Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 15.12.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

1.Veluchamy @ Velu

2.Satheeshkumar @ Satheesh

3.Sankar ... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3

Vs.

State represented by,

The Inspector of Police,

Kulithalai Police Station,

Karur District.

(In Crime No.600 of 2020)... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C

to call for the records from the lower Court and set aside the

Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Court / District

Court, Karur in S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022 by allowing

this appeal.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

For Appellants: Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram

Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.Vinayak

For Respondent: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi

Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in

S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022, on the file of the learned

Principal Sessions Court / District Court, Karur.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2020, during

morning hours, the deceased misbehaved with the maternal uncle's

daughter of the accused. Therefore, at about 09.30 p.m on the same

day, the accused came to the house of the deceased and attacked him

with a wooden log. As a result, the deceased fell down and got

fainted. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, for treatment. He was admitted into the

hospital as an inpatient and on 10.07.2020 at about 07.00 p.m., he

succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of information from the

Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, the respondent recorded the

statement of P.W.1 and registered the F.I.R in Crime No.600 of 2020

for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 and 201 of

I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and

the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution

had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The

prosecution produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the

accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were

produced before the trial Court.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

Court found accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offences punishable

under Sections 294(b), 302 and 201 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-

each, in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C; they were

sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo six months

Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section

201 of I.P.C and they were sentenced to undergo 15 days

imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to

undergo seven days Simple Imprisonment each for the offence

punishable under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same,

A.1 to A.3 as appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

submitted that the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 as

eyewitnesses, however, they are not trustworthy and it is unsafe to

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

convict the appellants on the basis of their testimonies. Their

evidences are artificial, unnatural and unbelievable one. Though the

alleged occurrence had taken place in their presence, they neither

attempted to prevent the appellants nor took any steps to rescue the

deceased from the hands of the appellants. There are material

contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and as

such, the entire conviction cannot be sustained as against the

appellants.

6.The learned senior counsel further submitted that the

alleged occurrence had taken place in Thatco colony, which is stated

to be near the house of the deceased. However, the prosecution did

not even examine any independent witness to bring the charges to

home. Even the lodgement of the complaint is in dispute. According

to P.W.1, she had gone to the police station and lodged a complaint,

whereas, as per the F.I.R., after receipt of the information from the

hospital, the police personnel had gone to the hospital, recorded her

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

statement and had registered the F.I.R. This contradiction is fatal to

the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the very genesis of the

prosecution case is highly doubtful.

7.The learned senior counsel further submitted that there

was an inordinate delay both in registering the F.I.R and in

forwarding the same to the Court. The alleged occurrence had taken

place on 09.07.2020, whereas the F.I.R was registered only on

11.07.2020 at about 07.00 hours and reached the concerned

jurisdictional Magistrate Court only on 13.07.2020 at about 07.30

p.m. There was absolutely no explanation by the prosecution for this

delay. Though the deceased died on 10.07.2020, the postmortem was

conducted only on 12.07.2020. In fact, immediately after the alleged

occurrence, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at

Nachallur, which in fact was deliberately suppressed by the

prosecution. The deceased was taken to the Government hospital,

Nachallur by Balan @ Balasubramanian and Madhan on a two

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

wheeler, however, the prosecution did not even examine them, which

vitiates the entire case of the prosecution. The prosecution also

failed to establish motive for the appellants to commit murder on the

deceased. The alleged occurrence had taken place during night

hours. Even then, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of

sufficient lighting at the scene of crime to identify the accused.

Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to bring the charges to home

and even then, the trial Court mechanically convicted the appellants.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent submitted that the accused and

deceased are relatives. Since the deceased commented upon the

accused cousin, the accused went to the house of the deceased and

attacked him with a wooden log. The deceased sustained injuries and

fell down. Immediately he was taken to the hospital. P.W.1 and

brothers of the deceased were assured by the appellants that they

would bear the entire medical expenses for the injuries sustained by

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

the deceased and therefore, they did not lodge any complaint

immediately. Only after the death of the deceased, the F.I.R had been

registered and the investigation had been commenced. Hence, the

said delay is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution and the

delay has been properly explained by the prosecution. P.W.1 and

P.W.2 are eye witnesses and their testimony cannot be rejected at any

cost. Small discrepancies cannot be fatal to the case of the

prosecution. Therefore the trial Court rightly convicted the

appellants and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

10.Admittedly, the deceased misbehaved with the

appellants' uncle's daughter named Shruti on 09.07.2020 during

morning hours. The same was informed to the appellants herein and

they had gone to the house of the deceased at about 09.30 p.m.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

According to the case of the prosecution, they had attacked the

deceased with a wooden log. Though the deceased was taken to the

hospital immediately, no complaint was lodged.

