Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 29.01.2026

Delivered on : 20.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

Shankar

S/o.Sarangan @ Sarangapani …… Appellant

in Crl.A.No.509 of 2019

1. Ramani

W/o.Ravi

2. Santhosh @ Harikrishnan

S/o.Ravi

3. Arunkumar

S/o.Ravi

4. Thulasiraman

S/o.Margasagayam …… Appellants

in Crl.A.No.647 of 2019

Page 1 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

Karunakaran

S/o.Sarangan @ Sarangapani …… Appellant

in Crl.A.No.648 of 2019

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu

represented by

Inspector of Police,

Veppankuppam Police Station,

Vellore District, Crime No.311 of 2012. …… Respondent

in all Crl.As.

Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to

set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the

learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore made in

S.C.No.137 of 2013 by judgment dated 31.07.2019.

For Appellants : Mr.M.R.Thangavel

(in Crl.A.Nos.509 and 647 of 2019)

Mr.R.Karthikeyan

(in Crl.A.No.648 of 2019)

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

(in all Crl.As)

Page 2 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment

passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in

S.C.No.137 of 2013, dated 31.07.2019 convicting the appellants for the

offence(s) and to undergo the sentence(s) as detailed hereunder:-

Accused Offence(s)

punishable under

Sections

Sentence(s) imposed

A1 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

342 r/w 149 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A2 147 IPC (1count) Rigorous imprisonment for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

294(b) IPC Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six

months and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default to undergo one month R.I.

342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

Page 3 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

undergo two months R.I.

302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A2 acquitted from the charge under

Section 352 of IPC.

A3 147 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

342 r/w 149 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A4 147 IPC (1 count) Rigorous imprisonment for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of 1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A4 acquitted from the charge under

Section 352 of IPC.

A5 147 IPC (1count)Rigorous imprisonment for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

342 r/w 149 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

Page 4 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

undergo two months R.I.

302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A5 acquitted from the charge under

Section 352 of IPC.

A6 147 IPC (1count)Rigorous imprisonment for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo two months R.I.

342 r/w 149 IPCRigorous imprisonment for one year

and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to

undergo two months R.I.

302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment and fine of

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

three months R.I.

A6 acquitted from the charge under

Sections 324 and 352 of IPC.

The sentences are ordered to run

concurrently for all the accused.

Set off allowed under Section 428

Cr.P.C for all the accused.

Challenging the above judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 has

preferred Crl.A.No.648 of 2019, A2 has preferred Crl.A.No.509 of 2019 and

A3 to A6 have preferred Crl.A.No.647 of 2019, respectively. Since the

appeals are arising out of the common judgment, they are taken up together

and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the appellants

will be hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 and A3 to A6 in this judgment.

Page 5 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-

(a) A1 to A5 are the residents of Ongapadi Village and A6 is the

resident of Thellur Village. A1 and A2 are the brother-in-laws of A3, A4 and

A5 are the sons of A3, and A6 is the son-in-law of A3. About two years prior

to the occurrence, A3 purchased a vacant house site from one Dayalan and

registered the same in favour of her sons, A4 and A5. The vacant site of the

deceased, Mathi @ Mathiyalagan, is situated adjacent to A3’s property on

the Northern side. When A3 caused her vacant site to be measured, it was

found that a poromboke land measuring about six feet, lays in between the

vacant sites of A3 and the deceased. Upon the deceased demanding a share

in the said poromboke land, enmity arose between A3 and the deceased.

Thereafter, when A3 attempted to dig a basement for construction of a house

by encroaching upon the poromboke land, the same was resisted by the

deceased and his wife Dharani, leading to a quarrel on 20.09.2012 at

10.30 a.m., during which time, A1 and his associates assaulted the deceased

and his wife, thereby further intensifying the enmity.

(b) As the deceased continued to obstruct the construction, the

accused decided to eliminate him. While so, on 20.09.2012 at 11.15 a.m., all

Page 6 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

the accused unlawfully assembled near the vacant site belonging to A3,

armed with deadly weapons, such as a crowbar and shared a common object

to murder the deceased. At that time, A3 instigated A1 and handed over a

crowbar, pursuant to which A1 struck a heavy blow on the head of the

deceased, causing fatal injuries. Simultaneously, A2 and A4 caught hold of

the deceased, thereby facilitating and abetting A1 for committing the murder.

