveli District. There were totally 21 accused and all the accused are relatives. The Trial Court split up the fourth accused and conducted a trial as against the other accused persons. Except the appellants, all other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court. According to the case of the prosecution, on 05.09.2014 at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused waylaid the deceased and attacked him indiscriminately with sickles. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

9/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint and the same was registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C against 7 named accused persons. During the investigation, the respondent found that there were totally 21 accused and laid a charge sheet. The Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 109 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After a full fledged trial, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellants herein.

11.The complainant, who deposed as P.W.1, is none other than the sister of the deceased. She deposed that 7 accused persons including the appellants herein along with A.11 waylaid the deceased, assaulted the deceased with sickles. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.1 was informed about the occurrence by P.W.3. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence and lodged the complaint before the respondent. 10/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

Therefore, P.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and she heard about the occurrence from P.W.3 and then lodged the complaint. Another sister was examined as P.W.2. She was informed about the occurrence by P.W.3. Therefore, she was not an eyewitness and she was only a hearsay witness. One of the eyewitnesses, the husband of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. He categorically deposed that totally 7 persons assaulted the deceased with sickles. According to him, A.11 also possessed a sickle and assaulted the deceased. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows:

“05.09.2014 Mk; Njjp fhiy 07.30 kzpf;F B Fbj;Jtpl;L CUf;F njw;Nj gz;lhurhkp Nfhtpy; mUNf tPuGj;jpud; jupR epyj;jpw;F mUfpy; fhiyfld; fopg;gjw;fhf nrd;Nwd;> mg;NghJ vdf;F irby; vdJ ikj;Jdh; ngUkhs;rhkp Nkhl;lhu; irf;fpspy; fhiyf;fld; fopf;f nrd;whu;. ehDk;> vd;Dld; vdJ ikj;Jdh;> khhpag;gd;> MWKfk; MfpNahu;fSk; fhiyf;fld; fopf;f nrd;Nwhk;. mUzhryj;ij ntl;b Kd;gifia nfhz;Lk;> Nfhtpy; gpur;ridia nfhz;Lk; KUfd;> uh[ghG> nts;sj;Jiu> fhe;jp> fhj;jg;gd;. nry;yj;Jiu>

11/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025 mz;zhkiy MfpNahu;fs; vdJ ikj;Jdh; ngUkhs;rhkpia topkwpj;J Kufd;> uh[ghG> nts;sj;Jiu MfpNahu;fs; mUthshy; vdJ ikj;Jdu; ngUkhs;rhkpia fOj;jpy; ntl;bdhu;fs;.”

Thus, it is clear that according to P.W.1, there were totally 7 accused persons, who assaulted the deceased with sickles. However, the prosecution recovered only three sickles, which were produced as Material Objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The other accused persons were also standing in the same footing of the appellants.

12.Another eyewitness was examined as P.W.4. He also deposed that all 7 accused persons waylaid the deceased and assaulted him with sickles. According to P.W.3 and P.W.4, the deceased was travelling with motorcycle. However, the prosecution failed to recover the motorcycle and produce it before the Trial Court to prove that the deceased arrived at the scene of crime by

12/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

motorcycle being waylaid and assaulted by the accused. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows:

“05-09-2014 Mk; Njjp fhiy Rkhh; 07.00 kzpastpy; ehd; uhikahit ghh;f;f u];jhtpw;F te;Njd;. mjd;gpd;dh; uhikah tPl;bw;F gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;j B filapy; ehDk; uhikahTk; MWKfKk; B Fbj;Njhk;. mjd;gpd;dh; fhiy Rkhh; 07.30 kzpastpy; ntspNa fhiyf;fld; fopg;gjw;fhf gz;lhurhkp fy;Fthhp gf;fj;jpy; ehDk;> uhikahTk;> MWKfKk; nrd;Nwhk;. gz;lhurhkp fy;Fthup gf;fj;jpy; kz; Nuhl;by; ehq;fs; nrd;W nfhz;bUe;j NghJ ngUkhs;rhkp igf;fpy; vq;fis irL thq;fp Nghdhu;. ehq;fs; gpd;dhy; nrd;Nwhk;. Rkhu; 20 mb njhiytpy; fhiy 08.00 kzpastpy; tPuGj;jpud; jupR epyj;jpy; njw;F ghu;j;J ngUkhs;rhkp nrd;W nfhz;bUe;j NghJ %d;W Ngu; mjhtJ KUfd;> ifapy; uh[hghG> fUg;grhkp kfd; nts;sj;Jiu MfpNahu;fs; mUths;fSld; epd;W nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. ”

Thus, it is clear that all the accused persons were standing in the same footing and had specific overt acts.

13/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

13.One of the witnesses who was present along with P.W.3

and P.W.4 was examined as P.W.6, but he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Now, the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Trial Court disbelieved their evidence insofar as the other 5 accused persons, except the appellants. In fact, all the accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C, since there was no evidence to show that all the accused persons waylaid the deceased and restrained him from escaping from the scene of crime. Further, the Trial Court also concluded that the offences under Sections 120(b), 148, 341, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C were not proved

by the prosecution as against other accused persons except the appellants herein.

