Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 28.01.2026

DELIVERED ON : 17.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

Anitha Devi ..Appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2019/A1

G.Jayaprakash ..Appellant in Crl.A.No.688 of 2019/A2

J.Sankar ..Appellant in Crl.A.No.762 of 2019/A3

Versus

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Matthur Police Station,

Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.360 of 2011) ... Respondent / Complainant

Criminal Appeals filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure

Code, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

22.08.2019 in S.C.No.117 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

For Appellants

Crl.A.No.734 of 2019: M/s.A.L.Ganthimathi, Senior Advocate

for M/s.C.Santhosh Kumar

Crl.A.No.688 of 2019: Mr.V.Rajamohan

Crl.A.No.762 of 2019: M/s.K.Thilageswaran

For Respondent in all appeals: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, APP

Assisted by Mr.M.Karthikeyan

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The criminal appeal No.688 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant /

accused No.2. The criminal appeal No.734 of 2019 has been filed by the

appellant / accused No.1. The criminal appeal No.762 of 2019 has been filed

by the appellant / accused No.3.

2.The prosecution story runs thus:

2.1 A1 belonged to Athikanoor Village, A2 belonged to Aruiyur

Village, Tirupattur Taluk, and A3 belonged to Seethapatti Village,

Aravankurichi Taluk. A2 and A3 are drivers of the brother of A1 and they

are friends. A1 is the wife of deceased, Sanjeevan. For the past six months

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

there was illicit intimacy between A1 and A2. The deceased was a drunkard

and he used to regularly suspect the character of A1. Having all these things

in mind, A1 planned to do away the deceased with the help of A2 and A3.

On 31.10.2011, A2 and A3 dropped a TATA SUMO Car bearing

Regn.No.TN 70 D 5802 around 2.00 p.m. A1 brought a spade and a crowbar

from her uncle’s house and went to Arunapathy Lake to keep them. They

parked the TATA SUMO car at Nallagounder Village and took one two

wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 24 S 1857. They went to the lake at 5.00 pm.,

and they dug a pit. After 11.45 pm, A1 called A2 and A3 to her house.

Thereafter, A1 to A3 smothered the deceased with a pillow. Then A2 had cut

the throat of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died. Thereafter, A2

and A3 covered the dead body with a bedsheet and tied it around and took

the body to the lake and buried the body.

2.2P.W.1, Indhumathy, the then Village Administrative Officer

deposed that she received an information from her Assistant Swaminathan

on 09.11.2011 that a body of a male was lying at Arunapathy Lake near

Muthampatty bus stop. P.W.1 and her assistant proceeded to the lake to see

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

the body in the evening at 6.00 pm. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave a written

complaint Ex.P1 before P.W.24.

2.3P.W.24, Sivalingam, Inspector of Police deposed that on

09.11.2011, he had received the complaint from P.W.1 and in pursuance

thereof, registered the case in Cr.No.581 of 2011 under Section 176(3) of

Cr.P.C and also registered the First Information Report Ex.P.28. He took the

case for investigation and he gave a requisition letter to Tahsildar,

Uthankarai to exhume the body. On 10.11.2011, P.W.15, Tahsildar, exhumed

the body in the presence of P.W.1, her assistant, P.W.23, Sub Inspector of

Police. Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.

P.W.24 has prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P2 and drawn rough sketch,

Ex.P.29 in the presence of P.W.1 and one Swaminathan.

2.4P.W.15, Baskaran, Tahsildar deposed that on 10.11.2011, he had

received an information that a body of a male was lying at Arunapathy Lake

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

from P.W.24. He went to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.1 and other

witnesses and saw the deceased body and he had given a requisition letter

(Ex.P16) through P.W.18-Head Constable to conduct Autopsy. He noticed a

pillow, a nylon rope and one rope in the scene of occurrence. P.W.15

conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, he found that the body was

in a decomposed condition and has prepared inquest report Ex.P.17. At that

time, P.W.3 and P.W.4 came there and told that the deceased was their

brother, P.W.3 and P.W.4 could identify their brother with the help of inner

wear, waist rope, teeth and the ropes tied around his hands.

