Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 27.01.2026

DELIVERED ON : 12.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.No.659 of 2019

The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Thittakudi Police Station,

Cuddalore District.

[Crime No.247 / 2010] ..Appellant / Complainant

Versus

1.Ambedkar

2.Pennadathan @ Muthukumar ... Respondents / A1 and A2

Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Criminal Procedure

Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal in Sessions Case No.51

of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

assisted by

Mr.Arifa Thasneem

For Respondents : Mr.P.Vijendran

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

JUDGMENT

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The State has preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment of

acquittal dated 07.02.2019 made in S.C.No.51 of 2018 on the file of the III

Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, in and

by which the trial Court has acquitted the accused 1 and 2 for the offences

under Sections 120(B) r/w. 302 IPC. Originally there are four accused, out of

which the case against the 3

rd

accused was quashed as per the order of the

High Court and 4

th

accused died pending trial. The accused 1 and 2 are the

respondents herein.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 – Muthumizhvannan is the brother of the deceased –

Kanthamizh Ilavazhagan. Accused 1 and 2 are friends. Accused 1 and 3 are

the sons of A4, who died pending trial. PW1 deposed that there is enmity

between the family of PW1 and the deceased family with regard to land. The

deceased had illegal intimacy / relationship with the sister of A1. Both

families warned them, but they did not accede to. In this regard, a criminal

complaint has been lodged against the deceased by A1 before Vaniyampadi

All Women Police Station and thereafter, the said case was dismissed.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

2.2. There was a marriage proposal initiated to the deceased to

convene the marriage on 25.04.2010. While so, A1 warned the deceased

saying that the deceased spoiled the life of his sister and if the deceased got

married, he will kill him or otherwise, the deceased should pay Rs.1 lakh.

PW1’s family continued the marriage process. On 23.04.2010, the deceased

went to buy dinner for her mother from Keezhservay to Thittakudi in his

motorcycle at 10.00 p.m. The deceased did not return back to home and at

about 11.00 p.m. PW1 was informed by many people saying that the

deceased was lying in front of one Manickam’s house with cut injuries.

Immediately, PW1, his mother and wife rushed to the place of occurrence

and saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries at

11.30 p.m. He went to the police station and lodged the complaint – Ex.P1.

2.3. PW3 – Tr.Jothimani deposed that he knew PW1. He knew that

there is enmity between PW1’s family and accused family with regard to

land. He also deposed that there is an illicit relationship between the

deceased and A1’s sister. While he was returning home from Thittakudi on

23.04.2010 at 10.30 p.m., he saw the deceased travelling in his motor cycle

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

towards his house. While so, A1 and A2 waylaid him and A1 tried to

assaulted the deceased with billhook on his neck. The deceased prevented

the same in his hand and therefore, he received cut in his hands. A2

assaulted the deceased with billhook on his left leg. Then, A1 again

assaulted the deceased on his neck and he fell down with his motorbike. A1

and A2 repeatedly assaulted the deceased with billhooks. The deceased

died. He saw the occurrence from a distance and due to fear, he did not went

near where the deceased was lying dead. Thereafter many people arrived

and he informed the same to PW1.

2.4. PW7-Tr.Thandapani deposed that there is a land dispute between

PW1 family and the accused family. He knew both of them. He deposed

that there is an illegal relationship between the deceased and A1’s sister. On

the date of the alleged occurrence at 1.00 p.m., A1 and A2 involved in a

wordy quarrel with the deceased. When he tried to get near them, they left

the place. He asked the deceased about the same. He told that A1 and A2

threatened him not to marry anyone. In-turn PW7 told the deceased to

inform this to PW1. PW7 also informed the same to PW1 about the wordy

quarrel held between the deceased and A1 and A2.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

2.5. PW12- Tr.Jothimanickam deposed that while he was working as

Executive Officer in Tittakudi Town Panchayat, on the request made by the

police, he had enquired and informed that there was a street light in the

alleged place of occurrence. He has issued the Certificate – Ex.P9.

2.6. PW14 – Tmt.C.Jaya -Scientific Officer deposed that she has

received 8 material objects from the Court for examination and she has

issued the Report Ex.P10. PW15- Dr.Selvendiran, who conducted autopsy,

deposed that on 24.04.2010, he received a requisition from the Inspector of

Police and he conducted inquest over the dead body and issued postmortem

certificate under Ex.P11 and he has given opinion that the deceased would

have died of injury to brain, injury to long bones, shock and hemorrhage.

