Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 10.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 26.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

V.Alli,

W/o.Raja,

Agaram Colony, Parangipet,

Cuddalore District.

Appellant(s)/PW3 victim-wife of the deceased

Vs

1.State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Parangipet Police Station,

Cuddalore District.

2.Kanakaraj

S/o.Sundaramurthy

Kodikal Nagar, B.Mathur,

Cuddalore District.

Respondent/Complainant

Respondent(s)/Accused

1 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment

dated 12.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of the II

Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram and to set aside the

same.

For Appellant(s):Mrs.V.S.Jothilakshmi

for Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

For R1:

For R2:

Mr.A.Damodaran

Additional Public Prosecutor

assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

Mr.E.V.Chandru @ Chandrasekaran

Legal aid counsel

JUDGMENT

(delivered by M.Jothiraman, J.)

Challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12.02.2018 passed in

S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions

Court, Chidambaram, the appellant/PW3/wife of the deceased has preferred

the above appeal.

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

2.1PW1—Rangaramanujam, Village Administrative Officer,

deposed that on 16.04.2013, he along with his Assistant Balakrishnan,

proceeded on his two-wheeler towards Manjaikuzhi; when they reached

Thideerkuppam near the land belonging to Shek Abdula (PW6), they noticed

2 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

a huge crowd gathered there; on reaching the spot, they found bloodstains

on the earth and observed a closed newly dug pit; he (PW1) instructed his

Assistant to slightly dig the pit, upon which, they noticed two fingers

protruding from inside; thereafter, they closed the pit and proceeded to

Parangipettai Police Station at about 10.30 a.m., where, he lodged a

complaint (Ex.P1); he also informed his higher official viz. Tahsildar (PW8),

over the phone; subsequently, the Tahsildar (PW8) arrived at the place of

occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. and the Inspector of Police also came to the

spot; in his (PW1) presence, the pit was dug open and a male dead body was

found and taken out; the body was in a naked state and had a head injury;

the forensic officials also arrived at the scene and sniffer dogs were brought

to the place; on enquiry with the general public, it was ascertained that the

deceased was one Raja, who was working as an Advocate Clerk; PW8

prepared the mahazar statements and thereafter, sent the body for

postmortem examination.

2.2PW2—Suresh, deposed that on 16.04.2013, at about 11.00 a.m.,

while he was travelling in his two-wheeler, he noticed people running in

P.Mutlur village; on enquiry, he (PW2) came to know that a male body had

3 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

been found in a pit; he went to the spot and identified the body as Raja, who

was the son of his paternal uncle; he immediately informed the brother of

Raja viz. Kannan (PW4) over the phone.

2.3PW3—Valli, wife of the deceased Raja, deposed that her

husband, Raja, was working as an Advocate Clerk under Mr.Pakkirisamy;

she knew the accused; the accused approached her husband for obtaining a

bail order and gave money for the said purpose; as there was a delay in

obtaining the bail order, the accused came to their house two or three times

and demanded return of the money from her husband; her husband informed

the accused that he would repay the amount, however, the accused

threatened her husband by stating that, if the money was not repaid, he

would face dire consequences; the said incident happened two days prior to

the occurrence; on the day of occurrence, her husband had gone to the Court

and did not return home; on 16.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon, through PW4,

she came to know that her husband’s body was buried in a pit; she

immediately rushed to the place and identified the naked dead body as that

of her husband; after about a week, the police enquired her and she

identified the handkerchief (M.O.1).

4 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

2.4PW4—Kannan, brother of Raja, deposed that on 16.04.2013 at

about 12.00 noon, he received information from Suresh (PW2) that the body

of his brother Raja was buried in a pit; immediately, he (PW4) along with

PW3, his parents and villagers, went to the spot and saw that his brother’s

body was taken out from the pit; he noticed an injury on the head of Raja,

swelling on the throat and a bone fracture on the right leg; he identified the

body before PW8; PW4 further deposed that the accused gave a sum of

Rs.8,000/- to his brother for obtaining a bail order; thereafter, the accused

demanded return of the said amount and he (PW4) advised Raja to return the

money; two days prior to the occurrence, the accused threatened Raja with

dire consequences; he (PW4) also identified the kerchief (M.O.1) belongs to

Raja.