11.The mother of the deceased and one of the brothers of

the deceased accompanied him to the hospital. Initially, they went to

the Government Hospital, Nachallur. Thereafter, the deceased was

referred to the Government Hospital Tiruchirapalli, for higher

treatment. In the Government Hospital, Nachallur, no accident

register was recorded by the concerned Medical Officer. However,

on the same day, i.e on 09.07.2020, the deceased was taken to the

Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, where the Medical Officer

recorded the accident register, which was marked as Ex.P.6. This

was the first document relating to the entire crime, wherein P.W.3

made a statement that the deceased had fallen down on his own near

his house at about 9.30 p.m., on 09.07.2020.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

12.After recording the accident register, the deceased was

admitted as an inpatient. On the next day, ie., on 10.07.2020, at

about 07.00 p.m., the deceased died in the hospital. Thereafter, it was

intimated to the respondent and the police personnel had gone to the

hospital and recorded a statement on 11.07.2020 at about 07.00

hours from P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased. After

recording the statement, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime

No.600 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b)

302 and 201 of IPC at about 07.00 hours.

13.It is curious to note that the statement was recorded

from P.W.1 in the hospital itself and at the same time, the respondent

registered the FIR, which was marked as Ex.P9. However, Ex.P9

reached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court only on 13.07.2020 at

about 07.30 p.m., for which there is no explanation on the part of the

respondent.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

14.That apart, the mother of the deceased was examined as

P.W.1 and the brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Both

deposed that P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and lodged

the complaint. However, as per the case of the prosecution, the

statement was recorded from P.W.1 in the hospital and the F.I.R was

registered thereafter. These circumstances clearly show that the very

genesis of the prosecution case is highly doubtful.

15.The accident register, marked as Ex.P6, clearly shows

that P.W.3 categorically stated that the deceased sustained injuries

due to a self-fall near his residence. Even till his demise, no one

informed about the occurrence to the police or anybody. Only after

his demise, the FIR has been registered by the respondent.

Therefore, it is nothing but an afterthought.

16.P.W.1 deposed that immediately after demise of the

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

deceased, she went to the police station and lodged the complaint.

One Murugan wrote down the complaint and lodged it before the

respondent. In fact, P.W.1 further stated that she affixed her left

thumb impression on the complaint. However, according to the

prosecution, the police personnel went to the hospital, recorded the

statement of P.W.1 and registered the FIR. She also deposed that

immediately after the alleged occurrence, the deceased was taken to

the Government Hospital, Nachallur and thereafter to the

Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. However, this fact was

completely suppressed by the prosecution and no accident register

was recorded at the Government Hospital, Nachallur.

17.P.W.1 also deposed that on the date of occurrence, at

about 10.00 a.m., the deceased was under the influence of alcohol

and had quarreled with one Ravi, Subramanian and Kathir Velu, who

had beaten him. She also stated that once again, one Ravi came to

the deceased house at about 7.30 p.m and attacked him. The relevant

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

portion of the deposition is as follows:

“rk;gtj;jd;W fhiy 10.00 kzpf;F

xj;jhk;gl;b thj;jpahu; ey;Yrhkp vd;gtUila

fsj;jpy; tbNtY ey;y Nghijapy; jfuhW nra;J>

mq;fpUe;j Fl;ilkhupag;gd; kfd; utp> utp jk;gp

Rg;gpukzpad;> fup%l;lk; khupKj;J kfd; fjpu;NtY

MfpNahu; mbj;J vd; kfid Juj;jpdhu;fs; vd;why;

rupjhd; md;W ,uT 7.30 kzpf;F utp tPl;bw;F

nrd;W> utpapd; kidtp yjhtplk; rhg;ghL Nfl;L>

cd; GUrd; fhiyapy; vd;id mbj;jhd;>

vq;F ,Uf;fpwhd; vd;W Nfl;L jfuhW nra;j rkak;

utp te;J fhiyapy; mb thq;fpaJ gj;jhjh vd;W

nrhy;yp jpUk;g mbj;jhu; vd;Wk;> mjpy; vd; kfd;

mq;NfNa kaq;fp tpl;lhu; vd;Wk; nrhd;dhy; utp

vd; kfid mbj;jJ cz;ik.

”

18.Thus, it is clear that on the date of occurrence, the

deceased was under the influence of alcohol, quarreled with several

persons and misbehaved with the relatives of the appellants herein.

Further, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence

is highly doubtful.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

19.The brother of the deceased had deposed as P.W.2. He

deposed that immediately after occurrence, the deceased was taken

to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. He did not even

whisper about the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital,

Nachallur. The friend of P.W.2 had deposed as P.W.3. He deposed

that he took his car to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to take the

deceased to the hospital. He further deposed that initially, the

deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Nachallur and

thereafter, to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. While they

were proceeding to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, he

picked up P.W.1. He further deposed that even before they reached

the Government Hospital, Nachallur, P.W.2 was already present in

the hospital.

20.According to P.W.2, P.W.2, his mother and the deceased

went to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. Therefore, the

presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the scene of crime is highly doubtful.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

Further, according to them, they were in their house at the time of

the alleged occurrence. However, they did not even intervene when

the appellants attacked the deceased. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the appellants came to the house of the deceased

with deadly weapons or that they threatened others from coming to

the rescue.

21.In fact, according to P.W.1, all three brothers were very

much present in the scene of crime and no one had taken any steps to

prevent the appellants from attacking the deceased. P.W.1 also

deposed that there were several houses near their house and several

persons had witnessed the occurrence. However, the prosecution

even failed to examine any of them or record their statements under

Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. The prosecution did not bring them before

the Court to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Except

P.W1 and P.W.2, no one supported the case of the prosecution.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

22.Therefore, the alleged occurrence could not have

happened in the manner stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their

depositions. The original case was that the deceased fell down on his

own from a two wheeler and sustained injuries. This version is

corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who registered the

accident register, who had deposed as P.W.7.

23.P.W.1 also deposed that the deceased was taken to the

Government Hospital, Nachallur by Balan @ Balasubramanian and

Mathan in a two wheeler. However, neither of them was not

examined by the prosecution.

24.The Sub Inspector of police, who registered the FIR

deposed as P.W.9. He deposed that the intimation regarding the

occurrence reached the police station on 09.07.2020 itself.

Thereafter, he enquired P.W.1 and received a complaint from her,

wherein she alleged that the deceased sustained injuries due to a

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

two-wheeler accident. The relevant portion of his evidence is as

follows:

“mjw;F Kjy;ehs; ehd; kUj;Jtkidf;F

nrd;W tprhupj;Njdh vd;why; tprhupj;Njd;. mjw;fhd

jfty; vdf;F ve;j Njjpapy; te;jJ vd;why; 09.07.2020

md;W fpilj;jJ. mt;thW nrd;W tprhupj;jNghJ>

nry;yk;khs; thf;F%yk; nfhLj;jij gjpT nra;Njdh

vd;why; gjpT nra;Njd;. me;j thf;F%yj;jpy;

nry;yk;khs; jd; kfd; epd;Wf;nfhz;bUe;j tz;bapd;

kPJ mtu; tpOe;jjhy; me;j tz;b kPz;Lk; mtu; kPJ

tpOe;jjhf vd;dplk; nrhd;dhu;. me;j thf;F%yj;jpid

xU Mtzkhf Ma;thsuplk; nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why;

rupjhd;.

”

25.From the above, it is evident that there were three

complaints regarding the alleged occurrence. However, the first two

complaints were suppressed by the prosecution and only after the

demise of the deceased, the statement of P.W.1 was recorded that too

in the hospital and the FIR was registered simultaneously, that too in

the police station.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

26.After the demise of the deceased, P.W.1 completely

changed her version and made a statement that the appellants had

attacked the deceased with a wooden log and as such, he sustained

injuries. Therefore, the circumstances under which these complaints

were lodged, that too after a delay of two days from the date of

alleged occurrence, make the very case of prosecution highly

doubtful.

27.On a perusal of depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they do

not inspire confidence. The manner in which the F.I.R was registered

and the delay in reaching the Court cast serious doubt as regards the

manner of investigation. The alleged recovery of material objects

also does not lend much credibility to the version of the prosecution

and it seems to be stage-managed one. Therefore, the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove any of the charges against the

appellants.

28.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022,

on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court / District Court,

Karur, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

29.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the

Judgment, dated 10.08.2022 made in S.C.No.12 of 2021, on the file

of the learned Principal Sessions Court / District Court, Karur, is

hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The

bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.

The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants. The

appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer

required in connection with any other case.

[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]

07.01.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

ps

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

To

1.The Principal Sessions Court / District Court,

Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Kulithalai Police Station,

Karur District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

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

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

AND

R. POORNIMA, J.

ps

Pre-Delivery Judgment made in

Crl.A(MD)No.554 of 2022

07.01.2026

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