2.7. PW16- Tr.Sivasenthil, Head Constable deposed that on

24.04.2010, as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he took the

Sniffer Dog to the occurrence place and the Sniffer Dog proceeded towards

Kizhservai Iyyanar Temple and stopped near Panchayat Union Primary

School.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

2.8. PW17- Tr.Loganathan deposed that he has received the tapal from

the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tittakudi and handed over the same to the Court

concerned. PW18- Tr.Kumaraswamy, Special Sub-Inspector of Police,

deposed that on 24.04.2010, while he was working as Head Constable, the

Inspector of Police has received an information that one person was lying

with cut injuries in front of the house of one Manickam. He went there and

saw that he was dead. The Inspector of Police enquired the persons who

have gathered and they informed that the deceased name is Kanthamizh

Ilavazhagan. Since huge people have gathered, the Inspector of Police has

given a requisition to keep the body in the Government Hospital, Tittakudi.

On the next day, the Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead

body and he assisted him on 24.04.2010. Thereafter, on completion of

autopsy, he had handed over the dead body to the relatives. He has seized

material objects M.O.1- Green Colour Pant, M.O.2- Biscuit Colour Shirt,

M.O.3 – Full Hand Banian, - M.O.4 – Viking inner panty – 90 cm from the

deceased body and handed over the same to the Inspector of police.

2.9. PW20 – Tr.Perumal, Special Sub Inspector of Police deposed that

on 23.04.2010, while he was in police station, he has received the complaint

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No.247/2010 for the offence under

Section 302 IPC and registered the FIR under Ex.P12. He informed about

registration of the case to the Inspector of Police.

2.10. PW21 – Tr.Ramadoss, Inspector of Police deposed that on

23.04.2010, while he was on patrolling duty at night 23.30 hours, he had

received an information from PW20 about the registration of the case and

also informed that a person was murdered in front of the house of one

Manickam. Upon receiving the information, he instructed PW16- Head

Constable, Sniffer Dog Division to summon sniffer dog and also arranged

photographer to take photographs at the occurrence place. He went to

Thittakudi Police Station on 24.04.2010 at 00.15 hours and he received

Ex.P12-FIR and commenced his investigation. He went to the occurrence

place along with the head constables Kandhaswamy, Kumaraswamy and

Murugesan with the help of the Photographer – Raja, who took photographs

under M.O.5 series (6 photos) in the occurrence place.

2.11. At 00.45 hours, PW21 prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P13

and Rough Sketch – Ex.P14 in the presence of one Subbiah and

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

Tr.Muruganandham – PW10. Thereafter, he went to Thozhudhur Main Road

and he has seized Hero Honda Splendor Motorbike Reg.No.TN42AZ0986 –

M.O.6 and Green Colour and Red Colour mixed wire bag – M.O.7, small

silver bucket – M.O.8, Silver Box small size – M.O.8 and Nokia Cellphone

Black Colour Model No.73- M.O.10 viz., under Mahazar- Ex.P15 in the

presence of witnesses. Thereafter, at 2.30 hours, he has seized M.O.11 –

Blood Stained Tar Stone / Sand and Plain Tar Stone – M.O.12 under

Mahazar – Ex.P16 and also seized note book containing 87 pages under

Ex.P17 – Mahazar.

2.12. PW21 enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements.

Since huge people gathered and caused traffic hindrance, to avoid law and

order problem, he sent the deceased body through Head Constable to the

Government Hospital, Tittakudi. At morning 7.30 a.m., he went to the

hospital, conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses

and issued Inquest Report – Ex.P18. He has seized from the deceased body,

a gold ring weighing 4 gms – M.O.13, Silver Waist Rope – M.O.14. He has

sent the body for autopsy through the Head Constable. He examined the

witnesses and recorded their statements. The head constable has also

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

handed over the seized dresses worn by the deceased and the same were sent

to the Court under Form 95. In continuation of his investigation, he has

examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

2.13. On 26.04.2010 at 4.00 a.m. PW21 arrested A1 and A2 in the

presence of PW11-Tr.Palanivel and one Mani. On enquiry A1 voluntarily

gave confession statement and the same has been recorded. The admissible

portion of confession statement of A1 is Ex.P19. A2 also gave confession

statement and the same has been recorded. The admissible portion of

confession statement of A2 is Ex.P20. In pursuance to the confession

statements, the accused 1 and 2 took them to Kilservai River Shore,

identified and handed over M.Os.15 and 16 – 2 Billhooks and the same has

been recovered under Mahazar – Ex.P21 in the presence of witnesses. He

sent the accused to judicial custody and also sent the case properties to the

Court under Form 95. He enquired the witnesses and recorded their

statements.