2.5PW5—Tamilarasi, mother of Raja, deposed that she knew the

accused and that her son was working as an Advocate Clerk under one

Mr.Pakkirisamy; she stated that her son had received money from the

accused for obtaining a bail order; since bail order was not obtained, the

accused threatened Raja to return the money; in the year 2013, on one

Monday, Raja went to Court, but, did not return home; she (PW5) attempted

5 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

to contact him over his mobile phone; however, his phone was switched off;

thereafter, while she (PW5), PW3 and PW4 were at home, they came to

know that Raja was buried in a pit at Thideerkuppam.

2.6PW6—Shek Abdulla, deposed that on 16.04.2013 at about

09.00 a.m., a huge crowd gathered in his land; on seeing the same, he

noticed bloodstains on the ground; PW1/Village Administrative Officer

came to the place and he instructed his Assistant to dig the pit, upon which,

a part of a leg was seen; thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1); the

police and the Tahsildar arrived at the spot and taken out the body from the

pit; one Suresh (PW2) identified the body as that of Raja, who was working

as an Advocate Clerk; the police seized the bloodstained earth (M.O.2) and

sample earth (M.O.3) under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P3); the police also

prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2), in which, he (PW6) affixed his

signature.

2.7PW7—Sankaran, Village Administrative Officer, deposed that

on 23.04.2013, he received information from the Parangipettai Police

Station that the accused was arrested and is in police custody and he was

6 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

requested to be a witness; accordingly, he (PW7), along with his Assistant

Veeramani, went to the police station; the police read over the confession

statement given by the accused, which had already been recorded, in which,

he (P.W.7) signed as a witness and his signature in the confession statement

was marked as Ex.P4; he further deposed that the material objects produced

by the accused were in the custody of the police; at about 11.30 a.m., the

police obtained his signature in the seizure mahazar (Ex.P5) relating to the

seizure of bloodstained earth (M.O.4), sample earth (M.O.5) and

handkerchief (M.O.1), which were said to have been recovered near the land

of Anjaneyar Temple; on the same day, around 13.30 hours, near Periyapattu

Puduvaikalmettu Street, the police recovered a wooden log (M.O.6)

measuring 72 cm. and ashes of burnt cloth (M.O.7) and his signature in the

seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P6; again, on the same day around 14.30

hours, the police recovered a spade (M.O.8) at the backyard of the house of

one Bhavani/sister of the accused in Vaikalmettu Street under the seizure

mahazar (Ex.P7).

2.8PW8—Vijaya, Tahsildar, deposed that on 16.04.2013, she

received information from PW1/Village Administrative Officer and also a

7 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

requisition letter from the Parangipettai Police Station to exhume the body

buried in the land of PW6; she went to the spot, where the body was buried;

in the presence of police and forensic officials, the body was exhumed from

the pit; she (PW8) conducted inquest over the body and prepared the inquest

report (Ex.P8); she also issued Form 86 (Ex.P9), recorded the statements of

witnesses present at the spot (Ex.P10), and sent a letter (Ex.P11) and other

case records to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai.

2.9PW9—Dr.Suganya, who conducted autopsy on the body of

Raja, deposed that she received a requisition from the Tahsildar to conduct

postmortem on the body of Raja; on examination, she noted the injuries and

preserved the internal organs for chemical analysis; after receiving the

chemical analysis reports (Exs.P12 and P13), she issued the postmortem

certificate (Ex.P14), wherein, she opined that the deceased would appear to

have died 12–24 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to vital structure brain.

2.10PW10—Balakrishnan, Head Constable, deposed that he handed

over the requisition letter from the Inspector of Police to the doctor

concerned for conducting autopsy on the body of Raja.

8 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

2.11PW11—Annamalai, Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that on

16.04.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was at the police station,

PW1/Village Administrative Officer appeared and lodged a complaint

(Ex.P1); based on which, he registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2013

under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report

(FIR) (Ex.P15) and forwarded the copy of the FIR to the Tahsildar and his

higher officials.

2.12PW12—Rosemani, Junior Scientific Officer, deposed that on

27.05.2013, she received the internal organs of the deceased Raja in a sealed

cover; after conducting examination, she issued chemical analysis reports

(Exs.P12 and P13).

2.13PW13—Jayanthi, Scientific Officer, deposed that she received

the material objects for analysis; after conducting chemical and serological

examination, she issued the reports (Ex.P16 and P17).

9 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

2.14PW14—Dr.Geethanjali, deposed that she examined the hyoid

bone specimen and opined that the same was intact and issued the report

(Ex.P18).

2.15PW15—Veeramani, Village Assistant, deposed that he is

working under PW7/Village Administrative Officer; on 16.04.2013, PW7

received a phone call from Parangipet Police Station, pursuant to which, he

along with PW7 went to the police station; the police enquired them and

recorded their statements, in which, he (PW15) and PW7 affixed their

signature; at that time, the second respondent/accused was also present in

the police station; he admits the signature found in the confession statement

of the second respondent/accused as Ex.P19; he (PW15) and PW7 also

signed in the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) said to have been prepared by

PW16/Inspector of Police on 23.04.2013 around 11.30 a.m., at the scene of

occurrence; his signature found in the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) was

marked as Ex.P20; he (PW15) and PW7 also signed in the seizure mahazars

(Exs.P29 to 31) said to have been prepared by PW16/Inspector of Police on

23.04.2013 around 12.30 hours, 13.30 hours and 14.30 hours, respectively,

10 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

at the scene of occurrence; his signature found in the seizure mahazars were

marked as Exs.P21 to 23; he (PW15) and PW7 affixed their signatures in the

aforesaid exhibits at the police station.

2.16PW16—Kalimulla, Inspector of Police, deposed that he had

received the FIR (Ex.P15) registered by PW11 and took up the case for

investigation; he sent the requisition letter to PW8/Tahsildar, Chidambaram,

to exhume the body; on 16.04.2013 at 11.30 a.m., he went to the scene of

occurrence and assisted PW8/Tahsildar to exhume the body; he prepared

the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and drawn rough sketch (Ex.P24) in the

presence of PW6 and PW10; from the scene of occurrence, he seized

bloodstained earth (M.O.2) and sample earth (M.O.3) in the presence of the

same witnesses under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P25); on 17.04.2013, he came

to know that the second respondent/accused surrendered before the Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam; in continuation of his investigation, he

altered the case from one under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. to one under Sections

302 and 201 IPC on 18.04.2013 under the alteration report (Ex.P26); he

filed an application to take the second respondent/accused into police

custody; in pursuance of the order passed by the Court on 22.04.2013, he

11 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

(PW16) brought the second respondent/accused to the police station on

23.04.2013 at 9.30 a.m.; he enquired the second respondent/accused in the

presence of PW7 and PW15 and the second respondent/accused voluntarily

gave confession statement and the same was recorded; in pursuance of the

confession statement, the second respondent/accused took them to the place,

where, the body of Raja was buried and at 11.30 a.m., the second

respondent/accused identified the place where he buried the body; he

(PW16) prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P27) and drawn rough sketch

(Ex.P28) in the presence of the same witnesses; from there, he (PW16)

seized bloodstained earth (M.O.4), sample earth (M.O.5) and handkerchief

(M.O.1) under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P29) and he further seized the

wooden log (M.O.6) and burnt cloth ashes (M.O.7) under the seizure

mahazar (Ex.P30); thereafter, the second respondent/accused took them to

the backyard of his sister’s house, where, he identified the spade (M.O.8)

and the same was recovered under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P31); the

admissible portion of the confession statement of the second

respondent/accused was marked as Ex.P32; he examined the witnesses and

recorded their statements; again on 24.04.2013, the second

respondent/accused was remanded in judicial custody; he (PW16) sent the

12 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

material objects to the Court concerned under Form 95 (Exs.P33 and P34);

he gave requisition letter (Ex.P35) to the Court concerned for sending the

material objects for forensic analysis; he also gave requisition letter to

conduct hyoid bone examination and therefore, he got transferred to some

other police station.

2.17PW17—Arokiaraj, Inspector of Police, deposed the he took up

the case for further investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their

statement; he went to the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses.

2.18After completing the investigation and based on the evidence

collected, the Investigating Officer (PW17) filed a final report in

P.R.C.No.29 of 2013 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,

Parangipet, against the second respondent/accused for the offences under

Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

2.19On appearance of the second respondent/accused, the

provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was

committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.103 of 2015 and was made

13 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram, for

trial.