14.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

14/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat

[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782] , wherein it is held as follows:

“14. Assuming that PW-25 and PW-26 identified accused nos.2, 3 and 4 by stating that they were members of the mob; once a Coordinate Bench of this Court discards their testimony in its entirety being unreliable, the benefit of the said finding will have to be extended to the accused nos.2,3 and 4 as they are similarly placed with accused Nos.1,5 and 13. Moreover, except for PW-25 and PW-26, no other witnesses have ascribed any role to the accused nos.2, 3 and 4.

15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.”

15/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

15.The above case is squarely applicable to this case on hand. When there is similar evidence of eyewitnesses against all the accused persons by deposing that all the accused persons had specific allegations and same role in the occurrence, the Trial Court cannot convict the appellants alone while acquitting other accused persons. All the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. Hence, the Trial Court should decide cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the accused, which would amount to discrimination.

16.When other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court, the appellants should also have received the benefit of parity. If the relief is denied to the appellants, their rights guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated. Further, it will also amount to doing manifest injustice. It is the duty and obligation of the Court to extend the same relief to the appellants.

16/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

17.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out irregularities committed by the prosecution and it suspects the entire case of the prosecution. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014 at about 08.00 a.m. On the same day, P.W.1 lodged a complaint which was marked as Ex.P.1. Immediately after registration of F.I.R, the Investigating Officer went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar. P.W.1 categorically stated in her complaint that she was informed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 about the occurrence and the specific overt acts of all the accused persons. Even then, the respondent failed to examine the eyewitnesses who had deposed as P.W.3 and P.W.4 on the date of occurrence or next day of occurrence. Both the eyewitnesses were examined only on 13.09.2014 ie., after 8 days from the date of occurrence. There was absolutely no explanation from the prosecution for the huge delay in recording their statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the

17/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

respondent had recorded their statements after 8 days from the date of alleged occurrence, the statements were reached only along with final report that too after one year. When the respondent had sent all the other documents to the Court immediately after the occurrence, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in sending the statements to the Court that too after a period of one year. The Investigating Officer had deposed as P.W.18. He categorically deposed as follows:

“05.09.2014 Mk; Njjp tof;fpy; fz;fz;l rhl;rpahf cs;s khupag;gd;> uhikah> MWKfk; MfpNahu;fis ehd; tprhupj;J thf;F %yq;fs; gjpT nra;Njdh vd;why; 05.09.2014 Mk; Njjp ehd; mtu;fis tprhupf;ftpy;iy> Mdhy; 13.09.2014 Mk; Njjp ehd; mtu;fis tprhupj;Njd;. 05.09.2014 Mk; Njjpf;F gpwF Rkhu; 8 ehl;fs; fopj;J mjhtJ 13.09.2014 Mk; Njjp jhd; ehd; mtu;fis tprhupj;J thf;F%yq;fs; gjpT nra;Js;Nsd; vd;why; rupjhd;. ehd; gpNuj tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;l NghJ MWKfk;> uhikah> khupag;gd; MfpNahu;fs; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;jhu;fsh vd;why; mJ gw;wp vdf;F jw;NghJ Qhgfk; ,y;iy> me;j tpguk;

18/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

tof;F ehl;Fwpg;gpy; Jyq;Fkh vd;why; Jyq;fhJ.”

Thus, it is clear that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined only on 13.09.2014 and their statements were sent to the Court after a period of one year.

18.That apart, the vehicle which was used by the deceased was not recovered by the respondent. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased came to the scene of crime by motorcycle and was subsequently waylaid by the accused persons in order to do away with his life.

19.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jafarudheen and others Vs. State of Kerala [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403] , wherein it has held as follows:

19/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

“28.The Investigating Officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offense. An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, nonexamination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is required to be cleared.

29. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the present case, the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion.”

20.Therefore, the inordinate delay in recording the

statements of material witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.

20/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

21.This circumstance, looming charge in the background inevitably leads to the conclusion, that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal and deliberation of delay in a shady setting, highly redolent of doubt and suspicion. Not only there was delay in sending and recording the statements of eyewitnesses, there was delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court. Though the police station and the jurisdictional Court are situated in the same campus, there was a delay of 6 hours in sending the F.I.R to the Court. There was no explanation by the prosecution in sending the F.I.R to the Court belatedly. The circumstances in this case led such significance to this delay. Further, there is no corroboration of P.W.3 and P.W.4's evidence from any independent source. When the Trial Court concluded not to believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 4, insofar as other accused persons, it becomes unsafe to rely upon their evidence to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants herein.

21/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

22.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

23.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment made in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer required in connection with any other case. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,] NCC :Yes/No 19.01.2026 Index :Yes/No 22/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

23/24

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

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AND R. POORNIMA, J.

ps

Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025

19.01.2026

24/24

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