Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On :28.04.2026

Pronounced On: 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

Senthilkumar ... Appellant

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

Thanjavur Town East Police Station,

Thanjavur,

Thanjavur District.

Crime No.14 of 2016 ... Respondent

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

Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the judgment and

conviction dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No.225 of 2016 and acquit the appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunanithi for

Mr.S.Mahendrapathy

For Respondent: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar

Additional Public Prosecutor

Page 1 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

JUDGMENT

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

The appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 225 of 2016 has

preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 12.07.2022, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted

him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to

undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

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

The prosecution case is that the deceased was employed as an

Assistant Administrative Officer in the LIC Office at Thanjavur. He was

residing in the first floor of a building, while the accused and his wife were

residing in the ground floor of the same premises. The accused got to know

of the amorous looks exchanged between his wife and the deceased and

believed that they were enamoured of each other and consequently, he

suspected that they were having a relationship. On 20.12.2016 at about 7:30

a.m., the accused is alleged to have picked up a quarrel with the deceased,

Page 2 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

which escalated, culminating in the commission of murder of the deceased.

Thereafter, the accused allegedly locked the premises and absconded. The

altercation is stated to have been witnessed by P.W.1, who was also working

in the same LIC office. When the deceased did not report for duty, P.W.1

went in search of him, proceeded to the residence, and found the deceased

lying murdered. He thereafter informed the higher officials and lodged a

complaint with the jurisdictional police. On receipt of the complaint, the

Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and

forwarded the First Information Report to the Court as well as to the

Inspector of Police for investigation. The Investigating Officer visited the

place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch,

and conducted inquest over the body in the presence of panchayatdars. The

body was thereafter sent for post-mortem examination.

2.1.During the course of investigation, on 21.12.2016 at about

8:00 p.m., the accused was arrested. In the presence of witnesses, he is

stated to have given a voluntary confession, pursuant to which blood-

stained clothes (shirt and pant) were recovered. The Investigating Officer

Page 3 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

examined several witnesses, collected documentary evidence, obtained the

post-mortem report and viscera report, and, upon completion of

investigation, filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate

No. I, Thanjavur. The case was taken on file in P.R.C. No. 7 of 2016. After

furnishing copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions, as the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court.

2.2.The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.

225 of 2016, framed charges against the accused, and upon the accused

pleading not guilty, proceeded with the trial. The prosecution examined P.W.

1 to P.W.20, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13, and produced Material Objects M.O.1

to M.O.15.Upon questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the

incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied the

same as false. Neither witness has been examined on the side of the accused

nor any document has been marked on the side of the accused as a defence

side.

Page 4 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

2.3.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as

stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present

appeal has been filed.

3.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant/Accused:

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the

entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and that the

chain of circumstances is incomplete and do not form a complete chain and

insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

3.1.It is submitted that the alleged motive—namely, suspicion

entertained by the accused regarding the relationship of his wife with the

deceased—has not been satisfactorily established. Further, the prosecution

has failed to prove a foundational fact, viz., that the accused was residing in

the apartment situated at Thanjavur G.A. Canal Road, belonging to P.W.16

(Kannan). In the absence of proof of residence or exclusive possession, the

Page 5 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

very substratum of the prosecution case stands weakened. The learned trial

Judge, it is argued, failed to properly appreciate this crucial aspect.

3.2.The only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the

alleged altercation between the accused and the deceased, said to have been

witnessed by P.W.1. Beyond this, no other incriminating circumstance has

been firmly established. In particular, there is no cogent evidence to

establish the “last seen together” theory so as to form a proximate link

between seeing the accused and the time of death.

3.3.The learned counsel further submits that invoking of Section

106 of the Indian Evidence Act is legally untenable in the absence of proof

of foundational facts. It is a settled principle that the burden under Section

106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary obligation to establish

the case beyond reasonable doubt.

3.4.Reliance is placed upon the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Page 6 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

Maharashtra, wherein it was held that in a case based on circumstantial

evidence, each circumstance must be fully established, and all such

circumstances must form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the

guilt of the accused.

3.5.It is further contended that the trial court itself, in paragraph

No. 37 of the judgment, has recorded a finding that there is no direct

evidence to prove that the accused caused the fatal injury (allegedly by

hitting the deceased with a pipe). Despite such a finding, the trial court

proceeded to convict the accused without proper analysis of the deficiencies

in evidence.

3.6.With regard to the alleged recovery, it is argued that the

recovery of blood-stained clothes is highly doubtful. According to the

prosecution, the recovery was made pursuant to the arrest; however,

evidence suggests that the accused was already present in the police station

prior to the alleged formal arrest. The recovery of the key from the accused,

which was used to open the premises where the body was found, further

Page 7 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

indicates prior custody and casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the

recovery proceedings.

3.7.In such circumstances, it is submitted that none of the

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been proved in

conformity with the settled legal principles governing circumstantial

evidence. Hence, the appellant is entitled to acquittal.

4.Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State:

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

deceased was found murdered inside the premises linked to the accused, and

therefore, the burden lies upon the accused to explain the circumstances

under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4.1.It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly

establishes that the accused and the deceased were last seen together shortly

before the occurrence. This circumstance, coupled with the recovery of

Page 8 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

incriminating material and the conduct of the accused, forms a complete

chain pointing towards his guilt.

4.2.According to the prosecution, the trial court has correctly

appreciated the evidence on record, and the cumulative effect of the

circumstances clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed that the conviction and sentence imposed by

the trial court be confirmed.

5.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials

available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.

6.The question that arises in this case is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable

doubt against the appellant and consequently conviction and sentence

passed against the appellant in S.C.No.225 of 2016 can be sustained?

Page 9 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

7.This case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble

three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in

paragraph no.153 set out five golden principles, namely the panchsheel of

the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and the same is as

follows:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to

be drawn should be fully established.

7.3.1. It may be noted here that this Court indicated

that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not

“may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a

legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or

should be proved” as was held by this Court in the case of

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra reported in

(1973) 2 SCC 793, which reads as follows:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must

be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and

the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and

divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

7.3.2. the facts so established should be consistent

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to

Page 10 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty,

7.3.3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency,

7.3.4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis

except the one to be proved, and

7.3.5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete

as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show

that in all human probability the act must have been done by

the accused.

8.Now the question is whether the prosecution proved the case

against the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence in

confirmity with the above settled principles? In the present case, the

prosecution mainly relied upon two circumstances to establish the guilt of

the accused, namely: (i) P.W.1 had seen the accused and the deceased at the

residence of the accused, allegedly situated on G.A. Canal Road, Thanjavur,

belonging to P.W.16 and managed by P.W.2, prior to the death of the

deceased; and (ii) the recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the accused.

Page 11 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

9. According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased

were residing in an apartment situated at G.A. Canal Road, Thanjavur,

belonging to P.W.16, namely Kannan. It is the further case of the

prosecution that the accused was residing in the said premises along with

his wife (P.W.7). P.W.2 is stated to be the person managing the said

apartment on behalf of P.W.16, who was employed elsewhere. The

prosecution also examined neighbours, namely P.Ws.3, 4, and 5, to establish

that the accused was residing in the said apartment.

10.However, the documentary evidence produced by the

prosecution, namely Exs.P6 and P7, indicates that the accused was residing

at a different place. P.W.7, the wife of the accused, as well as another

prosecution witness P.W.8, have deposed that the accused and P.W.7 were

residing at Tirukattupalli. This specific version is supported by the

documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.

11.Thus, there exists two inconsistent versions regarding the place

of residence of the accused. While the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and other

Page 12 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

witnesses suggests that the accused was residing in the apartment belonging

to P.W.16, the documentary evidence and the testimony of P.W.7 indicate

otherwise. The investigating agency has not produced any document to

show that the accused was a tenant under P.W.16 or that he was in

occupation of the said premises.

12.When the prosecution evidence itself is bristled with

contradictions on a material fact, namely the place of residence of the

accused, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to the accused.

In the present case, it has not been proved in accordance with law that the

accused was residing in the apartment where the dead body of the deceased

was allegedly found.

13.With regard to the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that he had

seen the accused and the deceased together and that the accused scolded the

deceased on suspicion of an alleged relationship with his wife. However,

this evidence is not corroborated by any other witness.

Page 13 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

14.This being a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive

assumes importance. The prosecution alleges that the accused suspected the

fidelity of his wife. However, P.W.7 has categorically stated that no such

incident occurred and that she was not in relationship with the deceased.

She has further deposed that they were residing at a different place, far away

from the place of occurrence.

15. Even P.W.1, in his chief examination, has not clearly deposed

that the accused scolded the deceased on account of any alleged relationship

with his wife. Therefore, this Court finds that the motive for the occurrence

has not been proved.

16. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused and the

deceased were last seen together is not reliable. According to P.W.1, after

witnessing the alleged altercation, he proceeded to his office. Thereafter,

finding that the office key was with the deceased, he returned to the house

and found the deceased lying dead in the alleged residence of the accused.

Page 14 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

17.This version appears highly improbable. There is no

corroborative material to substantiate the claim that the accused had any

altercation with the deceased at the relevant point of time.

18.Even otherwise, the mere fact that the accused was allegedly

last seen with the deceased cannot, by itself, form the basis for conviction.

The prosecution must establish other incriminating circumstances forming a

complete chain. In the present case, such complete chain has not been

established. Further, none of the witnesses have spoken that the wife of the

accused and the deceased were fond of each other. In these circumstances,

this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against

the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19.Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned

counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Judge, in paragraph No. 37 of the

judgment, has stated that the prosecution has not proved that the accused

assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and that such allegation is based

only on the alleged confession.

Page 15 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

20.The said finding of the trial court is perverse for more than one

reason. While observing that the motive has not been proved, the trial court

has nevertheless relied upon the alleged confession without independent

corroboration.

21.The learned Trial Judge has relied upon the alleged confession

of the accused. It is seen that only the admissible portion of the confession

has been marked, while the remaining portion has not been exhibited. In

such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have taken a clue from the

confession.

22.The learned Trial Judge has also recorded a finding that the

dead body was found in the residence of the accused. In this context, this

Court is constrained to examine the applicability of Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act. It is well settled that before drawing any adverse

inference against the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the

prosecution must first establish foundational facts pointing towards the guilt

of the accused. Mere recovery of the dead body from a place alleged to be

Page 16 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

the residence of the accused, in the absence of proof that the accused was in

exclusive possession of the premises or was present at the relevant point of

time, cannot give rise to any presumption against him.

23.In the present case, there is no reliable evidence to establish

that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence at or about the time

of the incident. On the contrary, several prosecution witnesses have

categorically stated that the accused was not residing in the said apartment.

24.Thus, two sets of evidence emerge from the prosecution case

itself regarding the residence of the accused. When such material

contradictions exist on a fundamental aspect, the benefit of doubt must

necessarily be extended to the accused.

25.This Court, therefore, finds that the prosecution has failed to

prove that the accused was residing in the said apartment or that he was

present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Further, neither P.W.1

nor P.W.16 has produced any document to establish that the accused was a

Page 17 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

tenant under P.W.16. There is also no evidence to show that P.W.2, who

allegedly managed the property, collected rent from the accused and

remitted the same to P.W.16.In the absence of any such evidence, this

Court is unable to concur with the findings of the learned Trial Judge in

convicting the accused.

26.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following

terms:

26.1.The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in

S.C.No.225 of 2016 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Thanjavur, dated 12.07.2022 is hereby set aside.

26.2.The accused is acquitted of all charges.

26.3.The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his

custody is required in connection with any other case.

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

01.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

sbn

Page 18 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

To

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Court,

Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Thanjavur Town East Police Station,

Thanjavur,

Thanjavur 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 19 of 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn

Pre-delivery judgment made in

Crl.A.(MD).No.886 of 2023

01.06.2026

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