2.5Thereafter, P.W.24 sent the deceased body to conduct post-

mortem through P.W.18. P.W.24 also recovered green coloured white striped

lungi (M.O.1), a white rope (M.O.2) having length of 3 cm. and width of

177 cm., A coconut coir rope (M.O.3) and broken bangle pieces (M.O.4) and

a pillow cover (M.O.5) and the same were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.3.

After having examining P.W.15, P.W.24, altered the F.I.R. under Section 302

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

and 201 of IPC. The alteration report is Ex.P.25. He also sent the case

properties to the Court concerned. Meanwhile, P.W.24, got information

from P.W.25, Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station that A1 had given a

complaint stating that her husband i.e., deceased was missing and based on

that complaint a man missing case was also registered by P.W.25.

2.6P.W.16, Dr.Sivaraj Muralidharan and P.W.17, Dr.Kesavan,

jointly conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on

10.11.2011. They begun the post-mortem at 2.15 pm. They found that the

body was fully decomposed. Whileso, they could not recognize the

identification marks. Rigor mortis was absent, eyes were fully decomposed.

Similarly, his private parts were also decomposed. Since the body was fully

decomposed, external injuries could not be noted. P.W.17, Dr.Kesavan

issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.21. P.W.20, Dr.RamaniSekar deposed

that he examined the hyoid bone and he has issued the report, Ex.P.19.

According to P.W.20, he found the hyoid bone was broken and hence, he

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

gave opinion that there was no possibility for suicide. P.W.16 and P.W.17

have opined that due to fracture of hyoid bone, the deceased would have

died of asphyxia and failure of heart and lungs within 72 to 92 hours prior to

the time of conducting the post-mortem. The post-mortem report is Ex.P.21.

2.7P.W.24, in continuation of his investigation on 14.11.2011

arrested A2 and A3 at Uthankarai bus stop. On enquiry, A2, voluntarily

given confession statement and the same has been recorded in the presence

of P.W.10 and one Rajamanickam. The admissible portion of the confession

statement is Ex.P.30. In pursuance of his confession statement A2 stated that

A1 gave a ring imprinted as ASR (M.O.11) and the same was recovered

under mahazar Ex.P.14. On enquiry, A3 voluntarily gave confession

statement and the same is recorded in the presence of P.W.10 and one

Rajamanickam. The admissible portion of confession statement is Ex.P.9.

According to A3, A1 gave cell phone (M.O.12) of the deceased and the same

has been recovered by P.W.24 under Ex.P.15. In pursuance of the confession

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

statement of A2, took them to the house of one Govindasamy and identified

the two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 24 S 1857 (M.O.16) and the said

vehicle was recovered under mahazar Ex.P.13. The A3 took P.W.4 to the

place, where the deceased was murdered and buried. A2 produced a spade,

M.O.9 and crowbar, M.O.10 and the same were recovered under mahazar

Ex.P.12 and P.13.

2.8Thereafter, A2 also handed over Soori knife, M.O.8 and the

same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P.11. On the same day at 5.30 p.m.,

A2 has also produced two woollen bedsheets under mahazar Ex.P.31, bed

sheets M.O.17 and M.O.6. A3 also produced pillow M.O.18 and bed cover

M.O.7 and the same were recovered under mahazar M.O.7 and the same

were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.10. P.W.24, in continuation of his

investigation on 14.11.2011, arrested A1 at 8.00 p.m. and on enquiry A1

voluntarily given confession statement and the same has been recorded in

the presence of P.W.2. The admissible portion of the confession statement of

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

A1, is Ex.P.5. In pursuance of confession statement, A1 produced a Titan

watch (M.O.19) belonging to deceased and the same has been recovered

under mahazar Ex.P32. A1 also identified a TATA SUMO car (M.O.20) and

the same has been recovered under mahazar Ex.P.33.

2.9P.W.25, enquired A1 and others with regard to man missing

case. When he came to know about the registration of a crime in this case he

gave the details about the registration of man missing complaint to P.W.24.

P.W.26, the Inspector of Police deposed that he had conducted investigation

subsequent to the investigation conducted by P.W.25. He had examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements and upon completion of his

investigation he had laid the final report before the jurisdictional Court.