2.20The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201

IPC against the second respondent/accused. When questioned, the second

respondent/accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

2.21To prove the guilt of the second respondent/accused, the

prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and marked thirty six exhibits

and eight material objects.

2.22After completion of prosecution side evidence, when the second

respondent/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. No

witness was examined on the side of the defence and no document was

marked.

2.23Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and

upon hearing either side, the trial Court, found that the prosecution has

14 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and by

judgment dated 12.02.2018 in S.C.No.103 of 2015, acquitted the second

respondent/accused of all the charges.

2.24Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/PW3/wife of the

deceased, has preferred the above appeal.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that through the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5, the prosecution has proved the

motive for the offence. PW3 and PW5, mother and wife of the deceased

Raja, respectively, have categorically deposed that the second

respondent/accused threatened Raja with dire consequences with regard to

repayment of money, since the second respondent/accused has paid money

to Raja for getting bail order. Further, the prosecution has proved the last

seen theory through the evidence of PW3, since two days prior to the

occurrence the second respondent/accused threatened Raja with dire

consequences. The prosecution has also established through the medical

evidence that the death is a homicidal one. The prosecution has also proved

the recovery of the material objects in pursuance of the confession statement

15 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

voluntarily given by the second respondent/accused through the evidence of

PW7 and PW15. When the prosecution was able to prove the motive, last

seen theory, recovery and homicidal death, then, the acquittal of the second

respondent/accused is unsustainable in law. The entire circumstances point

towards the murder of Raja and the place, where the body of Raja was

buried was identified by the second respondent/accused. Hence, the Court

below without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in a proper

perspective acquitted the second respondent/accused. Therefore, the

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

respondent/accused has to be convicted and punished.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first

respondent/State would submit that the prosecution has prove the case

beyond all reasonable doubts. The motive for the occurrence has been

established through the evidence of PW3 and PW5, who categorically

deposed that the second respondent/accused threatened Raja with dire

consequences that if he did not return the money paid by him (second

respondent/accused) for getting bail order, then, he will he done to death.

The prosecution also proved the case that the second respondent/accused

16 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

voluntarily gave confession statement, pursuant to which, the material

objects were identified and handed over by the second respondent/accused

and the same have been recovered. The material objects seized from the

second respondent/accused connect the second respondent/accused with the

crime and therefore, the judgment of the Court below is contrary to the law

and the reasoning given by the Court below for acquitting the second

respondent/accused is unsustainable in the eye of law.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/accused would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed

to proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The case on hand rests on

circumstantial evidence and the prosecution must prove its case with the

chain of circumstances without any break. The prosecution has failed to

prove the last seen theory, inasmuch as, no witness has deposed that he or

she had seen the accused and Raja together immediately prior to the alleged

occurrence. Though the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW15 and

PW7 with regard to the alleged confession statement given by the second

respondent/accused and recovery of material objects thereof, whereas,

PW15 categorically admits that he (PW15) and PW7 had gone to the police

17 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

station and signed in the various mahazars prepared by PW16. Therefore,

the evidence of PW7 also falsified that the second respondent/accused has

voluntarily given confession statement and recovery of the material objects

thereof. PW15 did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated

as hostile witness. Even, during the course of cross-examination by the

prosecution, nothing elicited against the second respondent/accused. Though

the prosecution was able to establish that the death is homicidal one, The

prosecution has utterly failed to prove the circumstances of the case viz.

motive, last seen theory and recovery of material objects, pointing the guilt

of the second respondent/accused. The Court below, upon appreciating oral

and documentary evidence in a proper manner, found that the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove its case and acquitted the second

respondent/accused. There is no perversity or infirmity in the judgment of

the Court below warranting interference. Since there is no merit in this

appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.We have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

18 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

7.The law is well settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the

gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to

prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence, which is convincing and

links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a

case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the

prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt.

The law in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand

Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984 (4) SCC 116), wherein, it was held

that:-

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the

following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an

accused can be said to be fully established:

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

be drawn should be fully established.