Subsequently, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint (Ex.P1).

(c) P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P1 from P.W.1,

registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2012 for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 IPC and prepared the First

Information Report, Ex.P13. Thereafter, P.W.11 forwarded the copies of FIR,

to the jurisdictional Court and higher officials.

(d) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P13 from P.W.11,

took up further investigation on the same day and went to the place of

occurrence on 20.09.2012 at about 16.00 hours and in the presence of

witnesses Seshadri and P.W.7 - Rajendiran, he prepared the Observation

Mahazar Ex.P2 and drew Rough Sketch Ex.P14. Thereafter, he seized the

Page 7 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

material objects M.O.2 blood stained soil mixed with small stones and

M.O.3 ordinary soil mixed with small stones under the seizure mahazar

Ex.P3. He enquired the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7. Subsequently, on 21.09.2012,

he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the

witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P15.

Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable,

P.W.10 along with a requisition letter Ex.P.10 for conducting post-mortem.

(e) PW9-Doctor, on receipt of requisition, conducted post-mortem and

issued the post-mortem certificate Ex.P11. P.W.10 Head Constable seized

M.O.6 blood stained lungi and M.O.7 blood stained T-Shirt from the dead

body and handed over the same to P.W.12.

(f) P.W.12 further proceeded with the investigation and has arrested

the accused on 21.09.2012 at 13.30 hours near the Pichanatham Colony

junction road and obtained the voluntary confessional statements of the

accused in the presence of P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer and one

Sagadevan. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 was

marked as Ex.P4, A2 was marked as Ex.P5 and A4 was marked as Ex.P6,

Page 8 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

respectively. On the basis of Ex.P4, P.W.12 seized M.O.1 crowbar from A1

under seizure mahazar (Ex.P7) near a bush situated on the river on the

Western side of Ongapadi village. Further, he seized M.O.4 wooden log

from A2 under seizure mahazar (Ex.P8) and M.O.5 spade from A4 under

Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.8 and witness Sagadevan. Thereafter, P.W.12

remanded the accused to judicial custody. He sent the seized material objects

to the Court under Form-95. Thereafter, on receipt of the requisition letter,

P.W.13 Scientific Officer examined the case properties and detected blood in

M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.6 and M.O.7 and not detected blood in M.O.3 and

issued Ex.P16 Biological report. Ex.P17 Serology report was issued by the

Assistant Director, Forensic Sciences Department. P.W.14 - Doctor

examined the injured P.W.1 on 21.09.2012 at 9.30 a.m., admitted her as an

in-patient, and issued the medical report Ex.P19 and the wound certificate

Ex.P20.

(g) After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the final report in

Crime No.311 of 2012 against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 IPC before the Court.

Page 9 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore took the charge

sheet on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2013 and after completing the formalities

under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal District &

Sessions Judge, Vellore, since the offences are exclusively triable by the

Court of Session. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge took the

case on file in S.C.No.137 of 2013 and made over the same to the learned

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore for disposal in accordance

with law. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, after

completing all the formalities, framed charges against A1 for the offence

punishable under Sections 148, 342 read with Section 149 and 302 IPC;

against A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts),

294(b), 323, 352, 342 and 302 IPC; against A3 for the offences punishable

under Sections 147, 148, 352, 342 and 302 IPC; against A4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 323, 324, 352, 342 and 302 IPC;

against A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 352,

342 read with Section 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC; and against A6 for the

offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 324, 352, 342 read with

Sections 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC.

Page 10 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

4. During the trial, in order to substantiate the charges framed against

A1 to A6, on the side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined

as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20, besides 7

material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 7. On completion of examination

of the prosecution witnesses and the incriminating circumstances were

culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were put to

A1 to A6 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they have denied the same as false.

However, on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was

let in. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on

either side, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,

found A1 to A6 guilty of the offence(s) and sentenced them to undergo the

sentence(s) as mentioned above, leading to the filing of the present appeals

before this Court by the accused.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A2 to A6 contended

that all the alleged eye-witnesses are interested witnesses, as they are close

relatives of the deceased. None of the independent witness had been

examined to substantiate the occurrence. It is pointed out that P.Ws.2, 4 and

Page 11 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

5, (brother, sister and son of the deceased) did not speak about the presence

or specific overt acts of A2 to A6 at the scene of occurrence, and yet the

prosecution did not treat them as hostile. Though P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.4

(sister) of the deceased, claimed to be eye-witnesses and deposed that A2

and A4 caught hold of the deceased and that A1 attacked him with a crowbar

(iron rod), allegedly brought by A4, such version is not corroborated by the

evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.1, being uncorroborated

and allegedly motivated by prior civil dispute, is unreliable.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A2 to A6 further

contended that the complaint (Ex.P1) forming the foundation of the

prosecution case, is doubtful. While P.W.1/de-facto complainant stated that

she lodged a written complaint at about 3.00 p.m on 21.09.2012 at the

hospital, where she was admitted, P.W.4 and P.W.11(Sub Inspector of

Police), deposed that the complaint was lodged at the Police Station and that

no examination took place at the hospital. This inconsistency, casts serious

doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case itself. It is further submitted that

P.W.11 admitted that two First Information Reports have been registered for

the same occurrence, one of which was subsequently quashed by this Court

Page 12 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

in Crl.O.P.No.21442 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014. The non-disclosure of the

said fact before the trial Court and the registration of multiple FIRs for the

same occurrence, vitiates the investigation. It is further contended that

though a charge under Section 352 IPC was framed against A2 to A6, no

evidence was adduced in support thereof by the prosecution and hence, they

were acquitted of the said charge. In the absence of cogent and consistent

evidence, the conviction of A2 to A6 for the remaining charges is

unsustainable and calls for interference by this Court.

7. In addition, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1

submitted that the conviction of A1 is unsustainable, both on facts and in

law. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary

evidence, particularly with regard to material discrepancies and lack of

corroboration, and erroneously convicted A1. It is further submitted that the

prosecution has not established the specific overt act attributed against A1

beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of P.Ws.2 to 5 at the scene of

occurrence itself is doubtful. Further, the entire case rests upon the testimony

of interested witnesses, who are the close relatives of the deceased, and their

testimonies require careful scrutiny and cannot be accepted without

Page 13 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

independent corroboration. The learned counsel further contended that the

genesis of the occurrence itself had been suppressed and that the prosecution

has not placed the true and complete version before the Court. Admittedly,

there exists a civil dispute between the de-facto complainant and A1 and the

other accused. Owing to such prior enmity, a false case has been foisted

against A1, when the complainant was unable to secure relief through lawful

means. It is pointed out that except P.W.1, no other witness has clearly

spoken about the presence and specific role of A1 at the scene of occurrence.

The trial Court, without properly reconciling the inconsistencies and

contradictions in the evidence, proceeded to convict A1 on assumptions and

surmises, rather than on cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, it is prayed

that the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 be set aside and that he may

be acquitted of all the charges.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-Police submitted that owing to the civil dispute that had arisen

between the deceased and A3, the occurrence took place at the instigation of

A3. It is contended that A1 to A6, sharing a common intention, joined

together and that A1, with the active aid of the other accused, attacked the

Page 14 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

deceased by using a deadly weapon (crowbar). As a result, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The

prosecution has established the guilt of the accused (A1 to A6) beyond

reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence. He further submitted

that the ocular testimony of P.W.1, who is an injured eye witness, is natural,

consistent and inspires confidence of this Court. Merely because the

witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded,

when it is otherwise trustworthy and duly corroborated by medical and

documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the presence of the

accused at the scene of occurrence and the specific overt acts attributed to

each of them, have been clearly spoken to by prosecution witnesses. The

medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular version regarding the manner

of assault and the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witness

(P.W.1). P.W.1 also sustained injuries during the occurrence and her

presence at the scene cannot be doubted.

9. With regard to the alleged contradictions, it is contended by the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor that they are minor discrepancies

which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Such minor variations

Page 15 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

are natural in the testimony of witnesses deposing after lapse of time and do

not discredit the core version of the prosecution. It is further contended that

the prior land dispute between the parties, furnishes motive for the

occurrence and does not by itself establish false implication. The registration

of FIR and subsequent investigation were conducted in accordance with law

and no prejudice had been caused to the accused. The trial Court rightly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and properly convicted and

sentenced the accused as noted above. Hence, the appeal deserves to be

dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court be

confirmed.

10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent

and also perused the materials available on record.

11. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that due to prior

enmity arising out of a land dispute between the deceased and the accused,

all the accused formed an unlawful assembly on the date of occurrence, and

attacked the deceased. A3, A5 and A6 allegedly surrounded the deceased,

Page 16 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

A2 and A4 restrained him, and A1 assaulted him with a crowbar, inflicting

grievous injuries that resulted in his death.

12. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 as eye-witnesses.

Among them, P.W.1, the complainant and wife of the deceased, deposed that

on 20.09.2012, while she was working near the school along with her

husband and her sister-in-law (P.W.4), they were informed that land

measurement was being carried out and that they went to the disputed site.

There, A2, A4, A5, and A6 were digging the land, which led to a quarrel. A2

abused the deceased in filthy language, and A4 to A6 assaulted him. When

P.W.1 intervened, A4 beat her on the nose with the wooden handle of a spade

and A6 assaulted her on the head with a stone, causing injuries. P.W.3 and

P.W.6 attempted to pacify the quarrel. Thereafter, A2 summoned A1, who

arrived at about 11.15 a.m., whereupon a crowbar was handed over to him

by A4. A3, A5 and A6 surrounded the deceased, while A2 and A4 caught

hold of his hands, A1 then struck the deceased on the head with the crowbar

(iron rod), causing grievous head injuries. The accused fled from the scene

of occurrence as the villagers gathered. The deceased was taken to hospital,

where he was declared as brought dead. P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1)

Page 17 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

and identified the crowbar (M.O.1). She also spoke about the injuries

sustained by her and her subsequent treatment.

13. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased, deposed that there existed

a land dispute between the accused and his brother Mathi @ Mathiazhagan.

According to him, on 20.09.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the Maniyakarar

measured the disputed land. At that time, A1 (Karunakaran) stated that he

would not give up the said land. P.W.2 further deposed that A1 assaulted his

brother with a crowbar on his head, as a result of which, the deceased fainted

and fell down. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the place of occurrence.

He identified M.O.1 (crowbar) as the weapon used in the commission of the

offence. He also deposed that all the accused were known to him, as they

were residents of the same village. After the occurrence, the deceased was

taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Subsequently,

P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police.

14. P.W.3, deposed that there had been a land dispute between the

deceased and the accused for about two years prior to the occurrence. On

20.09.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., a quarrel took place between the deceased

Page 18 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

and the accused. He further deposed that his residence is situated at the place

of occurrence. He stated that while he was engaged in a mobile phone

conversation, the deceased fell down, and when the deceased was taken to

the hospital, the Doctor declared him as brought dead. Though he was cited

as an eye witness, he did not support the prosecution case regarding the

actual occurrence or attributing any overt act on the accused and was treated

only as a hostile witness. He only reiterated that there was a land dispute

between the parties.

15. P.W.4 being the sister of the deceased, has deposed that there was

a land dispute between her brother’s family and the accused. She deposed

that about two years prior to the date of occurrence, at around 11.00 a.m.,

while she was engaged in coolie work, she heard that a quarrel had arisen at

the disputed land. Then she went to her house, which is situated near the

disputed property and at that time, A2 and A4 initially attempted to assault

the deceased with sticks, which was prevented by her along with Kumar

(P.W.3) and Parthiban. Thereafter, she returned to her house. Subsequently,

on the same day, A2 called A1 to come to the place of occurrence. A1

arrived there, and A4 handed over a crowbar to him. P.W.4 categorically

Page 19 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

deposed that A1 attacked the deceased with the said crowbar, as a result, the

deceased fell down on the spot with bleeding injuries on his head and nose.

The deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Thus,

P.W.4 has specifically spoken about the overt act attributed against A1 in

assaulting the deceased with the crowbar (M.O.1).

16. P.W.5, the son of the deceased, has deposed that on 20.09.2012 at

about 11.15 a.m., A1 assaulted his father with a crowbar (iron rod) on his

head in the garden area of their house. As a result, his father fell down and

blood was oozing out from his head. On hearing the commotion, people

gathered at the spot and the accused fled from the scene. Thereafter, his

father was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, where he was declared

dead. P.W.5 has identified the weapon used in the assault as M.O.1 crowbar

(iron rod) as the weapon used in the commission of offence. In cross-

examination, he affirmed that he had directly witnessed the occurrence and

categorically stated that A1 stood opposite to his father and struck him with

the crowbar. He further deposed that his mother (P.W.1) had also sustained

injuries during the incident and had undergone treatment.

Page 20 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

17. P.W.6, who is a resident of the same village, has not supported the

case of the prosecution. Consequently, he was treated as a hostile witness.

18. P.W.7, one of the mahazar witnesses, clearly deposed regarding

the preparation of the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and the rough sketch

(Ex.P14) and also deposed about the seizure of M.O.2 and M.O.3 under the

seizure mahazar (Ex.P3).

19. P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer, has clearly deposed

regarding the recovery of material objects, the confession statements of the

accused, and their arrest. His testimony establishes the procedural aspects of

the investigation, particularly the recovery and seizure of incriminating

articles, as well as the formal recording of confessions and the apprehension

of the accused persons.

20. P.W.9 being the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem

examination on the deceased, has deposed that he found the following

injuries on the dead body :

 External Injury:

Lacerated wound measuring 7 cm × 2 cm × bone deep over the

Page 21 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

back of the mid-parietal region, extending to the occipital

region.

 Internal Findings (on dissection of scalp, skull, and dura):

 Diffuse subscalp contusion over the back of the scalp on both

sides.

 Marked subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage over both

cerebral hemispheres.

 Intracerebral hemorrhage on both sides.

 Cerebellar hemorrhage noted on the right side.

He has opined that the deceased would appeared to have died due to injuries

sustained on the scalp and brain. The medical evidence thus clearly

establishes that the fatal injuries were caused by a lengthy hard iron weapon,

namely a crowbar. Accordingly, the medical evidence fully supports the

prosecution case and it is consistent with the ocular testimonies of P.W.1,

P.W.2, P.W.4, and P.W.5, without any contradiction.

21. P.W.10 is the Head Constable of Veppankuppam Police Station,

and he has deposed that on 21.09.2012, as per the instructions of the

Inspector of Police, he took the body of the deceased to the Government

Hospital, Adukkampaarai, for post-mortem. After its completion, he handed

over the post-mortem report to the Inspector of Police.

Page 22 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

22. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has deposed that he received

the complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1 and, on the basis of the same, he

registered the First Information Report (Ex.P13). He has further stated that

the FIR was duly forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Vellore, as well

as to the higher officials concerned. His testimony thus establishes the

formal initiation of the criminal proceedings and the procedural compliance

in forwarding the FIR to the competent authorities.

23. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, deposed that he carried out all the

procedural formalities in the investigation, including inspecting the scene of

occurrence, preparing the observation mahazar and rough sketch, seizing

material objects, examining witnesses, conducting the inquest, sending the

body for post-mortem, recording the confession statements of the accused,

recovering the weapons based on their confession, and remanding the

accused to judicial custody.

24. P.W.13, the Scientific Officer attached to the Forensic Science

Laboratory, deposed that he examined the material objects forwarded by the

investigating officer and issued the Biological report (Ex.P16), which

Page 23 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

revealed the presence of blood on M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.4 and M.O.5,

whereas no blood was detected in M.O3. He further deposed that the

Serologist Report (Ex.P17) was issued by Assistant Director of Forensic

Science Department and the viscera of the deceased was examined by

Scientific Officer N.Suresh, who issued the Toxicological Report Ex.P.18.

25. P.W.14, the Doctor, has deposed that on 21.09.2012, while on

duty in the Emergency Ward of the Government Vellore Medical College

Hospital, he examined one Dharani (P.W.1), aged about 34 years, who

reported that she had sustained injuries in an assault by five known persons

on 20.09.2012. On examination, P.W.14 found a swelling on the left side of

her head and admitted her as an in-patient. The Accident Register was

marked as Ex.P19, and the medical report was marked as Ex.P20. He further

opined that such injuries could have been caused if a person was attacked

with an iron weapon like a crowbar.

26. This Court, being the first appellate Court and the final Court of

fact finding, is required to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence

on record and determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

Page 24 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from

any perversity or misappreciation of evidence.

27. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this

Court finds that P.W.1, being an injured eye witness and the author of the

complaint, has spoken in a clear and cogent manner about the prior enmity

between the parties, the manner of occurrence and also the specific overt

acts attributed against each of the accused. The injuries sustained by her in

the same transaction, establish her presence at the scene beyond doubt.