2.10On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207

Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of

Session in S.C.No.117 of 2016 and was made over to the Additional District

and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, for trial.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

2.11The trial Court framed the following charges against the

accused:

Accused Charges framed under Section

A1 to A3 120(B), 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC

When questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

2.12In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has

examined P.W.1 to P.W.26 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.50 and also placed

M.O.1 to M.O.20. After completion of prosecution side evidences, the

accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating materials produced by the prosecution side evidences. The

accused had denied as false case. No witness was examined on the side of

the defence and no document was marked.

2.13Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidences, the

Court below found the accused guilty and convicted them as follows:

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

Rank of

Accused

Convicted under

Section

Sentence

A1 to A3 120(B) IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to

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

to undergo six months simple

imprisonment

A1 to A3 302 r/w 34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to

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

to undergo six months simple

imprisonment

A1 to A3 201 IPC to undergo seven years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six

months simple imprisonment

2.14Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / A1 preferred

Crl.A.No.734 of 2019. The appellant / A2 preferred the Crl.A.No.688 of

2019 and the appellant / A3 preferred Crl.A.No.762 of 2019.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant / A1

would submit that the deceased whereabouts were not known from

01.11.2011 and the appellant has lodged the complaint on 08.11.2011.

Subsequent, to which the respondent police has concocted the story against

the appellant herein, which has been accepted by the Court below without

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

evidence either direct evidence or substantial evidence. The Court below

erred in convicting the accused on the basis of alleged confession by A1 to

A3. P.W.13 who said to have deposed that A1 and A2 stayed in Anbu Lodge

itself is doubtful since he has not identified the accused and had only stated

that Police has investigated and taken the hotel register. The Court below

failed to consider the fact that except confession statement of A1 to A3 there

is no material to show that there was a conspiracy between A1 to A3 and no

independent witness had been examined to prove either conspiracy or the

offence as alleged by the prosecution. Even, the vehicle which is said to be

used by A2 and A3 and the bed sheet and sheet that have been recovered in

the presence of P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer and there is no

independent witnesses or the evidences to prove the recovery. The

conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below is erroneous incorrect

and unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A2 would

submit that it is a case of circumstantial case and in a case of circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution must first of all fully establish the circumstances

against the accused then the prosecution has to form a chain of

circumstances with connecting links pointing to the guilt of the accused and

that chain of circumstances leading to the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused and nothing else. The prosecution has not established even a single

circumstance against the accused except the fact that A1 is the wife of the

accused. The Court below erred in taking into consideration the alleged

confession given by the Police officers and their recovery. Even if the

recoveries are admitted, the guilt of the accused is not proved through that

single circumstance. The prosecution first of all has not identified the dead

body as that of the accused. A man missing complaint is pending and they

could only identify with the help of sisters of the deceased. Further, he

would submit that the body was fully in a decomposed position and the

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

prosecution has not taken any scientific steps to identify the dead body of the

accused. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence with regard to

the illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 except the confession of A1, there is

no independent material put forward by the prosecution with regard to the

illicit intimacy of A1 and A2. The Court below erred in awarding two life

imprisonment for the accused under Section 120(B) of IPC and another

offence under Section 302 of IPC especially when there is no direct evidence

and even the circumstances put forward by the prosecution are not fully

established. The reasons given by the Court below are not sound and

sustainable in law. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Court below against A2 is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned counsel appearing for appellant / A3 would submit

that none of the prosecution witnesses including the blood relatives of the

deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

The motive alleged by the prosecution is not supported by any of the

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

prosecution witnesses. The Court below has rightly observed that the

confession made before the Police officer is invalid, however, erroneously

convicted the appellant and when there were remarkable contradictions in

the case of prosecution in the case of prosecution with regard to recovery

itself. When A1 was residing along with her two children and her mother-in-

law, where as per the prosecution the alleged occurrence had taken place, the

prosecution has not even examined them as witnesses. The prosecution

miserably failed to prove the chain of circumstances and therefore the

conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

submit that there was an illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 and the

deceased was a drunkard and he used to regularly suspect the character of

A1. Having all these things in mind, A1 planned to do away the deceased

with the help of A2 and A3. Though the A1 had lodged a complaint before

P.W.25 for missing of her husband stating that her husband has not turned up

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

from 01.11.2011. But she chosen to lodge the complaint only on 08.11.2011.

