Madras High Court
Durai vs The State Rep. By Its on 7 October, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
1. Durai
2. Raj : Appellants/A1 & A2
Vs.
The State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
Senkottai Police Station,
Tenkasi District : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in the judgment of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Tenkasi, dated 11.04.2022
in S.C.No.404 of 2013 and set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J., This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Tenkasi, dated 11.04.2022 in S.C.No.404 of 2013.
2.By the above judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as detailed below:
Penal Provisions Sentence of Fine Amount
Imprisonment
302 of IPC (A1) Life Imprisonment Rs.2000/- i/d to under
go one year simple
imprisonment
506(2) of Six months rigorous Rs.2000/- i/d to under
IPC(A1) imprisonment go three months
simple imprisonment
302 r/w. 34 of Life Imprisonment Rs.2000/- i/d to under
IPC (A2) go one year simple
imprisonment
506(2) of Six months rigorous Rs.2000/- i/d to under
IPC(A1) imprisonment go three months
simple imprisonment
The sentences shall run concurrently
3.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
3.1.The deceased Kanagaraj is the husband of the defacto complainant and both were doing brick cutting work at Paramakudi. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 The said Kanagaraj usually obtained advance money from the owner of the Brick Kiln and disburse the same to the persons in Kalangathakandi and brought them to Paramakudi for work. One year prior to the occurrence, at the request of the accused Durai, Kanagaraj obtained Rs.10,000/- as an advance and disburse the same to the accused in order to work in the Brick Klin at Paramakudi. But the accused did not turn up to the work. Due to this, a motive prevailed between the accused and Kanagaraj and due to this motive, the accused persons had a common intention to murder Kanagaraj and in pursuance of which, on 31.10.2012 at about 7.30 P.M., while Kanagaraj and Ponnuthai were talking in front of their house in Kalangathakandi in the presence of the street light, at that time, the accused persons came to that place and A1 abused Kanagaraj with filthy language by asking why he had come to his house and created problem with his daughter and A2 also scolded by stating that why he had come to his house even after refusal to come to the work. For that, Kanagaraj answered that if they did not come to the work after obtaining advance amount before one year, he had come for that and for that, A1 again abused him in filthy language by stating that he could not live peacefully till the said Kanagaraj is alive and try to slit on the neck of Kanagaraj with aruval and Kanagaraj moved and at that time, A2 caught hold the said Kanagaraj and thereby A1 with aruval 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 slit on the back side of the right knee of Kanagaraj and on seeing that, Ponnuthai, Chitra, Thangathai, Ramkumar shouted them and at that time, A1 threatened them with aruval with dire consequences and immediately thereafter, the said Kanagaraj was admitted in Sengottai Govt. Hospital and for further treatment, he was taken to Tirunelveli High Ground Government Hospital and again, he was taken to Madurai Medical College Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to injuries during the course of treatment. Thus, A1 has committed the offences u/s 294(b), 302, 506(2) IPC and A2 has committed the offences u/s 294(b), 342, 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
3.2. After completion of investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai and the same was taken on file as PRC No.31 of 2013.
3.3 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.404 of 2013 and made over to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Tenkasi, for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against the first appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(2) of IPC and as against the second 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w.34 of IPC.
3.3 In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and 27 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and 6 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.6.
3.4. After examination of prosecution witnesses, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the charges as false. On the side of the defence, three witnesses were examined and two documents were marked.
4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record and upon hearing either side, by judgment, dated 11.04.2022, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra.
5. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
6. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and in her evidence, she has stated that there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellants for about 5-10 minutes and thereafter only, the appellants attacked the deceased, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 300 of IPC is not made out. He would further submit that even as per the prosecution witness/P.W1, the first appellant made a single cut on the deceased on his right knee, whereas in the complaint/Ex.P1, she has stated that the first appellant cut the deceased repeatedly. Further, P.W.11/Doctor who conducted postmortem has stated that during postmortem, he found only single cut injury on the body of the deceased and therefore, there are material contradictions and discrepancies among the evidence of the witnesses namely PW1 and PW11 with regard to the injury sustained by the deceased; P.W.2 has stated that the first appellant cut the deceased with billhook on his right knee, whereas during the course of examination, she has stated that after hearing the noise, she came out from her house and found the deceased fell on the ground, thereby she could not be the eye witness to the occurrence; Further, the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 was suppressed and also suppressed the fact of taking the deceased earlier to Shengottai Hospital; The entries 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 made in the said Hospital records were not produced before the Court and the same was also suppressed; Further, the deceased was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and again, he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where while taking treatment, he died and therefore, if the deceased was given treatment immediately soon after the occurrence, the life of the deceased could have been saved; Even the Doctor, who treated the deceased has stated that injury sustained by the deceased was not in the vital part and the deceased was also taken to three hospitals and the delay in giving treatment is also one of the reasons for the cause of death; The Doctor has stated that the death of the deceased is due to over bleeding, shock and haemorrhage and the death is not either due to the injuries sustained in the vital parts or due to the delay in giving treatment and therefore, at any angle, the appellants have not committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC; Further, the Trial Court also failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. He would further submit that the eye witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.3 are only relatives of the deceased and they are all interested witnesses and P.W.2 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and she is only a circumstantial witness and even the evidence of Doctor/P.W.11 did not support the case of prosecution, he has stated that the deceased sustained injuries on the vital parts. Further, on the side of the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 defence, they have examined the Doctors, who have given treatment to the deceased and some of the documents, which were maintained in the Hospitals where the deceased was brought for treatment were available. Further, he would submit that the antecedents of the deceased is not good and he is having the habit of teasing female members and in this case also, the deceased came to the house of the first appellant and also misbehaved with the daughter of the first appellant and when the attitude of the deceased was questioned, the alleged occurrence had taken place. Further, due to previous enmity, a false case was foisted against the appellants and the first complaint and the medical records were also suppressed and if the same were brought before the Court, the real truth will come out and therefore, the prosecution has suppressed the earlier complaint and records for their convenience and they created a complaint for the purpose of foisting this case against the appellants; and the signature of P.W.1 in the complaint/Ex.P.1 and in the deposition differs, therefore, the very genesis of the complaint itself is also doubtful. Further, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts; If two views are possible, the Trial Court should only give benefit of doubt to the appellants, whereas the Trial Court has failed to consider the material aspects and also the material contradictions, which would go to the root of the prosecution case; Only believing the words of P.W.1 who is 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 none other than the wife of the deceased, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC is not made out; and though the Trial Court disbelieved the words of the defence that the prosecution has not proved the case for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(2) of IPC, however, erroneously convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and thereby, the findings of the Trial Court is perverse and therefore, benefit of doubt may be extended to the appellants and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that pending appeal, the second appellant died and now the first appellant alone is before this Court and therefore, the first appellant is to be acquitted.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit that the prosecution has established the previous motive between the appellants and the deceased and that the deceased has to come for work to the bricklin and as such, the appellants also asked the deceased to get advance amount from the owner of the bricklin and he will also come and do the work in the bricklin, but however, after receiving the advance amount of Rs.10,000/-, the appellants did not come for work and therefore, when the same was questioned by 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 the deceased, the appellants with an intention decided to take away the life of the deceased, went to the house of the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons and when the first appellant chose to attack on the vital part namely neck, the deceased moved from there and so, the second appellant caught hold of the deceased and the first appellant attacked the deceased with deadly weapon and when the deceased bend his neck, he sustained injuries on his knee and therefore, the motive has been clearly established by the prosecution. Further, this is a case of murder and the eye witnesses have seen the occurrence and they have also made complaint before the respondent police and the respondent police also registered a case and after investigation, charge sheet was laid and the appellants took one of the defences of bad antecedent against the deceased, but the appellants have not established the same. He would further submit that Doctors/D.W.1 to D.W.3 have clearly stated that no such records were available and they were already destructed, and due to over bleeding, shock and haemorrhage, the deceased died. Therefore, the death of the deceased is due to the injuries caused by the appellants. The eye witnesses and the medical evidence also clearly spoken that the deceased sustained injuries and due to the injuries, there was over bleeding and as a result of which, he died and therefore, the prosecution has established the foundational facts that the appellants 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 have caused the injuries to the deceased which lead to the cause of death. The eye witnesses and the medical evidence clearly proved that the appellants have committed the offence only with an intention and went to the house of the deceased with deadly weapons and the first appellant made an attempt to attack the deceased with deadly weapon and when the first appellant chosen to attack on the vital part namely neck with deadly weapon, since the deceased bend his neck, he did not sustain any injury in the neck and therefore, he sustained injuries on his right knee and immediately, the neighbours assembled there and thereafter, the appellants left the place and thereafter, the victim was brought to the hospital and since there was no facility in the earlier hospital, he was brought to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and during treatment, he died; Though originally the case was registered under Sections 294(b),342,324, 307 and 506(2) of IPC, after the death of the deceased, sections were altered into 302 r/w.34 and 506(2) of IPC and later the respondent Police filed the charge sheet for the said offences. However, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt from the oral and documentary evidence coupled with medical evidence and therefore, the appellants have not established their defence and under these circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellants for the above said 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 offences and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have consciously gone through the evidence and materials on record.
10.It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased and his family members used to go for work in the bricklin and the appellants asked the deceased to get advance from the owner of the bricklin and the deceased would also do work in the bricklin. Accordingly, the deceased made arrangement and the first appellant obtained a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance for him, but he did not go for the work and also did not repay the said amount. Hence, the deceased asked the first appellant, either to come for work for the advance amount received by him or he should return the amount. But the first appellant did not come for work and also did not return the amount borrowed by him. When the same was questioned by the deceased, there was quarrel between the deceased and the first appellant. The first accused along with the second accused came to the place of occurrence and made quarrel with the deceased and also 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 scolded him in filthy language and also attacked him with deadly weapon with a common intention to kill the deceased and that the deceased sustained injuries and due to which, he died and thereafter, the case was registered and subsequently, during investigation, since the deceased died, the case was altered and charge sheet was laid.
11.Though the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since the deceased went to the house of the first appellant and misbehaved with the female members, and when that was questioned by the first accused, at that time, the deceased misbehaved with the daughter of the one of the appellants and thereafter left from that place and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and due to previous enmity, P.W.1 has lodged a false case against the appellants before the respondent police. The respondent police, without verifying the genesis of the complaint, conducted investigation and registered a false case against the appellants.
12.With regard to motive, the prosecution has clearly established from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that the appellants have received a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the deceased as advance for doing work in the bricklin. Thereafter, the first appellant did not go for 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 work in the bricklin and when the same was questioned, the appellants quarrelled with the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons and therefore, motive has been established by the prosecution. Even otherwise, it is not a case of circumstantial evidence, according to prosecution, there were eye witnesses to the occurrence and based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, who was present at that time along with the deceased has clearly spoken about the occurrence and the appellants are also from the same village and there is no dispute regarding the identity of the appellants and therefore, since it is the case of eye witness, motive is not necessary however in this case, the prosecution has proved the motive.
13.So far as the motive attributed by the appellants against the deceased is concerned, the deceased went to the house of the first appellant and misbehaved with one of the daughters of the first appellant. But on the defence side, none of the family members from the house of the first appellant was examined and that the deceased prior to the occurrence, went to the house of the first appellant and misbehaved with one of the daughters of the first appellant and even none of the neighbours have been examined to prove the defence taken by the appellants.
14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
14.Though the appellants did not come to the witness box and remained silent, in this case, the appellants have taken a specific defence about the character of the deceased stating that the character of the deceased was not good and the deceased went to the house of the first appellant and misbehaved with one of the daughters of the first appellant and therefore, both the appellants went for questioning the same, at that time, there was a quarrel. But in order to substantiate the same, the appellants have not examined any of the witnesses. Even otherwise, if the deceased misbehaved with the family members of the appellants, they ought to have given a complaint, either before the police or before the elder members of the family. But in this case, the defence had not examined any of the witnesses to substantiate the same. They only examined the Doctors, who have given treatment in the hospitals in order to get the medical records. But however, the defence witnesses have stated that there was no such document and due to lapse of time, they destructed all the records and therefore, they were unable to arrange documents in the alternative way. So, the appellants have not established the defence.
15.Further, in order to substantiate the charge under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 who had given complaint/Ex.P.1 before the respondent police had set 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 the law in motion has stated that she saw the appellants along with her husband near the house in the street light and at that time, the appellants came there with deadly weapons and they have stated that how could he come and ask to return the amount and if he would give trouble, they would take away the life. By saying so, the first appellant attacked the deceased with deadly weapon namely billhook and since the deceased moved from that place, he did not receive any injury at the first attempt and thereafter, the second appellant caught hold of the deceased and the first appellant again chose to attack the vital part namely neck, however the deceased bend, therefore he did not receive any injury on his neck and thereafter, the first appellant cut the knee of the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries in the cough muscle and he died, in-spite of best treatment. Further, P.W.1 has also spoken about the motive. P.W.2 has also spoken about the motive. During chief evidence she has stated that she saw the occurrence. But however, during cross examination, she has stated that she went to the occurrence place immediately soon after the occurrence. But however, the prosecution has established its case. P.W. 1 is none other than the wife of the deceased. Though she is the close relative of the deceased, that itself is not a sole ground to disbelieve the evidence, unless the related witnesses are doubtful and they are only interested witnesses, their witnesses cannot be treated as 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 interested witnesses. But whereas, the Court has to cautiously appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses. In this case, the appellants have not denied the fact that they received Rs.10,000/- as advance amount or otherwise after receiving the amount, they neither went to work in bricklin nor returned the amount and therefore, the appellants have decided to attack the deceased and hence, they went to the house of the deceased and misbehaved with the family members of the deceased. However, this Court after perusing the entire materials found that the appellants have not established such a defence. The fact remains that the appellants received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for doing work in bricklin, but however, they did not go for work, nor returned the amount and when the same was questioned by the deceased, the appellants went to the place of occurrence and also quarrelled with the deceased and attacked him. But however, reading of the medical evidence, it is seen that the deceased sustained only one injury and that too only on his knee. Further, the Doctor/P.W.11 who conducted postmortem also stated that the deceased sustained only one injury on his leg and only due to over bleeding, he died. Admittedly, the deceased was initially brought to Shenkottai hospital and thereafter to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and then to the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai where during treatment, he died. If at all, the deceased was given better treatment immediately soon 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 after the occurrence when he sustained injuries, the life of the deceased could have been saved. However, the prosecution has proved the case that the first appellant is the only person who caused injury on the deceased and the second appellant caught hold of the deceased. However, the injuries sustained by the deceased are not in the vital parts, but only on his leg. Further, even P.W.11 admitted that injury sustained by the deceased was not in the vital parts and deceased did not die in the spot.
16.This Court has carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence. While re-appreciating the evidence, this Court finds that the appellants have not committed the offence under Section 302 r/w34 of IPC.
17.From the reading of the entire materials and even the eye witnesses and also the medical evidence, it is seen that the deceased sustained only injuries that too only in his leg and not in the vital parts and he did not died on the spot and only died later, while he was taking treatment in the hospital and that too the deceased was brought to three hospitals and the delay in giving treatment is one of the reasons for the cause of death. Further due to over bleeding, he died.
18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
18.Therefore this Court finds that the appellants have not committed the offence under Section 34 r/w.302 of IPC. However the prosecution has proved that the appellants have caused injuries and due to that, the deceased died and that there is only one cut injury and due to over bleeding, the deceased died. However from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the first appellant has chosen to attack on the neck of the deceased, since the deceased moved, he did not sustain injury on his neck or in any vital parts and again, the second appellant caught hold of the deceased and at that time, the first appellant made an attack on the neck of the deceased. Since he moved, he sustained injuries on his leg. If at all the injury was on his neck, as chosen by the appellants, the deceased would have died due to that injuries. Therefore the intention of the appellants is to cause death, however, their attempt has failed.
19.Therefore this Court, considering the oral and documentary evidence, injury sustained by the deceased and the medical evidence for the cause of death finds that the appellants have not committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However this Court finds that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore the conviction and sentence passed by 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022 the trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC is set aside. This Court finds that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Further, originally the complaint was also registered under Section 307 of IPC and subsequently after the death of the deceased during treatment, sections were altered. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
19.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
i)The conviction and sentence as against the first appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Tenkasi is set aside and modified into conviction under Section 307 of IPC. Accordingly the sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Court below is set aside and the first appellant is sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- i/d to under go one year simple imprisonment. The conviction imposed under Section 506 (2) of IPC is confirmed. The period of sentence already undergone by the first appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,as against the substantive sentence. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
ii).The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the first appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
iii) In so far as the second appellant is concerned, pending appeal, the second appellant (A2) died, hence the charges against him stands abated. In view of the same, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as abated as against second appellant (A2).
(P.V.,J.) (R.P.J.,)
07.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
To:
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC) Tenkasi
2.The Inspector of Police,
Senkottai Police Station,
Tenkasi District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Section Officer
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and
R.POORNIMA,J.
aav
Crl.A(MD)No.317 of 2022
07.10.2025
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 01:25:56 pm )