CRL A No.620 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Mrs.Sivagami

W/o Late Anbalagan

East Street, Porasakuruchi

Kallakuruchi Taluk

Villupuram District

Appellant

Vs

1. State Represented by

The Inspector of Police

Varanjaram Police Station

Villupuram District

(Crime No.209 of 2017)

2. Murugan

S/o Kannan

Porasakuruchi, Kallakuruchi Taluk

Villupuram District

3. Veeramuthu

S/o Chinnasamy

Porasakuruchi, Kallakuruchi Taluk

Villupuram District

Respondents

Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of

Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in S.C.No.295 of 2017 dated

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

02.04.2018.

For Appellant:Mr.S.Ganeshkumar for

M/s.G.K.Associates

For Respondents:Mr.A.Damodaran

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by

Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem for R1

Mr.P.Palaninathan for R2 & R3

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)

This criminal appeal has been filed by the de-facto complainant against

the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in S.C.No.295 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017 acquitting

the private respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 of all the charges framed against them,

namely, under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the second

respondent/first accused and under Sections 294(b), 324, 302 r/w 34 IPC &

Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998

against the third respondent/second accused, respectively.

2. The first respondent Police laid the final report before the Judicial

Magistrate, Kallakurichi against the private respondents/accused, based on the

complaint given by the wife of the deceased and the case was registered in

Crime No.209 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

& Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998

against the first accused and under Sections 324, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 IPC &

Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998

against the second accused, which was taken on file in PRC No.28 of 2017.

The learned Magistrate, after completing the formalities under Section 207

Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal District & Sessions Court,

Villupuram, since the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by

the Court of Session. Accordingly, the Principal District & Sessions Court,

Villupuram has taken the case on file in S.C.No.295 of 2017 and the same was

made over to the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi

for disposal in accordance with law. The learned III Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, on going through the materials, framed the

charges against the accused under Sections 294(b), 324, 302, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34

IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,

1998. When the charges were read over to the private respondents/accused, they

denied the same as false. Therefore, the learned III Additional District &

Sessions Judge posted the case for trial and sent summons to the witnesses.

3. During the trial, in order to substantiate the above said charges, on the

side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 19

and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 18, besides 3 material objects were

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

exhibited as MOs.1 to 3. After examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

when the private respondents/accused were questioned under Section 313

Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances culled out from the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. However, on

the side of the respondents/accused, no oral and documentary evidence was let

in.

4. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the arguments advanced on

either side, the trial Court found the private respondents/accused not guilty of

any of the offences charged and acquitted them by stating that the prosecution

failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the judgment

of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the de-facto complainant has filed the

present appeal. For convenience, the private respondents/accused will be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in this judgment.

5. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2017 at about 04.30

P.M., when the de-facto complainant Sivagami, pointing out the disputed

problem existing between the two families over the place, asked the first and

second accused as to why they were building the compound wall in their place

without leaving any alley, the accused uttered obscene words on her and stated

that they were building the compound wall only in their place. When Sivagami’s

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

husband Anbazhagan came home that evening hearing about his wife being

scolded by the accused, on 23.05.2017 at 05.30 P.M., he stood in front of his

house and asked the first and second accused present there as to the happening,

the first accused scolded him in filthy language; that both the accused with a

common intention to kill Anbazhagan, thereby the first accused, knowing fully

well that his action would result in death, hit Anbazhagan with an iron rod on

the back of his head and pushed him down; that the second accused threw a

cement block on his chest and when the elder son tried to intervene, the second

accused hit him with a mason karni on his forehead; that both the accused also

threatened to kill him and his family members and that on account of such

brutal attack, Anbazhagan died of shock and blood loss due to the head injury he

sustained. Subsequently, based on the complaint, Ex.P1 preferred by the de-

facto complainant, the case was registered and the final report was laid by the

first respondent Police before the jurisdictional Magistrate after completion of

investigation, as stated above.

6. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the de-facto

complainant, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and an eye-

witness to the occurrence, was examined as PW1. She has categorically deposed

that she was residing in Porasakkurichi village and worked as a farm labourer.

She knew the accused, as they were neighbours. There has been a problem with

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

regard to the passage area between these two families for 5-6 years and her

family told them not to raise a wall without measuring it. But when the accused

family built a new house, they raised the wall without measuring the disputed

area. On 23.05.2017, around 4.30 P.M., she asked the accused as to why they

are interested in raising the wall and asked them to build it after the men in the

family arrived. At that time, the second accused-Veeramuthu took off his

sandals, uttered obscene words and hurled cement on her. First her eldest son

came and after a while, her younger son also came. When she informed the

quarrel made by the accused, they pacified and took her inside the house. After

her husband, who had gone to herd goats, was informed of the incident, he came

home around 5.00, 5.30 P.M. and enquired about the fight. After telling PW1 to

stay inside, when PW.1’s husband came out and asked why the accused spoke

badly of his wife, the first accused-Murugan stating that he would speak badly

of his wife, hit him on the back of his head with an iron rod, and when PW1 and

her sons came nearby, he threw a cement block on her husband. When PW.1’s

eldest son went to lift his father, the second accused-Veeramuthu hit him on his

forehead with a mason karni and caused injury. Immediately when PW1 and her

sons lifted the injured, he was not breathing. When they took the injured in an

auto to the Kallakurichi Government Hospital around 6.45 P.M., the doctor saw

his pulse and pronounced him dead. The complaint given by PW1 before the

police is Ex.P1. Inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased in the

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Kallakurichi Government Hospital. The weapons used by the accused, namely,

cement block, mason karni and iron rod, which were shown to PW1 have been

marked as M.Os.1 to 3. The police interrogated PW1 in this regard. 

7. PW2 runs a Studio next to the house of the deceased. He has deposed

that he knew the accused. On 23.05.2017, at about 5.00, 5.30 P.M., when he

went to get cool drink for his friends in the shop of one Mani situated in front of

Anbazhagan's house, around 4.00, 4.30 P.M., PW1 asked the accused as to why

they were building the wall in their place, for which the first accused scolded

her in filthy language. The sons of PW1 pacified PW1 to wait for their father’s

return and took her inside the house. Anbazhagan asked the first accused-

Murugan as to why they were building the compound wall and why they

quarrelled with his wife, for which the first accused replied that his wife only

quarrelled with him and so saying, he hit Anbazhagan with an iron rod on the

back of his head and pushed him down. The brother in law of Murugan, who

was a mason, hit on Anbazhagan's chest. When Sivagami's eldest son came to

his rescue, he hit him on his head with a mason karni and caused injury. Before

PW2 could approach them, the accused ran away from the place. Thereafter he

sent PW1, the injured Anbazhagan and her sons to Kallakurichi Government

Hospital in an auto that came that way. Shortly thereafter, he heard that the

injured had died. The police interrogated PW2 in this regard.

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

8. PW3 is an agricultural coolie in Porasakkurichi village. He has

deposed that he knew the accused, as they were neighbours. He also knew PW1.

On 23.05.2017, at about 4.30 P.M., when PW1 asked the first accused Murugan

as to why they were building the compound wall in their place, the first accused

replied that the entire land belongs to them and how she can question him.

When PW3 came out of his house after hearing the noise, since he was aware

that there was a problem between the two families in this regard, he did not

choose to go nearby. The sons of PW1 came and they took her inside the house

stating that the matter can be enquired after their father’s arrival. After

Anbazhagan heard the news through somebody, he came to the house and asked

the first accused-Murugan as to why he had quarrelled with his wife in his

absence, for which the first accused stated that his wife only quarrelled with him

first. While heated arguments were underway, the first accused Murugan got

angry and took an iron rod and hit Anbazhagan on the back of his head and

kicked him. The second accused Veeramuthu took a cement block lying nearby

and threw it on Anbazhagan’s chest. When PW4-Ayyappan came to defend the

attack, the second accused hit on his head with a mason karni. Sensing the

problem getting worse, PW3 and PW2 started to run. Anbazhagan was lying on

the ground. The accused ran away from the place. Anbazhagan was lying

breathless and speechless. Sivagami, Anbazhagan and her sons were sent to the

Kallakurichi Government Hospital in an auto that was on the way. Later,

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

between 7.00 and 7.10 P.M., they received the news that Anbazhagan had died.

The police interrogated him in this regard.

9. PW4 is the son of PW1 and the deceased. He has deposed that he is

engaged in centering work and PW5 is his brother. On 23.05.2017 at about 4.30

P.M., the accused were having heated arguments with PW1 regarding the place.

PW4 arrived there after completing the medical examination for going abroad.

He pacified PW1 and took her inside. Thereafter PW5 also arrived. PW4 came

out and told the details and then took his brother into the house. When his

father, who had gone to herd goats, learnt about the problem through someone,

he came to the house and enquired them. When his father enquired the accused

as to why they quarrelled with his wife in his absence, both the accused scolded

his father in filthy language and on hearing the huge noise, PW1, PW4 & PW5

came out and at that time, his father was attacked with an iron rod on the back

of his head. The second accused threw a cement block on his father’s chest.

When PW4 tried to stop him, the second accused hit PW4 on his head with a

mason karni. All the three screamed. No one came to their rescue, except PW2

and PW3. The accused threatened PW4 by stating that like his father, they

would also kill him and ran away from the place. Though they called 108

ambulance, there was no response. They stopped one auto that came on the road

and PW1, PW4 & PW5 took the injured to the Kallakurichi Government

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Hospital thinking that the injured was lying unconscious. However, the doctor

on seeing his father, declared him dead. The police who was present in the

hospital took his address and PW4, PW1 and PW5 and others went to

Kallakurichi Police Station on the next day at about 10.00, 11.00 A.M,, where

PW1 lodged the complaint. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of his

father in the hospital and the investigating officer recorded his statement.

10. PW5 is the younger son of PW1. He has deposed that PW4 is his

brother and he knew the accused. He was studying second year Diploma course

in Easwar Polytechnic at the time of occurrence. On 23.05.2017, after attending

his physics practical examination at the college, he came home around 5.15

P.M. He saw his mother/PW1 standing outside talking and quarrelling. He also

noticed the cement stains on her. After hearing that the second accused was

standing in their place and doing the plastering work on the wall and when the

same was questioned by his mother/PW1 the accused had scolded her, he told

that his father would take care of that. Thereafter, his father came home around

5.30 P.M. on hearing the incident through someone and enquired PW5 and PW1

regarding this issue. After telling them to be inside the house, his father came

out and enquired the accused as to why they quarrelled with PW1 when there

was no men in the house. The accused replied that PW1 only quarrelled with

them. On hearing the loud noise, PW1, PW4 & PW5 came out of the house. At

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

that time, the first accused scolded his father in filthy language and attacked him

with an iron rod on the back of his head and his father fell down breathless. The

second accused took a cement slab and threw it on his father’s chest. When

PW4 came to lift his father, the second accused hit PW4 on his head with a

mason karni. PW4 was bleeding profusely. Neither they could attend his father

nor his brother at that moment. When PW2 & PW3 rushed to the place, the

accused ran away stating that they would do away them also like the father.

They took the injured to Kallakurichi Government Hospital in an auto that was

coming on the way for treatment. Within 5 minutes, PW4 came out crying and

informed the death of his father to PW5. First aid was given to PW4 for the

head injury. The police enquired them on the same night and PW1, PW4, PW5,

his maternal uncle Murugan and his son Sekar went to the police station, where

PW1 lodged the complaint, which was written by Sekar and PW1 signed the

same. Post-mortem was conducted on the body in the hospital and the

investigating officer recorded his statement.

11. PW6, who was doing agriculture in Porasakkurichi village, has

deposed that he knew PWs.1,4 & 5 as well as the accused. On 23.05.2017 at

about 5.00, 5.30 P.M., when PW6 came to the shop of Mani to buy beedi, the

occurrence happened between the two families regarding the land dispute. There

were heated arguments between Anbazhagan and the first accused, where the

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

first accused attacked Anbazhagan with an iron rod on the back of his head and

pushed him down. The second accused threw a cement block on the chest of

Anbazhagan and also hit PW4 on his head with a mason karni and caused

injury. Thereafter, PW1, PW4 & PW5 took the injured to the hospital in an auto.

The accused ran away. After an hour, he heard the demise of Anbazhagan over

phone. He was not present in Kallakurichi Government Hospital when the

inquest was conducted.

12. PW7, who was doing agriculture in Porasakkurichi village, has also

deposed that he knew PWs.1,4 & 5 as well as the accused. He was standing

outside his house at the time of incident. On 23.05.2017 at about 4.30 P.M.,

verbal abuse erupted between PW1 and the accused, where the accused uttered

obscene words on PW1. Thereafter, PW4 & PW5 took her inside the house.

Then he heard the screaming. Anbazhagan returned home after herding the

goats. After the first accused hit Anbazhagan with an iron rod on the back of his

head, he fell down. The second accused threw a cement block on Anbazhagan’s

chest. The second accused hit eldest son/PW4 on his head. Before the general

public arrived, the accused ran away from that place. Then PW1, PW4 & PW5

took Anbazhagan to Kallakurichi Government Hospital in an auto and PW7

came home. Around 7 O’clock talks about the death of Anbazhagan were going

on. He saw the body at the hospital and the investigating officer enquired him.

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

13. PWs.8 & 9 are the signatories to Exs.P2 & P3/Observation Mahazar

prepared by the police.

14. PW10 is the Village Administrative Officer, who was in charge of

Porasakkurichi village at the time of occurrence. He has deposed that he

received information that on 23.05.2017 at about 6.00 P.M., there was a problem

with regard to the passage area between the accused and the deceased; that after

verbal abuse erupted between PW1 and the accused over the passage area, her

sons pacified and took her inside the house; that when the deceased enquired the

accused over the same, the first accused hit him with an iron rod on his head

and when he fell down, threw a cement block on his chest; that when the eldest

son of Anbazhagan came to his rescue, the second accused hit him on his head

with a mason karni and caused injury. On 24

th

, after the police arrested the

second accused near Ganangoor government building, on receiving information

from the Sub Inspector of Police, PW10 and his Assistant Mahendran went to

Varanjaram Police Station and in their presence, recorded the confession

statement of the second accused, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P4. The

cement block and the mason karni were also recovered from the place of

occurrence under the seizure mahazar, Ex.P5, which are M.Os.1 & 2. He also

received information on 31.05.2017 that the police took the first accused into

custody and on 01.06.2017 at about 7.00 A.M., PW10 and his Assistant went to

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Varanjaram Police Station and in their presence, the police recorded the

confession statement given by the first accused, the admissible portion of which

is Ex.P6. No material object was produced by the first accused. PW10 signed

the seizure mahazar under Ex.P7.

15. PW11 is the Village Assistant who informed PW10-Village

Administrative Officer over phone about the occurrence and also accompanied

PW10 to the place of occurrence. He is one of the signatories to the seizure

mahazars under Exs.P5 & P8 respectively.

16. PW12 is the duty doctor who first saw the injured in the Kallakurichi

Government Hospital brought by PW4 stating that his father was attacked by

two persons with cement blocks near their house. He has deposed that on

examination he found that the injured was unconscious, pulseless and

breathless. He noticed the external injuries of 3 ½ x 2 x 1 cms on the backside

of his head, 2x1 cms on his left chest and since he found him dead at 6.50 P.M.,

on the same day, he handed over the body and informed the police. The

Accident Register issued in this regard is Ex.P9.

17. PW13 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the

deceased. He has deposed that on 24.05.2017 at about 12.35 P.M., on receipt of

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

requisition in Cr.No.209 of 2017 from the Head Constable 261 Ramkumar and

the body, he commenced the post-mortem at 4.00 P.M. and he noted the

following external injuries:-

“Two lacerated wound 1x1x0.5 cm, 1x1x1 cm over the occipital region.

Abrasion 1x1 cm, 1x0.5 cm over (L) forehead region

Abrasion 1x1cm over ® clavicle region.”

He concluded the post-mortem at 5.00 P.M., on 24.05.2017 and issued the post-

mortem certificate, Ex.P11 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to

have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.

18. PW14 is the Sub Inspector of Police who received the complaint from

PW1 on 23.05.2017 at 21.00 hours and registered the First Information Report

in Cr.No.209 of 2017 under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 302 IPC. The

printed First Information Report is Ex.P12. He sent the express reports to the

Court and to the higher police officials. On 17.07.2017 the Inspector of Police

recorded his statement.

19. PW15 is the Head Constable who identified and handed over the body

of the deceased along with the requisition to the doctor, PW13 for conducting

post-mortem and also the hyoid bone and the intestines to the forensic

laboratory and to the Court in sealed bottles for chemical analysis.

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

20. PW16 is the Junior Forensic Science Inspetor who received the sealed

bottles containing 1 stomach, 2 intestines, sputum and 4 protective fluid, from

PW15 Head Constable for analysis and issued the viscera report, Ex.P13.

21. PW17 is the Assistant Professor of Medicine in Villupuram

Government Medical College and Hospital who received the hyoid bone from

the Head Constable, PW15 for test and issued the hyoid bone report, Ex.P10.

22. PW18 is the Inspector of Police incharge of Varanjaram Police Station

at the relevant point of time. He has deposed that on receipt of the First

Information Report in Cr.No.209 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 294(b),

324, 506(ii), 302 IPC, he took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of

occurrence at about 23.30 hours and since it was dark, he deputed the Sub

Inspector and two Police Constables to guard the place and that on 24.05.2017

at about 6.00 hours in the morning, prepared the Observation Mahazar and drew

the rough sketch, Ex.P14. He examined the witnesses Ilaiyaraaja and

Muthuraman and recorded their statements. Then he went to the Kallakurichi

Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body in the presence of

the witnesses. The inquest report is Ex.P15. At 11.15 hours, he handed over the

body to the Constable 261 Ramkumar. Then he searched for the accused and

arrested the second accused Veeramuthu at around 14.00 hours in front of the

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Atari Main Road-Virugavur Grama Chavadi and recorded his confessional

statement in the presence of Prabhu, the Village Administrative Officer and

Mahendran, the Village Assistant. He seized the cement block and the mason

karni at 17.00 hours under the seizure mahazar in the presence of the same

witnesses. He conducted a thorough search of the accused and remanded him to

judicial custody. He also examined the witnesses Sivagami, Ilayaraja,

Muthuraman, Ayyappan, Vinothkumar, Venkatesan Maniappillai, Mayakannan,

Manoharan and Prabhu separately and recorded their statements. After

completing the initial investigation, he handed over the case file to the Inspector

of Police, Kallakurichi on 25.05.2017.

23. PW19-Inspector of Police, after taking up investigation from his

predecessor on 26.05.2017, went to the scene of occurrence on the same day

and since the witnesses reiterated the earlier version given to PW18, he did not

record any separate statement from them. He later sent the internal organs of

the deceased through the Constable 261 Ramkumar for analysis. In the

meanwhile, he heard that the first accused Muruga had surrendered in the

Vridhachalam Court. On 31.05.2017, he took the first accused into police

custody for three days and brought him to Varanjaram Police Station and

questioned the accused on 01.06.2017 at 7.00 A.M., and obtained his confession

statement in front of the witnesses, Prabhu-Village Administrative Officer and

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

Mahendran-Village Assistant and based on his confession, the accused was

taken to the place of occurrence, where he produced the iron rod, M.O.3 that

was used to kill Anbazhagan, which was seized under the mahazar. He

thereafter remanded the first accused to judicial custody. On 17.07.2017, he

recorded the statement of Dr.Senthilraja, Assistant Professor, Government

Headquarters Hospital, Kallakurichi to the effect that on 23.05.2017 at 6.45

P.M., on examination of the injured, he declared him dead. He also recorded the

statement of the post-mortem doctor who issued the post-mortem certificate

stating that the deceased died due to the head injuries. He also recorded the

statements of the Junior Scientific Officer, Villupuram who issued the viscera

report and also the doctor attached to the Government Hospital,

Mundiampakkam who issued the hyoid bone report. He also examined the

Head Constable 261 and the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the First

Information Report in Cr.No.207 of 2019 and recorded their statements. After

getting opinion from the Assistant Director, Villupuram, he filed the altered

report, Ex.P18 before the Court for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324,

506(ii) 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of

Woman Act against the accused. On completion of investigation, he laid the

final report against the accused for the offences as stated already.

24. After completion of trial, the Court below found that the prosecution

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the

accused of all the charges giving the benefit of doubt in favour of them. Against

the said judgment of acquittal, the de-facto complainant has filed the present

appeal before this Court.

25. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

PWs.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 are the eye-witnesses in this case, who have clearly spoken

about the motive and also the specific overt act attributed against both the

private respondents/first and second accused. PW1 is none other than the wife

of the deceased. Since the private respondents encroached the land of the

deceased on the date of occurrence, the same was questioned by PW1 and the

first and second accused scolded her in filthy language. Therefore, PWs.4 & 5,

sons of PW1, pacified PW1 by stating that their father would take care of it and

took her inside the house. The deceased, on coming to know about the incident,

questioned the accused, for which the first accused attacked him with an iron

rod on the back side of his head and the second accused threw a cement block

and when PW4 came to his rescue, the second accused hit him on his head with

a mason karni and they sustained injuries. Immediately, PWs.1,4 & 5 took the

deceased to the hospital and the doctor, after examining him, declared him dead

and therefore, they preferred the complaint, Ex.P1 before the police. PWs.2 & 3

are the independent witnesses who saw the occurrence. They have specifically

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

stated about the incident and also the overt acts attributed against each of the

accused to the effect that the first accused hit the deceased with an iron rod on

the back of his head and the second accused threw a cement block on his chest,

as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and fell down and when

PW4 came to the rescue, the second accused hit him on his head with a mason

karni. PW3, being an independent witness, has also corroborated the evidence

of PW2. PWs.4 & 5 are the sons of the deceased & PW1 and they were also

present at the time of occurrence. Being eye-witnesses, they have specifically

spoken about the overt acts attributed against both the accused. Likewise,

PWs.6 & 7 are also the villagers and independent witnesses. They have spoken

about the incident and also the specific overt acts against both the accused.

Since the eye-witnesses, PWs.1 to 7 have specifically spoken about the

occurrence and also the specific overt acts attributed against the accused, the

same was corroborated with the medical evidence. PW12 is the duty doctor who

first attended the deceased and on examination, he found the injuries on the

head and chest and also made entries in the Accident Register, Ex.P9. PW13 is

the post-mortem doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and

has recorded the three injuries sustained by the deceased, one on the backside of

the head, another on the left forehead region and yet another on the right

clavicle region, and has opined that the deceased would have died on account of

the shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Therefore, the medical evidence

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

also corroborated the ocular evidence. Similarly, PWs.10 & 11 are the Village

Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant, who have spoken about the

confession given by the accused and based on the admissible portion of the

confession, the recovery also has been effected through the mahazar. Therefore,

in this case, since the eye-witnesses, not only relatives but also independent

witnesses, have spoken about the specific overt acts attributed against the

accused and the medical evidence also corroborated their version, apart from

the arrest and the consequent recovery have also been proved by the evidence of

the Village Administrative Officer, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate

the oral and documentary evidence in the right perspective and disbelieved the

case of the prosecution and chose to acquit the accused on the flimsy ground

that the motive was not established and therefore, the learned counsel submitted

that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set

aside and the appeal has to be allowed and the accused have to be convicted for

the charged offences.

26. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

first respondent would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

all reasonable doubt through both the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence

and though the prosecution proved its case through oral and documentary

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the materials and

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused, which

warrants interference.

27. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private

respondents/accused would submit that the motive behind the occurrence itself

is doubtful and the prosecution has not proved its case regarding the motive.

Though the witnesses have stated that PW1 questioned the construction made

by the accused by encroaching their extent of the land, whereas the materials

would show that the construction was made much earlier and on the date of

occurrence, only plastering work was going on and there was no encroachment

on the date of occurrence and therefore when the allegation of questioning made

by PW1 regarding encroachment itself is unbelievable, the prosecution failed to

prove the motive, which falsifies the case of the prosecution. Further, he would

submit that the entry in the Accident Register, Ex.P9 shows that at the time

when PW4 admitted his father in the hospital, he has stated that his father was

attacked by two persons with cement blocks near their house, but he has not

stated that his father was attacked by the accused with iron rod. That also

creates a doubt that PW1 was not an eye-witness and also the medical evidence

does not corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Further he would submit

that there is an unexplained delay in filing the complaint and they also

registered the case, which also creates a doubt. He would also submit that PW1

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

is none other than the wife of the deceased and PWs.4 & 5 are none other than

the sons of the deceased and they are the interested witnesses. Their evidence

cannot be taken, since there would be improvements, embellishments and also

exaggerations in their version, because it shows from the first available

statement, namely, Accident Register, Ex.P9 that the deceased was attacked with

only cement blocks and subsequently, they made an improvement that the

deceased was attacked with an iron rod and that even as per the post-mortem

report, the post-mortem doctor has not stated that the deceased sustained injury

on his chest, whereas the eye-witnesses have stated that the second accused

threw a cement block on his chest, and there is no injury on the chest, which

itself has falsified the case of the prosecution. Therefore, all the so-called eye-

witnesses are not the eye-witnesses. When there is a suspicion as to their

presence in the scene of occurrence, they are not the eye-witnesses at all and

there are material contradictions in their evidence. He would further add that

though PW4 also sustained injury, but he did not take any treatment even when

he admitted the deceased in the hospital and PW12 has not stated that PW4,

who sustained injury, was given treatment and there is no accident register entry

or wound certificate. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the presence of

PW4 either in the place of occurrence or in the hospital itself is highly doubtful

and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Further the evidence of PWs.10 & 11 cannot be relied upon to prove the

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

recovery, since the accused were already arrested by the investigating officer

and they were summoned only by the police. They are all the stock witnesses

and therefore the arrest, confession and the consequent recovery also have not

been proved in the manner known to law. When there are material

contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence

also not corroborated their version, the arrest, confession and recovery are not

proved in the manner known to law and that the prosecution has failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court rightly appreciated both the

oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also rightly

acquitted the accused. When there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence

by the trial Court, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial

Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

28. We have considered the submissions made by the respective learned

counsel and perused the materials available on record.

29. The specific case of the prosecution is that due to the land dispute that

existed between the families of the de-facto complainant and the accused, on

23.05.2017 at about 4.30 P.M., when the de-facto complainant asked the

accused as to why they were building the compound wall in their place without

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

leaving any alley, the accused scolded the de-facto complainant with filthy

language and when the same was questioned by the deceased, both the accused

with a common intention to kill Anbazhagan, scolded him with filthy language

and that the first accused hit the deceased with an iron rod on the back of his

head and pushed him down; the second accused threw a cement block on his

chest and when the elder son of the deceased tried to prevent the attack, the

second accused hit him with a mason karni on his forehead and that on account

of such brutal attack, the deceased fell down and died of shock and blood loss

due to the head injuries.

30. In order to substantiate the charges, during the trial, on the side of the

prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked,

besides 3 material objects were exhibited. On the side of the defence, no oral

and documentary evidence was let in. Out of 19 witnesses, 7 are eye-witnesses

and PW1 is the wife of the deceased, on whose complaint the law was set into

motion. The complaint given by PW1 was marked as Ex.P1. As per the

complaint and the evidence of PW1, she has specifically stated that the accused

were neighbours and there has been a problem with regard to the passage area

between these families for 5 to 6 years and when the accused family built a new

house, the raised the compound wall over the disputed extent and when it was

questioned by PW1, the accused scolded her in filthy language and she was

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

pacified and taken inside the house by her sons. When the husband came to

know of the incident, he questioned the accused as to why they had a quarrel

with his wife in his absence, the first accused hit her husband on the back of his

head with an iron rod, the second accused threw a cement block on his chest, as

a result of which he fell down and when PW4 went to lift his father, the second

accused hit him with a mason karni on his forehead and caused injury.

Thereafter, they took the injured in an auto the Kallkurichi Government

Hospital around 6.45 P.M., where the doctor pronounced him dead.

31. PW2 belongs to the same village and is an independent witness in the

case. He has specifically stated about the overt acts against both the accused and

has also corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW3 also is another independent

witness, who is the neighbour of PW1, who has specifically stated about the

motive and also the occurrence with specific overt act attributed against the

accused while corroborating the evidence of PWs.1 & 2. PW4 is one of the

sons of the deceased and PW1 and he has also spoken about the motive and also

the enmity between their family and the accused and the attack caused by the

second accused on his head with a mason karni. He has further stated that

though they called 108 ambulance, since they could not get the same, he took

his father in an auto to the Kallakurichi Government Hospital and admitted him

and on examination, the doctor declared him brought dead. PW5 is also one of

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

the sons of the deceased, who has also spoken about the quarrel between the

accused and his mother/PW1 and subsequently, when his father questioned the

same, the first accused attacked his father with an iron rod on the back of his

head and the second accused threw a cement slab on his father’s chest and the

second accused also attacked his brother/PW4 with a mason karni and he has

corroborated the evidence of PW4. PW6 is one of the villagers who has spoken

about the occurrence and also the attack made by the first accused with an iron

rod on the head of the deceased, apart from the attack made by the second

accused with a cement block on the chest of the deceased as well the attack

made by him on the head of PW4 with a mason karni. Therefore, he has also

corroborated the evidence of PWs.1,4 & 5 regarding the occurrence. PW7 is

also an eye-witness of the same village, who has spoken that he knew PWs.1,4

& 5 and also the accused. On 23.05.2017, at about 4.30 P.M., there was a wordy

quarrel between PW1 and the accused and thereafter, the husband of PW1

returned home knowing about the incident and when he questioned the same,

the first accused attacked him with an iron rod on the back of his head and the

second accused threw a cement block on his chest and that the second accused

also attacked the elder son of the deceased/PW4 with a mason karni. From the

evidence of PWs.1 to 7, who are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, they have

specifically spoken about the place of occurrence and time of occurrence and

also the specific overt acts against the private respondents/accused.

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

32. Though the learned counsel for the private respondents/accused

vehemently contended that PW1 is the wife and PWs.4 & 5 are the sons and are

close relatives and interested witnesses and their version cannot be believed at

all, however, it is seen that there are seven witnesses and the case not solely

rests upon the relative witnesses alone. Even otherwise, the occurrence took

place near the house of the deceased, as the deceased and accused are

neighbours. Due to the land dispute, there was a quarrel between PW1 and the

accused and PWs.4 & 5, being the sons, pacified PW1 and took her inside the

house after saying that his father will take care of it. When the deceased, on

knowing the fact that the accused quarrelled with his wife, questioned the

accused, the first accused attacked the deceased with an iron rod on the back of

his head and the second accused threw a cement block on his chest. Though

they are relatives, considering the place of occurrence and time of occurrence

and the nature of enmity, the presence of PWs.1, 4 & 5 in the scene of

occurrence cannot be doubted. The deceased and the accused are known

persons and there was a dispute regarding the extent of land between both the

parties and therefore their evidence is consistent, cogent and reliable and there

is no reason to discard their version. Apart from that, PWs.2, 3, 6 & 7 also

belong to the same village and they are independent witnesses who saw the

occurrence. They have also specifically stated about the specific overt acts

against the accused and they have also narrated the entire events and therefore,

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

the evidence of PWs.1, 4 & 5 corroborated with the evidence of the independent

witnesses, namely, PWs.2, 3, 6 & 7.

33. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the private

respondents/accused is that when PW4 admitted his father in the hospital, he

has stated before the doctor that his father was attacked by known persons with

cement blocks and that he has not stated anything about the attack made by the

accused with iron rod on the back of the head of his father. It is true that the

accident register entry is not a substantive piece of evidence, which is not a

conclusive one. When PW4 brought his injured father to the hospital after

seeing him breathless and the doctor also during examination stated that the

injured was brought dead, in such a situation, merely because he did not say the

manner of the attack, that will not go to the root of the matter and that will not

affect the case of the prosecution. In the complaint, PW1 has clearly stated that

she is one of the eye-witnesses and she has spoken about the specific overt act

and the other independent witnesses have also cogently and consistently stated

that the first accused attacked the deceased with an iron rod on the back of his

head. The post-mortem report also clearly shows that the deceased sustained

injuries on the back of his head and the medical evidence also corroborated the

same. Therefore, the non-mentioning of the attack made by iron rod before the

doctor at the time of admitting the injured in the hospital will not affect the case

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

of the prosecution. When the eye-witnesses have clearly spoken about the

attack and it is settled proposition that when there is any conflict/discrepancies

between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence and the version of the

eye-witnesses are reliable, that will prevail over the medical evidence. In this

case, though PW4 did not mention about the attack made by the first accused

with an iron rod before the doctor, however, a reading of the entire oral

evidence of all the eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 7 and the evidence of the post-

mortem doctor, PW13, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt that due to the attack made by the accused with iron

rod and cement block respectively, the deceased died due to the head injury.

Further, so far as the recovery is concerned, the evidence of PWs.10 & 11

clearly shows that the investigating officer arrested the accused and at that time,

they gave the confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P6

and in pursuance of which they also took the investigating officer to the place of

occurrence and in the presence of PWs.10 & 11, handed over the weapons,

M.Os.1 to 3.

34. A reading of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses and the

documentary evidence through Exs.P9 & 11 issued by PWs.12 & 13 and also

the recovery witnesses, PWs.10 & 11 through the seizure mahazars, Exs.P5, P7

& P8 coupled with the admissible portion of the confession, Ex.P6 for recovery

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

of the M.Os.1 & 2 under Ex.P5, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned trial Judge failed to

appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses and simply

acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the appreciation of

evidence by the trial Court is perverse and this Court, as an appellate Court and

fact-finding Court, while re-appreciating the evidence, finds that there is only

one possible view that the accused alone attacked the deceased and due to that,

he sustained injuries and succumbed thereafter.

35. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the respondents 2 &

3/accused 1 & 2 have committed the charged offences, namely, under Sections

294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 so far as the second respondent/first accused is

concerned and under Sections 294(b), 324, 302 r/w 34 IPC & Section 4 of the

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 so far as the third

respondent/second accused is concerned, and hence this appeal is allowed and

the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Since the appeal is against

acquittal and a reversal judgment, the accused have to be heard before the

pronouncement of sentence. Therefore, the respondents 2 & 3/accused 1 & 2

are directed to appear before this Court on 26.02.2026, failing which the first

respondent Police shall secure them and produce before the Court on the said

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

date.

36. Post on 26.02.2026.

(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)

18-02-2026

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

ss

To

1. The III Additional District &

Sessions Judge

Kallakurichi

2. The Inspector of Police

Varanjaram Police Station

Villupuram District

(Crime No.209 of 2017)

3. The Public Prosecutor

High Court, Madras

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN J.

AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

ss

CRL A No. 620 of 2019

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

18-02-2026

Crl.A.No.620 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

(Order of the Court was made by P.VEMURUGAN, J.)

This is the appeal filed by the defacto complainant against the judgment

of acquittal made by the trial Court. This Court vide its judgment dated

18.02.2026 found A1 & A2, who are the respondents 2 & 3 herein guilty for the

charged offences and hence the matter was directed to be listed on 26.02.2026

under the caption for “question of sentence”.

2 Today, both the accused (A1 & A2) appeared before us. On

questioning regarding sentence, they have stated that they have not committed

any offence and false case has been foisted against them.

3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature

of offence committed by the accused and their submissions, both the accused

are hereby convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of

Rs.1,000/-, each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further

period of six months for the offence under Section 302 and 302 r/w Section 34

IPC respectively and since major punishment of life imprisonment has been

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

awarded, which will meet the ends of justice, no separate sentence is awarded

for other charged offences.

4 Further, since it is a reversal judgment, in order to provide an

opportunity to the accused to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended for both the accused till

the appeal period is over.

5 After expiry of the appeal period, if no appeal is filed and no order

of stay or any other fruitful order in favour of the accused by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the trial Court is directed to secure both the accused to undergo

the sentence awarded by this Court.

[PVJ] [MJRJ]

26.02.2026

cgi

Note: IT on 26.02.2026

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

CRL A No.620 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

cgi

Crl.A.No.620 of 2019

26.02.2026

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