Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 17.06.2026

Pronounced on : 23.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl. A. (MD)No.133 of 2024

1.A.Ayiram

2.A.Sudalai Nainar

.. Appellants/accused Nos.1&2

Vs.

The State through

The Inspector of Police,

Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station,

Tirunelveli District

Crime No.101/2019 ..Respondent/Complainant

Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,

against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2023 in S.C.No.386 of 2019 on

the file of the Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) Tirunelveli.

For Appellants : Mr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju

Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Aju Tagore

1/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

For Respondent : Mr.T.Leninkumar

Counsel for State

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order

passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli in SC No.386 of

2019 dated 27.04.2023, wherein the appellants were convicted and

sentenced in the following manner:

Rank of the Accused Offences for which

convicted (IPC)

Sentenced to undergo

A1 to A3 294(b) One month rigorous

imprisonment each

A1 and A2 302 Life imprisonment each and to

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in

default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months

each

A1 and A2 506(II) Two years rigorous imprisonment

each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

each in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months

each

A1 and A2 Section 4 of Tamil

Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of

Women Act, 2002

Rigorous imprisonment for two

years each, and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- each in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for

three months each

2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

The above sentences were ordered run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Veyilatchi was

married to A2 and there used to be frequent quarrels since she suspected A2

to have an illicit intimacy with one Valli. On 31.03.2019, at about 5.30 p.m.,

the deceased questioned A2 as to where he had gone for the last four days

and there was a quarrel between them. On hearing the sound, A3 came to

the place and abused the deceased in filthy language. A1 also abused the

deceased in filthy language and tried to attack the deceased with sickle

(MO1). On seeing him, the deceased ran out of the house and she was

chased by A2 with a sickle (MO1). A3 is said to have wrongfully restrained

the deceased and A1 attacked the deceased with sickle on her back head and

it was warded off, as a result of which, she sustained cut injuries on her

right hand. At this time, A2 attacked the deceased with MO1 in her neck,

head and left hand. Due to this indiscriminate attack, the deceased fell

down and died on the spot. PW1 to PW4, who were witnessing this incident

were threatened by the accused persons with dire consequences.

3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

3. PW1, who is the sister of the deceased, gave a complaint (Ex.P1) at

18.30 hrs., before PW17. Based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P17) came to be

registered in Crime No.101/2019 for offence under Sections 341, 294(b),

323, 302 and 506(II) IPC.

4. The express FIR was handed over in the Court by PW18 by 10.30

p.m.

5. The investigation was taken over by PW19. He went to the scene of

crime at 19.30 hrs., and immediately, sent the dead body of the deceased to

Tirunelveli Government College and Hospital in order to prevent a potential

law and order problem. PW19 prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P3 and

rough sketch Ex.P19 in the presence of PW5 and PW6. PW19 also seized

MO6 and MO7 under Athatchi Ex.P20. PW19 also recorded the statements

of the eyewitnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. On 01.04.2019 at about

6.30 a.m., inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased at the

Government Hospital, Tirunelveli in the presence of panchayatdars and the

inquest report (Ex.P21) was prepared. The

4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

requisition was made for conducting postmortem through PW15 and the

postmortem was conducted by the Doctor PW11, who issued the autopsy

report (Ex.P11) and the following injuries were noted:

“APPEARANCE FOUND AT THE POST MORTEM:

Moderately built and nourished body of a female.

THE FOLLOWING ANTEMORTEM INJURIES WERE NOTED:

1) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 16 x 1cm x

Cavity deep seen over back of head extending from 7cm behind right ear

up to 5cm above left ear. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels,

skull and brain.

2) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 4 x 1cm x Bone

deep seen over left side of the back of head. It lies 1cm below injury no.

1 and 2cm above left ear. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels

and skull.

3) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 5 x 1cm x Bone

deep seen over the back of head. It lies lem below injury no. 1 and 2cm

right side to injury no.2. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood vessels and

skull.

4) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 10 x 1cm x Cavity

deep seen over back of left side neck. It lies 4cm below injury no.3, 4cm

5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

below injury no.3 and 3cm above nape of neck. It cuts underlying soft

tissues, blood vessels and cervical vertebra C5.

5) A cut injury of size 3 x 1cm x Muscle deep seen over back of

left shoulder. It lies 9cm left side to midline and 7cm behind left side

axilla.

6) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 20 x 7cm x Bone

deep seen over back of left arm. It lies 6cm below left shoulder joint. It

cuts underlying soft tissues and blood vessels.

7) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 19 x 1cm x Bone

deep seen over back of left forearm. It lies 5cm below left elbow joint. It

cuts underlying soft tissues and blood vessels.

8) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 7 x 2cm x Bone

deep seen over back of left palm. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood

vessels, lower end of radius and other carpel bones.

9) A cut injury of size 3 x 1cm x Muscle deep seen over left palm.

10) A cut injury of size 3 x 0.5cm x Muscle deep seen over right

cheek. It lies 0.5cm right side to right eye.

11) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 6 x 1cm x Bone

deep seen over back of right palm. It cuts underlying soft tissues, blood

vessels and bones.

6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

OTHER FINDINGS:

Heart: Normal and coronary vessels patent.

Hyoid bone: Intact.

Stomach: Contains about 50gms of partially digested rice particles, no

specific smell and mucosa pale.

Lungs, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys: Normal, c/s pale.

Small Intestine: Contains about 50gms of partially digested rice

particles, no specific smell and mucosa pale. NO.3 17-

Uterus: Normal, c/s empty.”

A final opinion was given to the effect that the deceased would appear to

have died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of heavy cut injuries in

the head and neck.

6. PW19 arrested A3 on 01.04.2019 at about 9.00 a.m. A3 was

remanded to judicial custody. Steps were taken to record the statements of

PW1 and PW3 under Section 164(5)Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate,

No.III, Tirunelveli. Statement of PW3 was marked as Ex.P2 and statement

of PW1 was marked as Ex.D1.

7. On 08.04.2019, A1 and A2 had surrendered before the Court and

they had been confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. A request was

7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

made for taking police custody of A1 and A2 before the Judicial Magistrate,

No.III, Tirunelveli. Permission was granted and A1 and A2 gave voluntary

confession in the presence of witnesses. The admissible portion of the

confession of A1 was marked as Ex.P7 and the admissible portion of the

confession of A2 was marked as Ex.P8. Based on the same, the sickle used

by A1 was seized under Athatchi Ex.P9. Similarly, MO2 to MO4 were also

seized under the same Athatchi. Similarly based on the admissible portion

of the confession of A2, sickle (MO1) was seized under Athatchi Ex.P10.

Under the same Athatchi, MO3 and MO5 were also seized from A2. A1 and

A2 were thereafter produced before the Court.

8. PW19 recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses under

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., The dress of the deceased was also seized under

Form 91 (MO8 to MO10). All the material objects were sent to the Court

with a requisition to send the same to forensic sciences Laboratory.

9. The investigation officer submitted an alteration report (Ex.P22) by

altering the offences under Sections 34, 114, 302 and 506(II) IPC. After

8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

recording the statements of all the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.,

and after collecting the postmortem report (Ex.P11), biological report

(Ex.P14) and serological report (Ex.P15) and on completion of

investigation, the police report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate

No.III, Tirunelveli, which was taken on file in PRC No.164 of 2019 against

three accused persons. The committal Court on serving the copies under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and it

was made over to the Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) Tirunelveli and it was

taken on file in SC No.386 of 2019.

10. The trial Court framed the charges in the following manner:

S.No.Rank of the

accused

Offences under Sections

(IPC)

1 A1 to A3 294(b)

2 A1 and A2 302

3 A3 302 r/w 34

4 A1 to A3 506(II)

5 A1 and A2 Section 4 of TNPHW Act

2002

9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

11. The accused persons denied the charges when questioned and

pleaded not guilty.

12. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and marked Exs.P1 to

P22 and also relied upon MO1 to MO10. The defence also marked Ex.D1

through PW1.

13. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the

accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of

Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.

14. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses, however,

marked Ex.D1.

15. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a

conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable

doubts as against A1 and A2 and accordingly convicted and sentenced the

10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal has been filed before this Court.

16. Insofar as A3 is concerned, she was convicted only for offence

under Section 294(b) and was acquitted from the charge of 302 r/w 34 and

506(II) IPC. A3 has not filed any appeal.

17. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

made his submissions broadly on two grounds and they are:

(a) PW1 to PW4 are interested witnesses, who are inimical to the

accused person and they could not have seen the occurrence, since none of

them were residing at Manakaadu where the occurrence had occurred and at

the best, they can be treated as chance witnesses and their evidence cannot

be entirely acted upon without corroboration and;

(b) The very genesis of the case of the prosecution is doubtful.

18. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the learned Senior

Counsel submitted that PW1 is the wife of one Manikandan, who is the

11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

brother of A1 and A2. She had a misunderstanding with her husband and

she was living at Thoothukudi. The incident had taken place at Manakaadu

and the rough sketch that was relied upon does not anywhere indicate as to

where PW1 was residing at the time of occurrence.

19. Insofar as PW2 is concerned, she is the mother of the deceased

and she was residing at Nochikulam, which was six kilometers away from

the place of occurrence and there is absolutely no explanation as to how she

was present in the scene of crime.

20. Insofar as PW3 is concerned, she is the daughter of the deceased

and A2. There was a misunderstanding between the deceased and A2 and

hence, the deceased along with PW3 were residing with PW1. Therefore, if

PW3 was residing at Thoothukudi, there is no explanation as to how she

was present at the scene of crime when the incident took place. Apart from

that, the presence of PW3 has not been spoken to by PW1, PW2 or PW4.

12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

21. Insofar as PW4 is concerned, he is the brother of the deceased and

he was also residing at Nochikulam, which was six kilometers away from

the place of incident. Hence, even his presence at the time of occurrence is

highly doubtful.

22. It is therefore contended that the evidence of PW1 to PW4, who

have described the incident parrot-like, were never in the scene of crime and

their evidence cannot be acted upon without independent corroboration,

which is not available in this case.

23. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the very presence of

PW1 to PW4 in the scene of crime is in question and therefore, the genesis

of the case of the prosecution, as projected by it, is highly doubtful.

24. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State (Crl.Side)

submitted that the eyewitness account of PW1 to PW4 has not been assailed

on the side of the appellants in any manner and it does not stand discredited.

It is further submitted that PW3 is none other than the daughter of the

13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

deceased and A2 and there was no need for PW3 to give evidence against

her own father, if really the incident had not taken place. The learned

counsel also submitted that there was no delay in the registration of the FIR

after the incident and the same reaching the Court and therefore, there was

no deliberation to rope in accused persons other than those who are

involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the

eyewitness account is sufficiently corroborated through medical evidence.

The learned counsel further submitted that, in view of the same, all the

charges have been proved by the prosecution and the conviction and

sentence rendered by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this

Court.

25. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on

either side and the materials available on record.

26. PW1 is the sister of the deceased. She has stated in her evidence

that A2 developed an illicit relationship with one Valli as a result of which

there were frequent quarrels between A2 and the deceased. A complaint was

14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

also given against A2 at Taluk Police Station. She separated from A2 and

came along with her children to the residence of her mother (PW2). After

two months, A2 called the elders at Manakaadu and pacified PW2 and

brought back the deceased and two children to Manakaadu. Two to three

months thereafter, A2 went out for work and returned back after four days.

This was questioned by the deceased and there was a wordy quarrel

pursuant to which the murderous attack took place.

27. One of the main ground that was taken by the learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that PW1 had a

misunderstanding with her husband Manikandan and she belongs to

Tuticorin and therefore, her very presence in the scene of crime is doubtful.

28. The incident took place at about 5.30 p.m., on 31.03.2019 and the

complaint was given by PW1 to PW17 at 6.30 p.m., An FIR was registered

in Crime No.101 of 2019 and it reached the Court at 10.30 p.m. The 161

statement recorded from PW1 has reached the Court on 01.04.2019.

15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

29. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. She also talks about the

matrimonial dispute between A2 and the deceased and the manner in which

the incident took place.

30. The most important witness in this case is PW3, who is the

daughter of the deceased and A2. Initially her statement under Section 164

(5) Cr.P.C., was recorded when she was about 12 years old on 10.04.2019.

She has given a graphic description as to how her mother was attacked

indiscriminately by A1 and A2. She also speaks about the 108 Ambulance

coming to the scene of crime and taking the body of her mother to the

Government hospital.

31. PW3 was examined in the Court as a witness when she was 13

years. She specifically states that she was playing in the house of PW1 and

at that point of time, she heard the sound due to the quarrel between A2 and

the deceased, immediately she along with PW1 came to the house. She has

16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

described the manner in which the deceased was abused and attacked with

sickle by the accused persons.

32. During cross-examination a lot of effort was taken to establish

that she was residing in the house of PW2 and therefore, she could not have

been present in the scene of occurrence. However, PW3 has clearly stated

that she was playing in the house of PW1 and she along with PW1 came to

the scene of occurrence and she reiterates the manner in which the deceased

was attacked by A1 and A2.

33. PW4 is the brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence

that he along with PW2 had gone to the house of the deceased on

31.03.2019 and they saw the deceased being attacked by the accused

persons with deadly weapons.

34. It is clear from the above that the prosecution has examined four

eye witnesses in this case to substantiate their case. A careful reading of the

evidence of PW3, who is the daughter of the deceased and A2 clearly

17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

establishes the manner in which the incident had taken place. Her evidence

is natural and cogent and it is corroborated by the 164 statement recorded

from her in the course of investigation. There was no reason for PW3 to

falsely implicate her father A2 in this incident. The evidence of PW3

certainly inspires the confidence of this Court and it is wholly reliable.

35. The above evidence of PW3 is further corroborated by the

evidence of PW1. PW1 is the wife of Manikandan and the house of

Manikandan is shown in the rough sketch (Ex.P19) and it is right opposite

to the scene of crime. Just because, PW1 had a dispute with her husband,

that does not mean that she is permanently separated from him and

therefore, she was residing at Tuticorin. This finding gets buttressed by the

fact that she had given the complaint within one hour from the time of

incident and the FIR had reached the Court on the same day at 10.30 p.m.

The 161 statement recorded from PW1 has also reached the Court the next

day on 01.04.2019. Hence, the evidence of PW1 cannot be doubted more

particularly since PW3 also talks about the presence of PW1.

18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

36. Even if on a demurer the presence of PW2 and PW4 is doubted,

the evidence of PW1 and PW3 certainly clinches the case of the prosecution

and their eyewitness account remains intact and it has not been discredited.

37. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 gets further corroborated by the

postmortem certificate issued by PW11. The injuries recorded is perfectly

in line with the eyewitness account of PW1 and PW3.

38. A1 and A2 in this case had surrendered before the Court and

police custody was taken by PW19 and based on the admissible portion of

their confession, the sickle that was used for committing the murder and the

blood soaked dress were recovered under Athatchi Ex.P9.

39. In a case based on eyewitness account, motive takes a back seat.

However, in this case, the motive has also been established not only by

examining the close relatives but also by examining PW16, who had

enquired the earlier complaint given. Ex.P16 was marked through PW16. It

shows that a complaint was given by the deceased against A2 to the effect

19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

that he drinks and beats the deceased regularly and apart from that he is also

having an illicit relationship with another lady. A2 gave an undertaking that

he will not behave with his wife in the same manner and if he causes any

further trouble, action can be taken against him. This incident had taken

place during February 2018. Subsequently a compromise was arrived at and

the deceased along with the children came back and were living with A2.

The whole issue got triggered when the deceased once again questioned A2

as to why he did not return back home for four days.

40. It is now too well settled that just because the witnesses happened

to be the family members of the deceased and they are categorized as

interested witnesses that by itself is not a ground to reject their testimony.

Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court Salim

Saheb v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (1) SCC 699. Reference

can also be made in Muniyandi @ Muniraj and others v. State reported in 2019 (1)

MWN (Crl.) 489.

20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

41. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the

eyewitnesses and also the medical evidence and has come to a correct

conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable

doubts against A1 and A2. The judgment of the trial Court does not require

the interference of this Court.

42. In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed and the

conviction and sentence imposed in SC No.386 of 2019 by the Sessions

Judge, (Mahila Court), Tirunelveli stands affirmed.

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

23.06.2026

NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

RR

21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

To

1.The Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section officer (English Records)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A(MD)No.133 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

AND

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

RR

Judgment made in

Crl. A. (MD)No.133 of 2024

23.06.2026

23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis