Allowed

Muthupandi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruverambur

Madras HC30 Mar 2026CRL MP(MD)/5901/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of the petitioner's life imprisonment sentence and conviction for murder pending the disposal of the main criminal appeal. The Court held the case for exceptions to murder was open and granted bail subject to security and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; sentence of imprisonment suspended; petitioner enlarged on bail for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for monthly appearances.

Muthupandi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 30/03/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

Crl.M.P(MD). No.5901 of 2026 in

¶7

Crl.A(MD).No.20 of 2026

¶8

Muthupandi ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. In Crime No.221/2022. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER :- To suspend the sentence and conviction made in S.C.No.104 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 30.10.2025 pending disposal of the instant Criminal Appeal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.]

¶19

This petition has been filed seeking suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.104 of 2023, by judgment dated 30.10.2025, to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the accused developed relationship with a women residing in the same area, which was questioned by the deceased. On the fateful day, i.e., on 29.06.2022, the accused is said to have gone to the house of that woman and there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused, during which the accused is said to have inflicted cut and stab injuries on the deceased. As a result, the deceased died. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 221 of 2022 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶21

The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of

¶22

the case and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶26

to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶28

P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the eyewitnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the neighbours. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that PW1 and PW2 could not have been present at the scene of occurrence and that their very presence is questionable. Insofar as PW3 and PW4 are concerned, even according to them, there was a wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased, which ultimately led to the accused attacking the deceased.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶32

In our considered view, even if the prosecution has made out a

¶33

case that it was the accused, who had attacked the deceased and caused his death, it must be seen, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, whether this case can be brought within any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC.

¶34

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. A prima facie case has been made out and the petitioner has been in incarceration from 30.08.2025.

¶35

Considering the fact that there are no previous cases against the petitioner and that it will take some more time for this Court to take up the appeal for final hearing, this Court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence by suspending the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶40

with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶41

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶42

ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left

¶43

Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure their identity.

¶44

iii. The petitioner shall appear and sign before the trial Court at 10.30 a.m., on the first working day of every English calender month, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶45

[N.A.V., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶46

30.03.2026

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶48

Indu

¶49

5/7

¶50

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

¶51

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶52

¶53

The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶54

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶55

3.The Central Prison, Trichy.

¶56

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

¶57

6/7

¶58

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

¶59

CRL MP(MD). No.5901 of 2026

¶60

N.ANAND VENKATESH , J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶61

Indu

¶62

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.5901 of 2026

¶63

Date : 30/03/2026

¶64

7/7

¶65

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

Muthupandi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruverambur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthupandi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruverambur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Saraswathi

K.Vinayagam Vs The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul

Senthil @ Senthilkumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thatchanallur

Silambarasan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Yamuna Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Cbcid