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 Shivaji Sahabrao

Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the

observations were made:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused

must be and not merely may be guilty before a court

19 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’

and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures

from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should

not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the

accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the

one to be proved, and

(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.In order to prove the guilt of the second respondent/accused, the

prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:

(a)Motive

(b)Last seen theory

(c)Recovery

(d)Medical evidence

20 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

(a) Motive:

(i)The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW3, PW4 and

PW5, wife, brother and mother of deceased Raja, respectively, to prove the

motive for the occurrence.

(ii)In her evidence, PW3 has stated that the second

respondent/accused paid the money to her husband Raja for getting bail

order and since there was a delay in getting the bail order, the second

respondent/accused came to her house two or three times and demanded the

return of money, in turn, her husband informed the second

respondent/accused that he will repay the amount, however, the second

respondent/accused stated that, if money is not paid, then, he will take steps

in his own way. Two days prior to the occurrence also, the second

respondent/accused came and demanded the money. After two days i.e. on

Monday, Raja went to the Court and thereafter, not returned to the house.

(iii)PW4, in his evidence, has stated that Raja was working as an

Advocate Clerk under an Advocate Mr.Pakkirisamy; the second

respondent/accused demanded repayment of money from Raja two or three

21 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

times; the second respondent/accused paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to Raja with

respect to the filing of bail application, where, a case was registered as

against the second respondent/accused in Neyveli Court. PW4 asked Raja to

return the said amount. Two days prior to the occurrence, in morning, the

second respondent/accused threatened Raja that if money is not paid, then,

some unforeseen circumstance will happen.

(iv)It has been stated in the evidence of PW5 that Raja informed

her (PW5) that he had received money from the second respondent/accused

in respect of getting bail order and as he could not get the bail order, the

second respondent/accused threatened Raja with dire consequences, hearing

which, she (PW5) requested Raja to return the amount.

(v)From the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5, it is seen that they knew

the second respondent/accused and the second respondent/accused paid

money to Raja with respect of getting bail order. Further, it also reveals that

Raja was working as an Advocate Clerk under one Advocate

Mr.Pakkirisamy. The prosecution has proved the motive for the occurrence,

however, not examined any independent witness to prove that the second

22 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

respondent/accused had paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to Raja. That part, the

prosecution has also not produced any case details, in which, the second

respondent/accused intends to avail bail order through Raja. Further, the

prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Advocate Mr.Pakkirisamy

under whom, Raja was working as an Advocate Clerk.

(b) Last seen theory:

(i)PW3/wife of Raja, in her evidence, has stated that on

16.04.2013 at 12.00 noon, she received information from PW4 that her

husband Raja was murdered and buried in the land of Shek Abdulla in

Thidirkuppam. She also stated that two days prior to the occurrence, the

second respondent/accused came to her house and demanded money from

Raja and thereafter, her husband went to the Court on Monday and did not

return to the house.

(ii)Similarly, PW4 and PW5, in their evidence, have stated that

two days prior to the occurrence, the second respondent/accused demanded

money from Raja.

23 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

(iii)From the evidence of PWs.3 to 5, it is clear that two days prior

to the date of occurrence, they have lastly seen the second

respondent/accused along with Raja. The prosecution has not examined any

witness to prove the fact that immediately before the alleged date of

occurrence, i.e. on 16.04.2013, the second respondent/accused and Raja

were seen together in a particular place or near the place, where, the body of

Raja was buried. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen

theory, since the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 reveal that two days prior to the

occurrence only, they have lastly seen Raja with the second

respondent/accused.

(c) Recovery:

(i)In order to prove the recovery of the material objects in

pursuance of the confession statement given by the second

respondent/accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of

PW7/Village Administrative Officer, PW15/Village Assistant and PW16.

(ii)PW7/Village Administrative Officer, in his chief-examination,

has stated that on 23.04.2013, he received the information from Parangipet

Police Station that the second respondent/accused was arrested and the

24 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

second respondent/accused was present in the police station, pursuant to

which, PW7 and PW15 have gone to the police station and they have signed

in the confession statement of the second respondent/accused, which has

been already recorded by the police and read over to them. Further, PW7

stated that the police also informed that the spade (M.O.8), which was used

by the second respondent/accused in the commission of crime, was also

available in the police station. PW7 admits his signature found in the

confession statement of the second respondent/accused (Ex.P4). Further,

PW7 stated that the police informed him that on 23.04.2013 at 11.30 a.m.

near P.Mutlur Anjaneyar Temple ground, they have seized the bloodstained

earth (M.O.4), sample earth (M.O.5) and handkerchief (M.O.1) and

requested him to be a witness and hence, he signed in the seizure mahazar

(Ex.P5). Further, the police also informed PW7 that on the same day i.e. on

23.04.2013 at 13.30 hours, they have seized 72 cm. wooden log (M.O.6) and

ashes of burnt cloth (M.O.7) near Periyapattu Puduvaikalmettu Street and

the police requested him to sign in the mahazar and accordingly, he signed

in the seizure mahazar (Ex.P6). Further, the police also informed PW7 that

on the same day i.e. on 23.04.2013 at 14.30 hours, they have seized the

spade (M.O.8) at the backyard of the house of one Bhavani/sister of the

25 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

accused in Vaikalmettu Street and requested him to be a witness and

therefore, he signed as a witness in the seizure mahazar (Ex.P7). Thereafter,

PW7 was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution

side.

(iii)In his evidence, PW15 has stated similar to the version of PW7.

PW15 has also been treated as a hostile witness and the prosecution has

chosen to cross-examine him.

(iv)It is seen that the evidence of PW7 and PW15 does not support

the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of material objects

from the second respondent/accused in pursuance of the confession

statement.

(v)In this regard, PW16, in his evidence, has stated that he had

taken the second respondent/accused under the police custody by filing

appropriate application before the Court concerned and on 23.04.2013 at

9.30 a.m., he enquired the accused in the presence of PW7 and PW15, while

so, the accused voluntarily gave confession statement and the same has been

recorded in the presence of PW7 and PW15. In pursuance of the confession

26 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

statement, at 11.30 a.m., the second respondent/accused took them to the

place, where, the body was buried and at 1.00 pm., he had prepared the

observation mahazar (Ex.P27) and rough sketch (Ex.P28) He (PW16) also

seized the bloodstained earth (M.O.4), sample earth (M.O.5) and

handkerchief (M.O.1) and on the same day, around 13.30 hours, the second

respondent/accused took them to Periyapattu Puduvaikalmettu Street, from

there he identified and handed over the wooden log (M.O.6) measuring 72

cm. and ashes of burnt cloth (M.O.7) and thereafter, at 14.30 hours, the

second respondent/accused took them to the backyard of his sister’s house,

where, he concealed the spade (M.O.8) and the same has been identified and

handed over by the second respondent/accused under the seizure mahazar

(Ex.P31). The admissible portion of the confession statement of the second

respondent/accused was marked as Ex.P32.

(vi)The evidence of PW16 is contrary to the evidence of PW7 and

PW15. PW7 and PW15 have categorically deposed that they have signed in

the various mahazars prepared by the police in the police station. The

evidence of PW16 alone is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution

with regard to recovery of the material objects.

27 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

(d) Medical evidence:

(i)Through the evidence of Dr.Suganya, the prosecution has

proved that the death is a homicidal one.

(ii)As per the serology report (Ex.P17), the bloodstain found in the

earth and handkerchief was deducted to be of human blood and the grouping

test is inconclusive. The prosecution has failed to prove the blood group

pertains to Raja to connect the case with the weapon used in the crime. The

prosecution has also failed to prove the nexus between the weapon and the

second respondent/accused with the crime.

9.Though the prosecution has proved the motive for the

occurrence and the death is a homicidal one, the other circumstances viz. last

seen theory and recovery have not been proved.

10.In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view

that it is unsafe to convict the accused without proving the chain of

circumstances relied on by the prosecution. On a careful consideration of the

evidence on record, the Court below has rightly found that in a case of

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond

28 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

peradventure without breaking the chain of circumstances. We do not find

any perversity in the findings arrived at by the trial Court warranting

interference.

In the result, we find no reason, much less any good reason, to

interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal that has been passed by

the trial Court and consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed by

confirming the judgment dated 12.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on

the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram.

(P.V., J.) (M.J.R., J.)

26.02.2026

nsd

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

29 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

To

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chidambaram.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Parangipet Police Station,

Cuddalore District.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

30 / 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

nsd

Crl.A.No.375 of 2018

26.02.2026

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