The recovery of material objects recovered from the accused persons in

pursuance of their confession statements which clearly establish the case of

the prosecution. As per the final opinion of the Doctors, P.W.16 and P.W.17

who conducted the Autopsy stated that due to fracture of Hyoid bone, the

deceased died of Asphyxia and failure of heart and lungs within 72 to 92

hours prior to the post-mortem. Appellant / A2, voluntarily confessed that A1

gave M.O.11 ring to A2 which belongs to the deceased imprinted as ASR. In

pursuance of the confession statement, A2 has also produced M.O.8, Soori

knife which was used for murdering the deceased. A1 called A2 and A3 and

in turn A2 and A3 brought the TATA SUMO car M.O.20 and A1 brought a

spade, M.O.9 and crowbar, M.O.10 and went to Arunapathylake to keep

them. They dropped the car and took a two wheeler bike M.O.16 and dug a

pit. Thereafter, A1 called A2 and A3 and they smothered the deceased with a

pillow and A2 cut the throat of the deceased. There cannot be any direct

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy and it can be ascertained from the

subsequent and prior conduct of the accused persons from the date of

occurrence. Upon appreciating oral and documentary evidences, the Court

below has rightly found the accused guilty and imposed punishment. There

is no infirmity in the judgment of the Court below and the appeals are liable

to be dismissed.

7.We have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the materials on record.

8.In a case of circumstantial case, the prosecution must first of all

fully establish all the chain of circumstances against the accused, when the

prosecution has to form chain of circumstances with connecting links

pointing to the guilt of accused and that chain of circumstances leading only

to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and nothing else.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

9.According to the prosecution, A2 and A3 are drivers of the

brother of A1 and they are friends. For the past six months there was illicit

intimacy between A1 and A2 and the deceased was a drunkard and apart

from that he used to regularly suspect the character of A1. Having all these

things in mind, A1 planned to do away the deceased with the help of A2 and

A3. In order to prove the above said facts, the prosecution has not examined

any witnesses. P.W.2 to P.W.6 and P.W.11 have turned hostile.

10.P.W.25 Thiru.S.Rajkumar, Inspector of Police, Matthur Police

Station deposed that while he was in Police Station on 08.01.2011, A1,

Anitha Devi lodged the complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police and he

has received the complaint and registered the case in Cr.No.360 of 2011 as

man missing and the same was placed before him for investigation. In the

said complaint, it is alleged that her husband i.e., the deceased was missing

from 01.11.2011. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer received an

information from her assistant one Mr.Swaminathan, that a body of a male

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

was lying at Arunapathy Lake near Muthampatty bus stop. Hence, P.W.1 and

her assistant have immediately proceeded to the lake to see the body.

Thereafter, P.W.1 gave written complaint Ex.P.1 before P.W.24. P.W.24

received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.581 of 2011 under

Section 176(3) of Cr.P.C and also registered the First Information Report

Ex.P.28. After registration of the case, P.W.24 gave requisition letter to

Tahsildar, P.W.15.

11.On 10.11.2011, P.W.15, P.W.1 and P.W.23 have exhumed the

body and thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased

on 10.11.2011, he found that the body was found in a decomposed condition

and has prepared inquest report Ex.P.17. At that time, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and

claimed that the deceased was their brother and identified their brother with

the help of his inner wear, waist rope and the ropes tied around his hand.

Thereafter, P.W.24 sent the body for post-mortem through P.W.18. P.W.24

also recovered M.O.1 to M.O.5 from where the body was exhumed.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

Thereafter, altered the FIR under Section 302 and 201 of IPC under Ex.P.25.

At that time, P.W.24 got information from P.W.25 Inspector of Police,

Mathur Police Station stating that A1 had already given a complaint stating

that the deceased was missing. P.W.16 and P.W.17, the Doctors, who

conducted autopsy on the dead body on 10.11.2011 deposed that the body

was fully decomposed so they could not recognise the identification mark.

P.W.20, opined that due to fracture of hyoid bone, the deceased died out of

asphyxia and failure of heart and lungs within 72 to 92 hours prior to the

post-mortem. P.W.20 who examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and

issued Ex.P.19 report and according to P.W.20 he found that the hyoid bone

broken and hence he gave an opinion that there was no possibility of suicide.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.24 on 14.11.2011, arrested A2 and A3

at Uthankarai bus stand and on enquiry they have voluntarily given

confession statement and the same has been recorded in the presence of

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

P.W.10 and another. In pursuance of the confession according to A2, A1 gave

a ring imprinted as ASR (M.O.11) was recovered. A3 took PW.24 and others

to the place where the deceased was murdered and buried. A cell phone

(M.O.12) was recovered from A3 and A2 also produced M.O.9 Spade and

crowbar, M.O.10. A2 produced M.O.8 Soori knife and the same way A2 also

produced two woollen bed sheets M.O.17 and M.O.6. P.W.24 also states that

he arrested A1 on 14.01.2011 at 8.00 pm. in the presence of P.W.2 and

another and A1 voluntarily given a confession statement, in pursuance of

confession statement, A1 handed over watch M.O.19 and also identified

M.O.20 TATA SUMO car and the same has been recovered in the presence

of P.W.10 and another. The prosecution has not come forward with any

definite circumstances against the accused except the arrest and recovery.

13.The prosecution first of all has not identified the dead body as

that of the deceased. A man missing complaint was pending and they could

be only identified with the help of sisters of the deceased, P.W.3 and P.W.4.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

First of all the body was fully in a decomposed position. The prosecution has

not taken any scientific steps to identify the body of the deceased. In such

case, accusing A1 for having murdered her husband on account of illicit

intimacy between A1 and A2 is not believable one. The prosecution treating

the confession of the accused as the basis of the prosecution case it has in

detail gone into the confession given by A1 or to hold that there was an illicit

intimacy between A1 and A2. The prosecution has failed to produce any

evidence with regard to the illicit intimacy between A1 and A2, except the

confession of A1 there is no independent material put forward by the

prosecution with regard to illicit intimacy of A1 and A2. When there is no

evidence with regard to that the very foundation of the prosecution case is

shaken.

14.Further, none of the prosecution witnesses including the blood

relatives of the deceased P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not supported the case of

prosecution and turned hostile. P.W.13, Anbu who is the lodge owner

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

deposed that A1 and A2 stayed in his lodge itself is doubtful since he has not

identified the accused and had not only stated that the Police has

investigated and taken the hotel register. Though P.W.13 categorically stated

that the Police has taken the Hotel register and the same has not been placed

before the Court below to establish the fact that A1 and A2 stayed in

P.W.13’s lodge in particular date and time with their identification. Except

the confession statement of A1 to A3 there is no material to show that there

was conspiracy between A1 to A3 and no independent witness has been

examined to prove either conspiracy of offence as alleged by the

prosecution.

15.Even, the vehicle which is said to have been used by A2 and A3

and bed sheet and sheet that have been recovered in the presence of VAO

and there is no independent witness or evidence to prove the recovery. The

Court below had proceeded the entire case only on the basis of confession

given by A1 to A3 without any other material and the Court below erred in

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

convicting the appellants only on the basis of confession statements and not

on the material evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of

circumstances that is motive, last seen theory, recovery and medical

evidence. When the recovery was effected based on the alleged confession

statement given by the accused while in Police custody, the Court below

should not have given much importance to the case put forth by the

prosecution.

16.When A1 was residing along with her two children and her

mother-in-law, where as per the prosecution, the prosecution has not even

examined them as witnesses. The judgment of the conviction and sentence

by the Court below is without basis or evidence to prove the alleged

occurrence and the offence by the appellants and as such is liable to be set

aside. This Court is of the view that the Court below committed error in

convicting the appellants only on the basis of confession statement and not

on any material evidence and in any view of the matter, the Judgment of

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below is erroneous and

unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. There are merits in the

appeals.

17.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and

sentence dated 22.08.2019 in S.C.No.117 of 2016 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri is set aside. The fine

amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any,

executed shall stand discharged.

[P.V., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

17.02.2026

NCC : Yes / No

rap/nsd

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

To

1.The Inspector of Police,

Matthur Police Station,

Krishnagiri District.

2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri

3.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

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

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN , J.

and

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rap/nsd

Crl.A.Nos.734, 688 and 762 of 2019

17.02.2026

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