28. It is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness carries

great evidentiary value and is ordinarily considered to be very reliable. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in (2010) 10 SCC, 259, has held that the evidence of an injured

witness stands on a higher footing, and as such, a witness would not

ordinarily shield the real offender and falsely implicate another.

29. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.1, who sustained injuries

in the very same occurrence, inspires confidence of the Court and stands

Page 25 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

duly corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.14 and the records marked as

Ex.P19 and Ex.P20. There is no material to discredit her version, and her

evidence clearly establishes the role attributed to A1 in inflicting the fatal

injury. Further, the occurrence admittedly took place near the residential

houses, and all the accused were known to the witnesses. Hence, there is no

dispute either with regard to the place of occurrence or the identity of the

accused.

30. The ocular evidence provided by P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 consistently

establishes that A1 attacked the deceased on the head with a crowbar (iron

rod) and the said version is duly corroborated by the medical evidence.

P.W.9, who conducted the post-mortem, has noted the injuries on the

deceased and opined that the death was due to head injury. The nature of the

injuries recorded in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P11) and the final

opinion are consistent with the ocular version that A1 struck the deceased on

the head with an iron rod. Thus, the medical evidence fully corroborates the

evidence of ocular witness.

31. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

Page 26 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

appellants/accused that no specific overt acts were attributed against the

other accused, except by P.W.1. However, the evidence of P.W.4 clearly

reveals that A2 summoned A1 to the spot and A4 handed over the crowbar to

him, confirms a common intention and the specific overt acts. A conjoint

reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, along with the contents of the

complaint, discloses the specific role played by each of the accused and

establishes their participation in the occurrence.

32. The evidence of P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer,

regarding arrest, recovery and confession, has remained unshaken in cross

examination. Nothing material has been elicited to discredit his testimony

and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 investigating

officer. In cases arising out of village disputes, independent witnesses cannot

realistically be expected, as villagers are often closely related or acquainted

with the parties and may be reluctant to depose either for or against them.

The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, does not weaken the

prosecution case, when the testimony of the injured and natural witnesses

are found reliable.

Page 27 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

33. It is a well settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that it is the

quality of evidence and not the quantity that has to be considered. As held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR

1957 SC 614), evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can

be based on the testimony of a single wholly reliable witness, if the Court

finds such evidence to be trustworthy and inspires confidence of the Court.

Merely because certain witnesses have turned hostile or some independent

witnesses have not been examined, the prosecution case cannot be discarded

when the evidence of the injured eye-witness is credible and stands

corroborated by medical and documentary evidence.

34. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.1 being an injured

witness, is clear, consistent and inspires confidence of the Court. Her

evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the supporting

testimonies of other witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, the

prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that the independent

witnesses are not examined.

35. With regard to the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by

Page 28 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A6, this Court finds that the

same are minor and trivial in nature and do not go to the root of the

prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 20.09.2012 and the

witnesses were examined in chief after a considerable lapse of time and were

also recalled subsequently on several occasions during the years 2016 and

2018. In such circumstances, minor discrepancies and variations are

inevitable due to lapse of time and fallibility of human memory. Such minor

discrepancies cannot be magnified to discard the prosecution evidence in

toto.

36. This Court, being an appellate Court, has re-appreciated the entire

evidence on record and finds that the ocular testimony is consistent,

trustworthy and duly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence.

There is no perversity or illegality in appreciation of the evidence by the trial

Court. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that A1

attacked the deceased with a crowbar, causing fatal head injury and that the

other accused (A2 to A6) shared the common intention and participated in

the occurrence.

Page 29 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the trial

Court has rightly convicted A1 to A6 for the offences proved against them

and imposed appropriate sentences as mentioned above. Insofar as the

acquittal under Section 352 IPC is concerned, the State has not preferred any

appeal against said finding. This Court finds no merit in the appeals and the

same are liable to be dismissed.

38. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are hereby dismissed and the

judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants, shall stand cancelled, and

the authorities are directed to take necessary steps to secure their custody for

undergoing the remaining period of sentence.

(P.V., J.) (M.J.R., J.)

20.02.2026

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

ms

Page 30 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

To

1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Vellore.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Veppankuppam Police Station,

Vellore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

Page 31 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ms

Judgment in

Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019

20.02.2026

Page 32 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis