2026:MHC:1826Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On:20.04.2026

Pronounced On:02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

1. Rajesh

2. Mahadevan

3. Anand ... Appellants/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 6

Vs.

1. The State rep by its,

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Muthupettai Sub Division,

Edaiyur Police Station,

Thiruvarur District.

(Crime No.358 of 2021)

2. VTK. Vinoth ... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgement dated

19.01.2023 made in Spl.SC.No.32 of 2021 on the file of I Additional and

Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur District and set aside the conviction and

sentence imposed against the appellants/accused and allow the baove

appeal.

Page 1 of 34

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

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

For Appellants: Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh

For R1: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2 : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi,

Legal Aid Counsel

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)

The appellant/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 6 in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2021 on

the file of the learned I Additional and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjauvr has

filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed

against him in the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023.

Sentence of lawSentence of

imprisonment

Fine

120(b) of IPC

r/w.sections 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST

(POA) Act

To undergo one year

rigourous imprisonment

Rs.1,000/- each i/d to

undergo three months

simple imprisonment

341 of IPC

r/w.Section 3(2)

(ca) of SC/ST

Act

To undergo one month

rigorous imprisonment

Rs.500/- each i/d to

under to one 7 days

simple imprisonment

294(b) of IPC To undergo one month

rigorous imprisonment

Rs.1,000/- i/d to under

to 15 days simple

imprisonment

Page 2 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

506(ii) of IPC

r/w.Section 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST

Act

To undergo one year

rigorous imprisonment

Rs.1,000/- i/d to

undergo three months

imprisonment

302 of IPC To undergo life

imprisonment

Rs.10,000/- i/d to

undergo one year

simple imprisonment

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Rajini, was

the brother of P.W.1 and belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. All the

accused persons, including A1, A2 and A6, belong to a non-Scheduled Caste

community.

2.2. It is alleged that on 09.07.2021 at about 10.00 a.m., A6

abused one Yogeswaran by uttering his caste name and also criminally

intimidated him. Aggrieved by the said incident, Yogeswaran approached

the deceased Rajini, who was a political party functionary. The deceased

advised him to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police station at

Edaiyur. However, when the deceased refused to compromise the issue, the

accused persons, being aggrieved, entered into a criminal conspiracy to

commit his murder.

Page 3 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

2.3. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, on the same day at

about 6.30 p.m., all the accused unlawfully assembled near Vadassandai

Cross Road, in the vicinity of the graveyard, armed with deadly weapons.

When the deceased was proceeding on a two-wheeler, the accused

intercepted him. A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with billhooks.

Thereafter, A3 severed the right forearm and elbow of the deceased, while

A4 cut the left elbow. A5 further inflicted cuts on the right thigh and knee,

and A6 continued the assault by cutting the left leg of the deceased

repeatedly. As a result of the brutal attack, the deceased fell down in a pool

of blood and succumbed to multiple grievous injuries.

2.4. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 (brother of the

deceased) and P.W.2, who were following the deceased on another two-

wheeler. Despite their attempts to intervene, the accused continued the

assault and also criminally intimidated them before fleeing from the scene.

P.Ws.1 and 2 immediately took the injured to the Government Hospital,

Tiruchirappalli, where the doctors declared him dead. Thereafter, P.W.1

lodged a complaint before the respondent police, which was registered as an

FIR.

Page 4 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

2.5. The investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent

of Police (P.W.23), who, upon receipt of the FIR, visited the scene of

occurrence in the early hours of 10.07.2021. He prepared the observation

mahazar and rough sketch, examined witnesses, and conducted inquest over

the body in the presence of panchayatdars. The body was thereafter sent for

post-mortem examination.

2.6. During the course of investigation, based on secret

information, the accused nos.1 to 5 and 7 were arrested on 10.07.2021.

Pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession given by A2 in the

presence of the Village Administrative Officer, material objects were

recovered. A6 was subsequently arrested on 11.07.2021.

2.7. The Investigating Officer continued the investigation by

sending the seized material objects for forensic analysis and, upon receipt of

the reports, altered the offences to include Section 120-B IPC through an

alteration report. He also collected relevant records, including electricity

supply details to establish the lighting conditions at the scene of occurrence.

2.8. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed on

30.08.2021 before the learned Special Judge, who took cognizance in

Page 5 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

Sessions Case No. 32 of 2021. Copies were furnished to the accused under

Section 207 Cr.P.C., and charges were framed. The accused denied the

charges and claimed to be tried.

2.9. On the side of the prosecution, evidence was thereafter

adduced.

2.10. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined,

Exhibits P.1 to P.30 were marked, and Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6

were produced. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused

were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with

reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence on record. The accused denied all such incriminating

circumstances as false and pleaded innocence.

2.11. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as

D.W.1, and Exhibits D.1 to D.8 were marked.

2.12. The learned trial Judge, upon appreciation of the entire oral

and documentary evidence, acquitted Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 on the

ground that there was no sufficient material to establish their involvement in

the occurrence. In that process, the trial Court disbelieved the eyewitness

Page 6 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

account of P.Ws.1 and 2 insofar as it related to the said acquitted accused.

However, the trial Court found the evidence on record sufficient to convict

the present appellants (A1, A2 and A6) for the offences under the Indian

Penal Code.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants

have preferred the present appeal before this Court. It is pertinent to note

that no appeal has been filed either by the defacto complainant or by the

prosecution challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7, and

thus, the said acquittal has attained finality.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants:

4.1. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

conviction recorded by the trial Court is legally unsustainable in view of the

manner in which the evidence of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, has been

selectively relied upon.

Page 7 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

4.2. It is submitted that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is

intrinsically intermingled, inseparable, and indivisible insofar as all the

accused are concerned. The said witnesses have attributed specific overt

acts to each of the accused, particularly A1 to A6. However, the learned trial

Judge, while disbelieving their evidence in respect of Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5

and 7 and acquitting them, has nevertheless relied upon the very same

testimony to convict the present appellants. Such selective acceptance and

rejection of evidence, according to the learned counsel, is impermissible in

law when the evidence forms a single, indivisible narrative.

4.3. It is further contended that when the prosecution case rests

upon eyewitnesses who assign specific overt acts to all the accused, and

when such evidence is disbelieved in substantial part, the residue cannot be

relied upon in isolation to sustain conviction against a few accused,

particularly in the absence of any independent corroboration.

4.4. The learned counsel also assailed the credibility of P.Ws.1

and 2 on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased and belong

Page 8 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

to the same community, thereby being interested witnesses. Their conduct,

as projected by the prosecution, is stated to be unnatural. According to them,

despite witnessing a brutal attack, they neither intervened nor raised

effective alarm, and their version regarding the manner in which the

deceased was taken to the hospital is inconsistent and doubtful. Such

conduct, it is argued, creates serious doubt about their presence at the scene

of occurrence.

4.5. Further, it is contended that there is an unexplained delay in

lodging the First Information Report. As per the prosecution, the deceased

was admitted to the hospital by one Pattabhiraman, who has not been

examined. This omission, according to the defence, creates a serious dent in

the prosecution case. Though the prosecution asserts that P.Ws.1 and 2 took

the deceased to the hospital, the Accident Register entry reflects otherwise,

thereby rendering their version doubtful.

4.6. It is also pointed out that the FIR is said to have been

registered only after a considerable delay and was forwarded to the Court

Page 9 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

belatedly, reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate only at about 12:30 p.m. on

the following day. Even as per the evidence of the police officials, the FIR

was not ready for dispatch until 6:00 a.m. the next day. This unexplained

delay, it is argued, provides scope for embellishment and false implication

of the accused. The learned counsel submits that when the genesis of the

prosecution case, namely the FIR, becomes doubtful, the entire subsequent

investigation is vitiated, in line with the settled principle that if the

foundation fails, the superstructure must also fall.

4.7. With regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy, the learned

counsel submits that the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.

12, 13 and 16. Among them, P.W.13 has turned hostile, while P.Ws.12 and

16 have supported the prosecution. However, their evidence is assailed as

unreliable and artificial. It is argued that the alleged conspiracy is said to

have taken place immediately prior to the occurrence, in a public place,

which itself renders the prosecution version improbable. Further, P.Ws.12

and 16, despite allegedly having knowledge of the conspiracy, did not

inform either the deceased or his relatives, nor did they alert the authorities.

Page 10 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

Such inaction is wholly unnatural and casts serious doubt on their

credibility.

4.8. Additionally, there is a significant delay in recording their

statements and forwarding the same to the Court. Though they were

examined during investigation on 11.07.2021, their statements reached the

Court only on 11.10.2021, after the filing of the final report on 30.08.2021.

This delay, according to the learned counsel, indicates that they are planted

witnesses to strengthen the prosecution case. In contrast, P.W.13, who has

not supported the prosecution, has deposed in a manner that weakens the

alleged theory of conspiracy.

4.9. On the cumulative assessment of these circumstances, the

learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to

establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellants are

entitled to acquittal.

4.10. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that

Page 11 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

the alleged arrest and recovery are wholly doubtful and do not inspire

confidence. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are projected as

eyewitnesses, have not clearly deposed as to whether the accused fled from

the scene carrying the weapons used in the commission of the offence. This

omission assumes significance, particularly when the alleged recovery of

weapons was effected from an open place in close proximity to the scene of

occurrence. In such circumstances, the recovery loses its evidentiary value.

It is further argued that the recovery of billhooks does not advance the

prosecution case, inasmuch as the serological report does not establish that

the bloodstains found on the weapons correspond to that of the deceased. In

the absence of such scientific linkage, the alleged recovery cannot be relied

upon to connect the accused with the crime.

4.11. The learned counsel also pointed out material contradictions

in the evidence relating to recovery. P.W.7, the Village Administrative

Officer, who attested the confession and recovery mahazar, has given a

version which is inconsistent with that of the Investigating Officer regarding

the place and manner of arrest and recovery. These contradictions, it is

Page 12 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

contended, go to the root of the prosecution case and have not been properly

appreciated by the trial Court. With regard to the medical evidence, it is

submitted that the post-mortem report discloses as many as 18 injuries on

the body of the deceased, whereas the eyewitnesses have spoken only about

11 injuries. The remaining injuries remain unexplained. This inconsistency

between ocular and medical evidence, according to the learned counsel,

creates a serious doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution case and

indicates lack of corroboration.

4.12. The credibility of P.Ws.1 and 2 is further assailed on the

ground of material contradictions in their version regarding the

transportation of the deceased to the hospital. While P.W.1 claims that the

deceased was taken in a 108 ambulance, P.W.2 deposes that they initially

transported him in a car and thereafter shifted him to an ambulance.

Contrary to both versions, the Accident Register reflects that the deceased

was admitted by one Pattabhiraman, who has not been examined. This

discrepancy, coupled with the non-examination of the car driver or

ambulance personnel and the absence of any supporting documentary

Page 13 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

evidence, renders the prosecution version doubtful. It is also contended that

although P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed that their clothes were stained with blood

while transporting the deceased, the investigating agency failed to recover

or produce such material objects. This omission deprives the prosecution of

crucial corroborative evidence to establish their presence at the scene.

4.13. The learned counsel further submitted that the viscera and

toxicology reports (Exs. P.19 and P.20) indicate that the deceased was under

the influence of alcohol at the time of death. However, this aspect has not

been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 or other material witnesses, thereby

suppressing a relevant circumstance which could have a bearing on the

occurrence. It is also argued that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 is unnatural

inasmuch as, despite allegedly anticipating danger and following the

deceased, they did not make any effective attempt to prevent the occurrence.

This conduct, according to the defence, renders their presence doubtful. The

defence has further brought on record that the deceased and his associates

were involved in multiple prior criminal cases and had enmity with various

groups. Documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate such prior

Page 14 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

involvements. It is therefore contended that there existed several other

potential assailants, and the appellants have been falsely implicated.

4.14. With respect to motive, the learned counsel submits that the

alleged earlier case involving A6 had culminated in acquittal in the year

2015, and therefore, there was no subsisting or immediate motive. The

prosecution’s reliance on the alleged incident of abuse on the morning of the

occurrence is also questioned, as the said case was registered separately and

has not been properly proved in the present proceedings. It is further

contended that the trial Court has relied upon certain documents and prior

incidents which were neither marked as exhibits nor put to the accused in

accordance with law. Such reliance, without affording an opportunity to the

accused to explain the same under Section 313 Cr.P.C., constitutes a serious

procedural irregularity vitiating the trial.

4.15. Additionally, the learned counsel submitted that reliance

placed on another Sessions Case (S.C. No. 33 of 2021) concerning the

alleged offence by A6 is wholly improper, especially when the concerned

Page 15 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

witness, Yogeswaran, has not supported the prosecution version in the

present case. The said material was neither duly proved nor put to the

accused, thereby causing prejudice. On the cumulative assessment of the

above infirmities—namely doubtful recovery, contradictions in prosecution

evidence, lack of corroboration between ocular and medical evidence,

unexplained delay, procedural lapses, and failure to establish motive—the

learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

4.16. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that

the prosecution has failed to establish a clear and exclusive motive against

the appellants. It is contended that the evidence on record, particularly

elicited during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, discloses that

several persons had prior enmity with the deceased. In such circumstances,

the implication of the appellants alone, without cogent connecting material,

is unsafe and unsustainable in law. On the cumulative assessment of the

infirmities in the prosecution case, it is therefore urged that the appellants

are entitled to acquittal.

Page 16 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

5. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

5.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

as against A1, A2 and A6. It is contended that there existed a strong and

immediate motive for the occurrence. On the date of the incident, A6 is

alleged to have abused one Yogeswaran by uttering his caste name and

criminally intimidated him. The said incident, according to the prosecution,

led to the involvement of the deceased, who advised the lodging of a

complaint. The said case has culminated in conviction in Sessions Case No.

33 of 2021 on the very same day as the present judgment. The trial Court

has, therefore, rightly relied upon the said circumstance to establish motive

for the present offence.

5.2. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that P.Ws.1

and 2 have cogently and consistently deposed regarding the overt acts

committed by A1, A2 and A6. Their evidence is natural, trustworthy, and

stands corroborated by the medical evidence. The nature, location, and

multiplicity of injuries found on the body of the deceased are consistent

with the manner of assault spoken to by the eyewitnesses.

Page 17 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

5.3. It is further contended that the prosecution has established all

material circumstances, including the recovery of bloodstained weapons

pursuant to the confession of the accused, the arrest of the accused, and the

forensic reports. The evidence relating to conspiracy, as spoken to by P.Ws.

12 and 16, also lends assurance to the prosecution case. Addressing the

argument of partial acquittal, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it

is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the Court is entitled

to rely upon the credible portion of the evidence and convict some of the

accused, even if other co-accused are acquitted, provided the evidence

against the convicted accused is cogent, reliable, and sufficient. The

principle that evidence can be “separated as grain from chaff” is firmly

recognised, and the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no rigid

application in Indian law.

5.4. It is therefore submitted that the acquittal of certain co-

accused does not, by itself, render the conviction of the present appellants

unsustainable, particularly when there exists clear and consistent evidence

specifically implicating them. It is also brought to the notice of this Court

that the defacto complainant, though served with notice, has not appeared.

Page 18 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

In the circumstances, this Court appointed a learned legal aid counsel to

represent the interests of the victim’s side.

6. Submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the defacto

complainant:

6.1. The learned legal aid counsel submitted that the prosecution

has placed abundant material to demonstrate that the occurrence was rooted

in caste-based animosity. There existed a continuing dispute between the

accused and the deceased’s family on account of caste considerations, and

the deceased, being a prominent member of the Scheduled Caste

community, was targeted in a premeditated manner. It is further submitted

that the immediate provocation arising from the incident involving A6 and

Yogeswaran provided the triggering point for the conspiracy and subsequent

murder. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are natural witnesses, remains

unshaken, and no effective material has been brought on record by the

defence to discredit their testimony. Accordingly, it is contended that the

trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective

and has rightly convicted A1, A2 and A6. The conviction and sentence

Page 19 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

imposed are in accordance with law and do not warrant interference by this

Court.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions

advanced on either side and perused the entire materials available on record,

including the oral and documentary evidence, as well as the relevant legal

principles governing the field.

8. Discussion on the acquittal of co-accused A3, A4, A5, A7:

8.1. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether

the conviction of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 by the trial Court, while

acquitting Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 on the basis of the very same set of

evidence, particularly the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, is legally sustainable.

The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the presence and credibility

of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence, contending that their version is

inherently improbable and unworthy of reliance. In order to appreciate this

contention, this Court has carefully scrutinized their evidence.

Page 20 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

8.2. P.W.1 deposed that he, along with P.W.2, followed the

deceased on a two-wheeler, apprehending danger to his life. According to

them, upon reaching the place of occurrence, they initially witnessed the

assault by A1 and A2 and thereafter attributed specific overt acts to A3, A4,

A5 and A6 as well. However, the trial Court, while acquitting A3, A4, A5

and A7, disbelieved the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 insofar as it related to

those accused, but chose to rely upon the same evidence to convict A1, A2

and A6. In the considered opinion of this Court, such selective acceptance

of evidence is impermissible in the facts of the present case, where the

testimony is indivisible and attributes specific overt acts to each of the

accused in one continuous transaction.

8.3. This Court is of the view that when the evidence of

eyewitnesses forms a single, inseparable narrative, the Court cannot, in the

absence of independent corroboration, accept one part and reject the other in

a mechanical manner, particularly when the disbelieved portion goes to the

root of the prosecution case.

Page 21 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

9. Discussion on the motive and conspiracy:

9.1. At the outset, it is seen that the prosecution case rests upon an

alleged background of caste-based enmity between the accused party and

the deceased, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, whereas the

accused belonged to a non-Scheduled Caste community. Though reference

has been made to prior disputes, including an earlier case under the

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

same admittedly ended in acquittal, and no specific material has been placed

on record to establish any subsisting or proximate motive as against A1, A2

and A6.

9.2. The immediate motive projected by the prosecution relates to

the alleged incident dated 09.07.2021 in the morning, wherein A6 is said to

have abused one Yogeswaran by uttering his caste name and criminally

intimidated him, which led to the deceased intervening and advising the

lodging of a complaint. This circumstance is relied upon as the genesis for

the alleged conspiracy.

9.3. In order to establish the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution

has examined P.Ws.12, 13 and 16. However, upon careful scrutiny, this

Page 22 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

Court finds that the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence.

9.4. P.W.13 has turned hostile. P.Ws.12 and 16, though supporting

the prosecution version, have exhibited conduct which appears wholly

unnatural. According to them, they overheard the accused conspiring in an

open place, yet failed to take any steps to inform either the deceased or his

relatives, including P.W.1, despite having the means to do so. Such inaction,

in the face of an alleged imminent threat to life, renders their testimony

doubtful.

9.5. More importantly, there is an unexplained and inordinate

delay in forwarding their statements to the Court. Though their statements

are stated to have been recorded on 11.07.2021, they reached the

jurisdictional Court only on 11.10.2021, i.e., long after the filing of the final

report. The Investigating Officer has not furnished any satisfactory

explanation for this delay. This lapse assumes significance, as it raises a

legitimate doubt regarding the authenticity and spontaneity of their

statements.

9.6. Further, even in the chief examination, P.W.13 has stated that

Page 23 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

he and P.W.12 came to know about the occurrence only after hearing about

the murder at a tea shop, which materially contradicts the prosecution theory

that they had prior knowledge of the conspiracy. This aspect has not been

effectively clarified. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the

prosecution has failed to establish the charge of conspiracy beyond

reasonable doubt. It is a settled principle of law that mere existence of

motive cannot, by itself, give rise to an inference of conspiracy in the

absence of cogent and reliable evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

consistently held that conspiracy must be proved by clear and convincing

evidence, and cannot be inferred on the basis of suspicion or conjecture.

9.7. In the present case, the evidence relating to conspiracy is not

only weak but also suffers from serious infirmities, including unnatural

conduct of witnesses and unexplained procedural delay. The learned trial

Judge, without undertaking a proper analysis of these aspects, has accepted

the prosecution case on conspiracy in a mechanical manner.

9.8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the finding of the trial Court holding the appellants

guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy is erroneous and unsustainable.

Page 24 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 120-B IPC

are liable to be set aside.

10. Discussion on the eyewitness namely PW1 and PW2:

10.1. Further, the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2, as projected by the

prosecution, appears unnatural. According to P.W.1, though they followed

the deceased to safeguard him, upon witnessing the assault and being

threatened by the accused, they fled from the scene. Such conduct does not

align with the normal human behaviour expected in such circumstances,

especially when they claim to have followed the deceased out of

apprehension for his safety.

10.2. There are also material contradictions regarding the manner

in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. P.W.1 stated that the

deceased was taken in an ambulance, whereas P.W.2 deposed that he was

initially taken in a car and thereafter shifted to a 108 ambulance. Contrary to

both versions, the Accident Register (Ex.P.28) indicates that the deceased

was admitted by one Pattabhiraman, who has not been examined by the

prosecution. This discrepancy remains unexplained.

Page 25 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

10.3. Additionally, though P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed that their clothes

were stained with blood while transporting the deceased, the investigating

agency failed to recover or produce such material objects. This omission

assumes significance, as such evidence would have provided vital

corroboration regarding their presence at the scene.

10.4. The manner in which the complaint came to be lodged also

raises suspicion. Despite the Accident Register reflecting intimation to the

police, it is not the case of the prosecution that any statement was recorded

at the hospital. Instead, P.W.1 is said to have travelled to the police station

and lodged the complaint, which resulted in the registration of the FIR. The

delay and the unusual manner in which the FIR was registered create scope

for embellishment.

10.5. On a cumulative assessment of these circumstances—

namely, the inconsistencies in the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, their unnatural

conduct, lack of corroborative material evidence, contradictions with

medical and documentary records, and the doubtful genesis of the FIR—this

Court finds that their presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.

10.6. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the trial Court itself

Page 26 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

disbelieved their evidence in respect of similarly placed co-accused who

were attributed specific overt acts. In such circumstances, when the

evidence is inseparable and indivisible, it would be unsafe to rely upon the

same testimony to sustain conviction against the remaining accused. It is

also significant that the medical evidence discloses 18 injuries on the body

of the deceased, whereas the prosecution has accounted for only a lesser

number of injuries through ocular testimony. The failure to reconcile this

discrepancy further weakens the prosecution case.

10.7. In view of the above infirmities, this Court is unable to place

reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 in its entirety. Consequently, the

benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the appellants. Accordingly, this

Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against A1,

A2 and A6 beyond reasonable doubt, and they are entitled to acquittal.

11. Discussion on delay in registration of FIR and forwarding the

same to the Court:

11.1. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) and its

Page 27 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

transmission to the jurisdictional Court is fatal to the prosecution case. In

order to consider the said submission, this Court has carefully perused the

FIR and the evidence relating to its registration and dispatch.

11.2. According to P.W.1, after taking the deceased to the hospital

and being informed of his death, he proceeded to the police station and

lodged the complaint at about 10.00 p.m. on 09.07.2021. P.W.22, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, deposed that he registered the FIR at about 10.00 p.m.

(though there appears to be some inconsistency suggesting registration at a

later point of time). The FIR was thereafter forwarded to the Court through

a police constable.

11.3. However, the said constable has deposed that the FIR

reached the jurisdictional Court only at about 12:30 p.m. on the next day.

Further, it has come in evidence that the requisition for dispatch of the FIR

was made only at about 6:00 a.m. on the following day. Thus, there exists a

delay both in the registration of the FIR and in its transmission to the Court,

for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution.

11.4. It is well settled that though delay in lodging the FIR is not

per se fatal, unexplained delay assumes significance when it gives rise to the

Page 28 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

possibility of embellishment, fabrication, or false implication. In the present

case, the delay gains importance in view of the admitted existence of prior

enmity and multiple disputes involving the deceased and various other

groups, as brought out through the defence evidence.

12. Discussion on other circumstances:

12.1. The defence has placed materials to show that the deceased

was involved in several prior incidents, giving rise to hostility from

different quarters. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication

of the appellants cannot be ruled out, particularly when the genesis of the

prosecution case itself becomes doubtful due to the delay in FIR.

12.2. Further, the evidence on record, including the viscera report

(Ex.P.19) and the medical testimony, indicates that the deceased had

consumed alcohol prior to the occurrence. This circumstance, though not

conclusive, adds another layer of doubt when considered along with the

other infirmities in the prosecution case.

12.3. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the learned

counsel regarding the doubtful nature of recovery. The alleged recovery of

Page 29 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

weapons pursuant to confession was effected from an open place near the

scene of occurrence, namely a graveyard. In the absence of clear evidence

that the accused had fled from the scene carrying the weapons, such

recovery from an accessible public place loses much of its evidentiary

value.

12.4. Moreover, the forensic report does not conclusively

establish that the bloodstains found on the recovered weapons match that of

the deceased. This absence of scientific corroboration further weakens the

prosecution case.

12.5. The learned Trial Judge committed error in relying upon

certain documents relating to the prior incidents which were neither marked

as exhibits nor put to the accused during the course of the 313 Cr.P.C. In

para 23, the learned Trial Judge placed the reliance on the judgment in

S.C.No.33 of 2021 to convict the accused and also he strongly relied oral

testimony of the number of witnesses in the said case to find guilty of the

appellants in the present case. The said procedure is strange one and also the

learned Trial Judge failed to put a question during the 313 Cr.P.C. also. It is

Page 30 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

well settled 313 Cr.P.C. is not on a empty formality and the purpose of the

313 Cr.P.C. is to bring the notice of the accused and be given an opportunity

to the accused to explain the same. The said non-indication of the

incriminating material during the 313 Cr.P.C. questioning would vitiate the

conviction. Therefore, in this case the reliance based on the judgment and

the material evidence in the S.C.No.33 of 2021 to hold the accused guilty

under the charged offence is not legally correct.

13.Conclusion:

13.1. In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies entirely on the

prosecution to establish guilt, and any reasonable doubt must enure to the

benefit of the accused. Once the foundational aspects of the prosecution

case become doubtful, the entire edifice cannot be sustained.

13.2. On a cumulative consideration of the above circumstances

namely, the unexplained delay in FIR, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses,

unreliable evidence relating to conspiracy, inconsistencies between ocular

and medical evidence, acquittal of co-accused without any indivisible nature

of evidence over the conviction of the appellants and the weak nature of

Page 31 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

recovery, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

13.3. Accordingly, this Court accepts the submissions made on

behalf of the appellants and holds that they are entitled to the benefit of

doubt.

13.4. The conviction and sentence imposed on Accused Nos. 1, 2

and 6 are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted of all charges.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the

following terms:

14.1.The judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and

Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2021 dated

19.01.2023 is hereby set aside.

14.2.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in

Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2021, by virtue of judgment dated 19.01.2023 passed by

the learned I Additional and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanajvur.

14.3. Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the

appellant forthwith.

Page 32 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

14.4.Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated.

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

02.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

gvn

To:

1.The I Additional and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Muthupettai Sub Division,

Edaiyur Police Station,

Thiruvaur District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

4.The Section Officer,

Criminal Section(Records),

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

Page 33 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

gvn

Judgment made in

Crl.A.(MD).No.492 of 2023

02.06.2026

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