Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 21.08.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B .PUGALENDHI

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

Rahamad @ Rahumankhan ... Appellant / sole accused

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Oomachikulam Sub Division,

Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Oomachikulam Police Station,

Madurai District.

CrNo.29 of 2026

3.Valliyammai ... Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 14 -A(2) of the SC/ST Act to call for the

records relating to the impugned order passed by the III Additional District

and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai in CrMP.No.223 of 2026 by its order

dated 18.06.2026 and set aside the same by allowing this criminal appeal

and to enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.29 of 2026 on the file of

the 2

nd

respondent.

1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

For Appellant : Mr.M.Karunanithi

For Respondent: Mr.V.Shathurthiraja

Nos.1 and 2 Government Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.P.Yuvaraj Prabhu

No.3 Legal Aid Counsel

ORDER

The appellant has been arrested by the 2

nd

respondent police on

05.04.2026 in Crime No.29 of 2026 and he was remanded to judicial

custody that he brutally assaulted one Veeramalai. The injured Veeramalai

was admitted in the hospital and he died on 14.04.2026. Thereafter, Crime

No.29 of 2026 was altered into the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2),

118(1), 351(2), 127(2) and 103(1) of BNS read with 3(2) (v) of SC/ST

(POA) Act. The appellant has filed an application before the III Additional

District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai in CrMP.No.223 of 2026

seeking bail and the same has been rejected by the trial court by its order

dated 18.06.2026. As against the same this appeal has been filed.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant was

standing near the Alathur water tank on 05.04.2026 and the deceased was

walking along the path, at 01:30 pm. During that time, the appellant called

2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

the deceased. However, the deceased ignored the petitioner, without

responding to his call. Therefore, the appellant picked quarrel with the

deceased and abused him in filthy language. Thereafter, the appellant

picked up a cement stone and assaulted the deceased, causing head injuries.

The deceased was admitted to the hospital at 02:15 pm and died on

14.04.2026.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, fell down and sustained head

injury and he was admitted in the hospital on 05.04.2026 and died after

nine days. He further submits that the case has been foisted on enmity and

the appellant is in jail since 05.04.2026, for the past 4 months and

therefore, he seeks bail.

4.The learned counsel further submits that the allegation as

against the appellant is that he has assaulted the deceased with a stone, the

deceased sustained head injury due to the same and died in the hospital. He

submits that this cement stone, which was allegedly used to attack the

deceased, has not been recovered. Therefore, he submits that the appellant

3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

has been added as an accused on the basis of assumption and he is in jail

for the past 110 days. The investigation has been completed and final report

is also filed. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent police submits that there are eye witnesses to the occurrence

and this appellant was standing near Alathur water tank on 05.04.2026 and

the deceased was walking along the road. The appellant, under the

impression that the deceased ignored him, called him, abused him in filthy

language, pushed him down, kicked him and picked up a stone and attacked

the deceased indiscriminately on his face and head. The deceased sustained

injuries on his head and was immediately taken to the hospital. However,

he died in the hospital on 14.04.2026. Therefore, according to the learned

Government Advocate, this is a heinous crime. The deceased was assaulted

by the appellant since he has not respected him and the occurrence has also

been witnessed by three eye witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this

appeal.

4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

6.This court has considered the rival submissions made and also

perused the materials.

7.The case of the prosecution is that when this appellant was

standing near Alathur water tank, the deceased crossed him on the road and

this appellant has created problem that the deceased has not respected him,

quarreled with him and pushed him and also assaulted him with stone.

If the prosecution case is true, then this court has to reject the request of

this appellant for grant of bail. However, the learned counsel for the

appellant has taken a plea that the deceased, in an inebriated condition fell

down and sustained injuries, was admitted in the hospital and died in the

hospital after 9 days. Considering the rival submissions, this court has

called for case diary and perused the same. This court has noted down the

following infirmities in the investigation:

(i)The deceased belongs to the scheduled caste and the appellant

belongs to Muslim community. The first information report was registered

on 05.04.2026, that the appellant has assaulted the deceased that he has not

respected him, while passing in the road. This case was registered by the 2

nd

5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

respondent police in Crime No.29 of 2026 for the offences under

Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 351(2) BNS. The provisions of

the SC/ST(POA) Act has not been added till the deceased died in the

hospital.

(ii)Only after the deceased died in the hospital on 14.04.2026, the

offence has been altered and the investigation has been entrusted to the

Deputy Superintendent of Police. The DSP has taken the appellant into

custody. However, neither the 2

nd

respondent Inspector of Police nor the

Deputy Superintendent of Police has taken any steps to recover the alleged

stone used in the commission offence, by which the appellant assaulted the

deceased.

(iii)The DSP has recorded that he has taken the accused to the

place of occurrence on 13.05.2026, that the stone could not be identified

and therefore, it was not recovered. The earlier investigation officer/ the

Inspector of Police, did not take any steps to find out the alleged weapon,

by which the deceased was assaulted in this case.

6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

(iv)The appellant has taken a stand that the deceased fell down

and sustained injury. The prosecution has not recovered the alleged stone.

In such a circumstance, if any photographs of the deceased has been taken

and filed in the case diary, it would be convenient for this court to ascertain

whether the injury could be caused due to a fall or due to an assault.

However, there are no photographs available in the case diary. With the

available material, it is not known how the respondent police is going the

lay an effective prosecution in Crime No.29 of 2026.

8.The Doctor who conducted the postmortem has provided the

cause of death as “Died due to the Effects of Cranio- Cerebral Injury with

Coronary Artery Disease and its Complications thereof”. The following

injuries were noted down during the postmortem:

(i)Avulsed laceration wound of size 3x2x1 cm

covered with brown coloured scab noted over the back of

Right ear lobe.

(ii)Abrasion (partially healed) measuring 3x2 cm

covered with dried brown coloured scab noted over the

Right cheek.

7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

(iii)Abrasion (partially healed) measuring 3x2 cm

covered with dried brown coloured scab noted over the Left

eyebrow.

(iv)Mouth examination- The Left upper central

incisor tooth appear shaking.

(v)Deformity of lower jaw in the right side

noted.O/d-fracture of Right jaw bone noted with surround

soft tissue contusion.

(vi)Deformity of Left shoulder noted. O/D-

fracture of Left collar bone at its middle 1/3

rd

noted with

surrounding soft tissue contusion.

9.The Doctor, during the trial would simply give the evidence of

all the probabilities of that injury. In such circumstances, if any photograph

of the deceased or the weapon with blood stains, was taken it would throw

light on the facts of this case.

10.The use of photography, videography and other electronic

records for documenting the scene of crime, the recovery of weapons, the

8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

injuries sustained by victims, and the seizure and handling of material

objects, is meant to ensure objectivity and credibility in the investigation

process and also enables the Courts to appreciate the evidence in its true

form during criminal trials. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafhi

Mohd. v. State of H.P [(2018) 5 SCC 311], has directed that steps should

be taken to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime

scene as desirable and acceptable best practice. The relevant portion is

extracted hereunder:

“9.We are in agreement with the Report of the

Committee of Experts that videography of crime scene during

investigation is of immense value in improving administration of

criminal justice. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail

Singh v. State of Haryana [Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana,

(2009) 8 SCC 539 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 887] , SCC para 34

noted that technology is an important part in the system of police

administration. It has also been noted in the decisions quoted in

the earlier part of this order that new techniques and devices

have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be

adopted. Such techniques and devices are the order of the day.

Technology is a great tool in investigation. By the videography,

crucial evidence can be captured and presented in a credible

manner.

10.Thus, we are of the considered view that

notwithstanding the fact that as of now investigating agencies in

9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

India are not fully equipped and prepared for the use of

videography, the time is ripe that steps are taken to introduce

videography in investigation, particularly for crime scene as

desirable and acceptable best practice as suggested by the

Committee of the MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law.

We approve the Centrally Driven Plan of Action prepared by the

Committee and the timeline as mentioned above. Let the

consequential steps for implementation thereof be taken at the

earliest.”

11.Similarly, in Pooja Pal v. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135],

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the use of technology would

improve the efficiency of the investigation. The relevant portion is

extracted hereunder:

“97.The joining of science with traditional criminal

investigation techniques offers new horizons of efficiency in

criminal investigation. New perspectives in investigation bypass

reliance upon informers and custodial interrogation and

concentrate upon a skilled scanning of the crime scene for

physical evidence and a search for as many witnesses as

possible.”

10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

12.In line with the above developments, the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [in short “BNSS”] also provides for the use of

technology at every stage of the investigation process. Section 530 of the

BNSS provides that all trials and proceedings may be held in electronic

mode, including the examination of complainant and witnesses and the

recording of evidence.

13.Section 105 of the BNSS provides that the process of search

and taking possession of any property or article shall be recorded through

audio-visual electronic means. Further, Section 176(3) BNSS mandates the

videography of the forensic collection of evidence, in cases where the

alleged offence is punishable with 7 years’ imprisonment or more. This

provision provides that the State Government is required to notify Rules in

this regard, within a period of five years. Pursuant to the same, the State of

Tamil Nadu has notified the Tamil Nadu Criminal Procedure Rules 2025.

As per Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules, every investigating officer shall

record video evidence along with audio whenever necessary and they shall

take photo evidence as required under the BNSS and Special laws through

the eSakshya mobile application or through any other available means.

11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

These Rules have come into force, with effect from 19.06.2025.

The Central Government has also introduced the eSakshya platform,

enabling real-time capture, secure storage, authentication, and transmission

of digital evidence to courts.

14.It is also relevant to note that Section 15A(10) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 provides that all the proceedings under the Act shall be video

recorded. This provision was introduced by way of Act 1 of 2016 and

introduced with the object of ensuring the rights of victims and their

dependents. The provision is extracted hereunder:

“Section 15(A)(10)- All proceedings relating to

offences under this Act shall be video recorded.”

15.In Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja and Others vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 784] a Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court held that this provision is mandatory and

not directory in nature. Further, it was also held that the widest possible

meaning would have to be provided to this provision. The relevant portion

12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

is extracted hereunder:

“27...Thus, meaning which is required to be given to

the word 'proceedings' is governed by the entire scheme of the

statute. Moreover, the word 'proceedings' is preceded by the

word 'all'; and hence in the section 15-A(10), the phrase used is

'all proceedings relating to offences under this Act'. This leaves

no doubt that the widest possible meaning will have to be given

to this particular use of the words.

...

33.In these circumstances, we are also inclined to hold

that Section 15-A(10) of the Atrocities Act is mandatory and not

directory.”

16.A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Suresh vs.

State of Kerala [2025:KER:54366] has held that the BNSS mandates the

audio-visual recording of investigative steps and the same improves the

quality of investigations. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“33.The BNSS ushers in a new era of evidence-

focused, technology-enabled policing, replacing outdated

colonial procedures with mandates for audio-visual

documentation, scientific evidence collection, and digital case

management. Sections 105, 176, 180, 254, 265, 308, and 349 of

the BNSS require that searches, seizures, witness statements, and

other crucial steps be recorded by “audio-video electronic

means.” They also insist on forensic expert involvement in

13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

serious crimes and provide legal authority to obtain scientific

samples from suspects. Therefore, the old habits of cursory scene

examination, reliance on witness memory, and sparse

documentation will no longer suffice. The BNSS provisions

expressly require that critical investigative steps be documented

with audio-video recordings and that forensic evidence be

collected and integrated from the outset. Such requirements aim

to improve the quality of investigations and ensure integrity and

accountability from investigating officers… …Today, by law, the

same scene must be videotaped, photographed, and forensically

examined, and the digital records are required to be preserved.

This dramatic leap in capability, from the pencil-and-paper era

to a digital evidence ecosystem, is certainly a change for the

better.”

17.Similarly, Section 180(3) BNSS provides that the witness

statements provided to the police, may be recorded by audio-visual

electronic means. The purpose behind the audio-visual recording of witness

statements is to ensure that the witnesses were actually examined by the

investigating officer and also to ensure authenticity of the statement that

was provided before the police officer.

14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

18.In Sateesh Kumar and another vs. State [2019 [2] L.W.

(Crl.) 826], a Division Bench of this court observed that the list of hostile

witnesses is getting bigger and held that the recording the examination of

witnesses by Police by audio - video electronic means, will make it easier

for the prosecution to confront witnesses before the Court when the witness

wriggles out of the earlier statement and is treated to be hostile. Therefore,

this court directed the State to frame a definite action plan to implement the

provision for using audio-video electronic means during the course of

investigation. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“It will be relevant to extract the order passed by this

Court on 08.11.2019 as under:

“In our tenure, for the last two months, we

noticed that in lots of cases, the list of hostile witnesses is

getting bigger and bigger, resulting in acquittals. If this

trend is allowed to be continued, people will lose faith in

the Criminal Justice System. We noticed that the legislature

had thought it fit to introduce the provisio to Section 161 of

Criminal Procedure Code by Act 5 of 2009, which came

into effect on 31.12.2009, whereby, the examination of the

witnesses by Police can be recorded by audio / visual

electronic means. We found that this provisio has remained

in the book for the last ten years and not once it has been

15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

resorted to. Recording the examination of witnesses by

Police by audio/video electronic means will make it easier

for the prosecution to confront witnesses before the Court

when the witness wriggles out of the earlier statement and

is treated to be hostile.....We are living in an era where the

science has grown so much and it is high time that

electronic means is used extensively in the investigation and

quality of the investigation is substantially improved.”

...

24.The legislature has thought it fit to bring in audio-

visual means to record the statements of witnesses and the

evidence of witnesses in order to bring in authenticity and

permanent record and ensure that witnesses do easily go back on

their statements.”

19.The above decision of the Division Bench was also noted by

this court in Balamurugan vs. State [MANU/TN/4902/2020]. The relevant

portion is extracted hereunder:

“46.Another Division Bench of this Court, in Satheesh

Kumar and another vs. State, reported in 2019 [2] L.W.

(Crl.)826, taking cue of the fact that the list of hostile witnesses is

getting bigger and bigger, resulting in acquittals, has taken every

efforts to improve the criminal justice system to meet the present

day scientific advancements and has passed a detailed order on

29.11.2019, after noting down several decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as well as various other Courts of law around the

16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

Country, as to the present day scientific advancements and the

lack of criminal justice system to meet the same. In the said

order, the Division Bench noted that with the laudable object of

recognizing the rights of a victim, the amendments to Sections

161, 164 & 275 Cr.P.C., came to be made in the year 2008 and

though such provisions, paving ways and means to record the

statements in audio-video mode, were in existence for about ten

years, it remains to be a dead letter without being implemented.”

20.The mandate under the BNSS is to ensure technology enabled

investigation process. Therefore, in serious offences like murder and sexual

offences, the police are mandatorily required to conduct videography of the

collection of evidence. The Rules in this regard have also been notified and

come into effect. However, the audio-visual recording of the collection of

evidence is not being done by the investigation officers, for the reasons

best known to them. In the present case also, which involves offences

under Section 103(1) BNS and also offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act,

no such audio-visual recording of the collection of evidence appears to

have been conducted. Such lapses are affecting the quality and integrity of

investigations and the Courts also are unable to ascertain the facts of the

case. Therefore, the Director General of Police, has to take a call on this

issue and issue appropriate directions, to ensure that audio-visual recording

17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

of the collection of evidence and materials is mandatorily conducted, at

least in serious offences.

21.Insofar as the case on hand is concerned, considering the

completion of investigation and filing of the final report, the appellant's

period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to this appellant,

however, with certain conditions.:

(i) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties each

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the III Additional Sessions and Sessions

Court, Madurai.

(ii) The appellant and the sureties shall file an affidavit before the

respondent police that the appellant will not misuse this liberty and will not

indulge in any further offence and he will be available for the trial.

(iii) The appellant shall report before the respondent police daily

at 10.30am

(iv)If the appellant changes his residence, the same shall be

informed to the respondent police immediately with correct address.

(v) If the appellant violates any of the conditions, the respondent

18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

police shall move an application to cancel the bail granted to the appellant.

22.In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge Madurai in

CrMP.No.233 of 2026, dated 18.06.2026 is set aside.

21.08.2026

DSK

Note: Mark a copy of this order to

1) The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2) The Director of Prosecution,Chennai.

To

1. III Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Oomachikulam Sub Division,

Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Oomachikulam Police Station,

Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent,

Central Prison, Madurai.

19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

Copy to

The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

B.PUGALENDHI, J.,

DSK

Crl.A(MD)No.829 of 2026

21.08.2026

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