2.14. On 28.04.2010, PW21 altered the Sections from 302 IPC to

Section 120(B) r/s. 302 IPC. The Alteration Report is Ex.P22. He has

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Upon completion of

investigation, he has laid the final report against the accused.

2.15. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, has

examined PWs.1 to 21, marked 23 documents and produced 16 material

objects. Upon completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were

questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating

circumstances which has been culled out from the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and they have denied the same as false. Upon

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found that

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable

doubt and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved over the judgment of

acquittal, the State / prosecution has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

3. Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the appellant / State would put forth the following contentions:

(i) The Court below failed to note that there are severe cut injuries

over the neck and other parts of the deceased as inflicted by the

respondents / accused 1 and 2 in the main road at midnight and the same has

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

been corroborated by the witnesses, since the street electrical post brightly

lighting the occurrence place.

(ii) The deceased was waylaid by the accused, who gained knowledge

that the deceased was going to get married soon and threatened that unless

he marries his sister, he would be dead. In this regard, PW30 clearly

deposed about the occurrence happened prior to the murder.

(iii) PW3 categorically deposed that he came to the place of

occurrence casually and witnessed the entire occurrence and therefore, the

evidence of PW3 is self-explanatory and convincing and does not require

any other sort of corroboration. PW7 also corroborated the evidence of

PW3. PW3 has given cogent evidence regarding the overt acts and previous

incident, but the Trial Court gave much importance to the mode of transport

to arrive at the time of occurrence, whether by two wheeler or not.

(iv) The Trial Court has taken an imaginative stand of disbelieving the

F.I.R., without any basis, or material evidence but also from the answers

wantonly elicited in the cross examination by the defence counsel what he

had orally stated at about 11.00 p.m., in the night was just heard by police,

but they wrote it roughly. But those words were taken as important evidence

by the Court below and presumed and acquitted that it was the first

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

information about the murder.

(v) The Court below had arrived at a conclusion on the basis of

surmises and conjectures by finishing that the oral evidence of PW3 to

police could have been registered as FIR, which itself doubted the presence

of PW3 in the scene of occurrence and the prosecution has deliberately

concealed the truth by getting a complaint from PW1 and then registered as

FIR and hence the complaint itself was a suspicious one.

(vi) The findings of the Trial Court are not based upon any material

evidence or record and to acquit the accused, is not sustainable either in law

or on facts since there is strong motive to do away the life of the deceased,

who once eloped with the sister of the main accused.

(vii) The prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt

and therefore, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and

the respondents / A1 and A2 are liable to be convicted and sentenced as per

the charges framed against them.

To strengthen his contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P.Tamilmaran

v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police [2025 SCC Online SC 958] to

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

show that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the

prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the

incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the

records, it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the

conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other

reliable evidence.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused

1 and 2 would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its

case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove the

motive for the occurrence. The evidence of PW3 was not cogent and

unnatural one, since PW3 has not stated how he has come to the occurrence

place and also the mode of transport to arrive the scene of occurrence,

whether by two wheeler or not. The Court below has rightly found that the

mode of transport of PW3 to arrive at the time of occurrence has not been

established by the prosecution and concluded that PW3 was not at all present

at the time of occurrence and there is nothing to interfere with the judgment

of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the entire materials available on record.

6. PW1 – Muthumizhvannan is the brother of the deceased –

Kanthamizh Ilavazhagan. PWs.2 to 6 have been cited as eye witnesses to

the occurrence, whereas except PW3 – Tr.Jothimani, other witnesses have

not supported the case of the prosecution and treated as hostile witnesses and

the prosecution also cross examined them. PW1 deposed that there was

enmity between PW1’s family and accused family with regard to property

and also there is enmity with regard to the deceased having illicit

relationship with A1’s daughter. The prosecution has not filed any document

to prove that there was enmity between PW1’s family and accused family

with regard to property. Except the oral evidence of PW1, no material has

been placed before the Court below. The motive relied upon by the

prosecution is the illegal relationship between the deceased and A1’s

daughter one Manonmani.

7. PW3- Jothimani deposed that he knew PW1 and he heard that A1’s

daughter Manonmani and the deceased had illegal relationship. On

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

23.04.2010 at 10.30 p.m., while he returned from Tittakudi and proceeded to

his native place and when nearing Ilamangalam Manickam house, the

deceased came in his two wheeler from Tittakudi and at that time, A1 and A2

have waylaid the deceased. A1 tried to assault the deceased with billhook on

his neck, which was prevented by the deceased and therefore, he sustained

cut injury on his hand. A2 assaulted the deceased with billhook on his left

leg. Thereafter, A1 assaulted the deceased on his neck. The deceased fell

down along with his vehicle. A1 and A2 thereafter repeatedly assaulted the

deceased and the deceased died. PW3 witnessed the same at a distant place

A1 and A2 has left the place. Since A1 to A3 holding billhooks, he did not

want to go near. Thereafter, people have gathered. PW1 also arrived the

occurrence place and PW1 lodged the complaint before the police station.

On the next day, police enquired him. PW3, in his cross examination

deposed that on 24.04.2010 at 12.00 noon, police enquired him in the

hospital and further stated that, immediately after the occurrence at

10.45p.m., 3 police personnel have arrived to the occurrence place. He

admits that in the night 11-12.00 hours, police did not enquire him, but he

orally informed the occurrence to the police. On the next day, police

enquired and recorded his statement. When the police reached at night 11.00

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

p.m. to the place of occurrence, they did not ask PW3 to give written

complaint. When he narrated the occurrence orally to the police, they have

recorded the same. He admits that he did not inform the same to the police

immediately. He was there till the deceased body was taken from the

occurrence place and thereafter, he went to his house. In the night time,

police did not record his statement. He went to the hospital at early

morning hours 2.00 a.m. and till day next day 12.00 p.m., he was in the

hospital. Further, he deposed that on the occurrence day, he went to

Tittakudi at 9.30 p.m. through his two wheeler to have food and he returned

to his two wheeler.

8. As per the evidence of PW7-Dhandapani, prior to the occurrence

on the day in the evening at 1.00 p.m., near Keezhservai School, A1 and A2

involved in a wordy quarrel with the deceased. When PW7 neared them,

they left from the place. PW7 inquired the deceased what they were talking,

for which the deceased told that A1 and A2 told him that the deceased

should not marry him. PW7, in his cross examination, deposed that he did

not know what the deceased and A1 & A2 have spoken between them.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

9. PW1, in his chief examination deposed that he had received

information at night 11.00 p.m. that the deceased was murdered in front of

one Manickam’s house and immediately he rushed to the scene of

occurrence and someone had already informed the police and the police have

arrived to the occurrence place. The police informed him that it is only an

accident and not murder. PW1 stated to police to see properly that it is only

a murder. Police asked him whether he had any suspicion over the murderer.

Thereafter, he went to the police station at 11.00 p.m. and lodged the

complaint -Ex.P1.

10. It is the evidence of PW3 that he knew the deceased and accused

family and PW3 also belongs to the same village. PW3 also deposed that

police arrived to the occurrence place at night 11.00 p.m., enquired him and

recorded his statement. Though PW3 witnessed the occurrence, did not

chose to inform the police immediately and also not chosen to inform either

the deceased family or to PW1. PW3 admittedly not tried to prevent the

deceased from the assault by A1 and A2 and even not made any shout or call

anyone for rescue. PW3 specifically states that A2 assaulted the deceased on

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

his left leg causing cut injuries, whereas PW15- Dr.Selvendiran, who

conducted autopsy over the dead body and has issued the postmortem

certificate, has not at all found any cut injuries on the deceased left leg. The

evidence of PW3 is not cogent, inconsistent and not tallied with the specific

overtact spoken by PW3 that A2 assaulted the deceased on his left leg and

caused cut injury, whereas PW15 -doctor did not found any cut injury on the

left leg of the deceased. Therefore, the presence of PW3 at the time of

occurrence is highly doubtful.

11. As per the evidence of PW20-Special Sub Inspector of Police, on

23.04.2010, while he was in duty in Tittakudi Police Station, at 23.30 hours,

PW1 has lodged a complaint, based on which he registered the case in Crime

No.247/2010 – Ex.P12 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and informed

the same to the Inspector of Police. PW21/I.O. deposed that on 23.04.2010

while he was in patrolling duty at 23.30 hours, he has received an

information from PW20 about receiving of complaint and registration of FIR

– Ex.P12. Immediately PW21 called the Sniffer Dog Expert to summon

Sniffer Dog and also arranged photographer and went to the police station at

00.15 hours, perused Ex.P12-FIR and taken up the case for investigation.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

He went to the occurrence place at 00.45 hours and prepared Observation

Mahazar – Ex.P13 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P14 and seized M.Os.2 to 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11 and 12 from the occurrence place under Seizure Mahazar. In

continuation of his investigation, on 26.04.2010, he arrested A1 and A2 near

Veppur Junction Road near bridge in the presence of PW11- Palanivel and

one Mani. On enquiry, A1 & A2 voluntarily gave confession statements and

the same has been recorded in the presence of the said witnesses. In

pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 and

A2 under Ex.P19 and Ex.P20, A1 & A2 took them to the place where they

have identified and handed over two billhooks – M.Os.15 and 16.

12.PW11 – Palanivel in his chief examination admitted his signature

found in the confession statement of the accused and the Seizure Mahazar.

He deposed that he signed in the police station, but does not know anything

about the case. PW11 did not support the case of the prosecution with regard

to arrest and recovery of material objects. PW11 was treated as hostile

witness and the prosecution during cross examination did not elicit anything

in support of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW21/I.O. alone is not

sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

material objects based on the confession statement of the accused persons.

13. PW1 deposed that on 23.04.2010, the deceased went to Tittakudi

to buy food for his mother at night 10.00 p.m. The deceased did not return

even after long hours and PW1 also unable to contact him. At night 11.00

p.m., PW1 was told by several persons that his brother was lying with cut

injuries in the main road in front of one Manickam’s house. Immediately

PW1, his wife and mother went to the occurrence place and saw that the

deceased was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries. Someone already

informed the police and the police arrived to the occurrence place. In the

occurrence place, the police stating that the deceased died due to an

accident, but PW1 asked the police to verify properly since it is a murder

and thereafter, lodged the complaint – Ex.P1 at 11.30 p.m.

14. In Ex.P1-complaint it has been stated that the occurrence was

witnessed by PW2-Senguttuvan and PW3-Jothimani and they have informed

the manner of overtact on the deceased and they have witnessed the same in

the street light and after identifying the deceased in the street light, in-turn

they informed to PW1. Whereas PW1, in his chief examination, he did not

receive any information either from PW2 or from PW3 and he has stated that

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

he has received information from many persons. PW3 in his chief

examination not stated anything about PW3 immediately informed to PW1

about the occurrence. PW2-Senguttuvan did not support the case of the

prosecution and turned as hostile witness and cross examined by the

prosecution. During cross examination also, nothing was elicited in favour

of the prosecution.

15. From the evidence of PW1 and PW3, there are contradictions

between them with regard to the manner of occurrence and the information

received by PW1 at the earliest point of time. PW1, in his cross

examination, admits that he has not written the complaint – Ex.P1 and he

only signed in the complaint and he did not remember who has written the

complaint. PW1 also admits that on suspicion, he has lodged the complaint

against the accused. As per the evidence of PW3, immediately after the

occurrence, police has arrived to the occurrence place and enquired PW3

and in-turn PW7 has narrated the occurrence and the same has been recorded

by police, whereas the prosecution has suppressed the earliest information

received from PW7 in the scene of occurrence.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

16. Though the prosecution has relied upon the following

circumstance i.e., motive, eye witness, recovery and medical evidence, the

prosecution has not proved its case through cogent and consistent evidence.

As per the evidence of PW15- Dr.Selvendiran, autopsy doctor that the

deceased death is homicidal. But the prosecution has failed to prove the

motive for the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to prove the

occurrence through the evidence of PW3, who has been cited as eye witness

to the occurrence. PW11, who was cited as witness to arrest and recovery of

material objects in pursuance to the confession statement of the accused, not

supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, except homicidal death, in

respect of other aspects, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

case beyond all reasonable doubt through cogent and convincing evidence.

The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,

rightly has acquitted the respondents / accused 1 and 2. This Court is of the

view that there is no perversity or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial

Court. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

the judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2019 made in Sessions Case No.51 of

2018 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court,

Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

[P.V., J.] [M.J.R., J.]

12.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

Internet: Yes / No

Jvm

To

1.The Inspector of Police,

Thittakudi Police Station,

Cuddalore District.

2. III Additional District and Sessions Court,

Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

3.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

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

Crl.A.No.659 of 2018

P.VELMURUGAN , J.

and

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Jvm

Judgment in

Crl.A.No.659 of 2019

12.02.2026

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