Madras High Court
Shankar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 July, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 29.01.2026
Delivered on : 20.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
Shankar
S/o.Sarangan @ Sarangapani …… Appellant
in Crl.A.No.509 of 2019
1. Ramani
W/o.Ravi
2. Santhosh @ Harikrishnan
S/o.Ravi
3. Arunkumar
S/o.Ravi
4. Thulasiraman
S/o.Margasagayam …… Appellants
in Crl.A.No.647 of 2019
Page 1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
Karunakaran
S/o.Sarangan @ Sarangapani …… Appellant
in Crl.A.No.648 of 2019
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by
Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore District, Crime No.311 of 2012. …… Respondent
in all Crl.As.
Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to
set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore made in
S.C.No.137 of 2013 by judgment dated 31.07.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.M.R.Thangavel
(in Crl.A.Nos.509 and 647 of 2019)
Mr.R.Karthikeyan
(in Crl.A.No.648 of 2019)
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
(in all Crl.As)
Page 2 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
COMMONJUDGMENT
(Made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment
passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in
S.C.No.137 of 2013, dated 31.07.2019 convicting the appellants for the
offence(s) and to undergo the sentence(s) as detailed hereunder:-
Accused Offence(s) Sentence(s) imposed
punishable under
Sections
A1 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
342 r/w 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A2 147 IPC (1count) Rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
294(b) IPC Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six
months and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo one month R.I.
342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
Page 3 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
undergo two months R.I.
302 r/w 149 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A2 acquitted from the charge under
Section 352 of IPC.
A3 147 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
342 r/w 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
302 r/w 149 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A4 147 IPC (1 count) Rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of 1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
302 r/w 149 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A4 acquitted from the charge under
Section 352 of IPC.
A5 147 IPC (1count) Rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
342 r/w 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
Page 4 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
undergo two months R.I.
302 r/w 149 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A5 acquitted from the charge under
Section 352 of IPC.
A6 147 IPC (1count) Rigorous imprisonment for two
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo two months R.I.
342 r/w 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year
and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo two months R.I.
302 r/w 149 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months R.I.
A6 acquitted from the charge under
Sections 324 and 352 of IPC.
The sentences are ordered to run
concurrently for all the accused.
Set off allowed under Section 428
Cr.P.C for all the accused.
Challenging the above judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 has
preferred Crl.A.No.648 of 2019, A2 has preferred Crl.A.No.509 of 2019 and
A3 to A6 have preferred Crl.A.No.647 of 2019, respectively. Since the
appeals are arising out of the common judgment, they are taken up together
and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the appellants
will be hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 and A3 to A6 in this judgment.
Page 5 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-
(a) A1 to A5 are the residents of Ongapadi Village and A6 is the
resident of Thellur Village. A1 and A2 are the brother-in-laws of A3, A4 and
A5 are the sons of A3, and A6 is the son-in-law of A3. About two years prior
to the occurrence, A3 purchased a vacant house site from one Dayalan and
registered the same in favour of her sons, A4 and A5. The vacant site of the
deceased, Mathi @ Mathiyalagan, is situated adjacent to A3’s property on
the Northern side. When A3 caused her vacant site to be measured, it was
found that a poromboke land measuring about six feet, lays in between the
vacant sites of A3 and the deceased. Upon the deceased demanding a share
in the said poromboke land, enmity arose between A3 and the deceased.
Thereafter, when A3 attempted to dig a basement for construction of a house
by encroaching upon the poromboke land, the same was resisted by the
deceased and his wife Dharani, leading to a quarrel on 20.09.2012 at
10.30 a.m., during which time, A1 and his associates assaulted the deceased
and his wife, thereby further intensifying the enmity.
(b) As the deceased continued to obstruct the construction, the
accused decided to eliminate him. While so, on 20.09.2012 at 11.15 a.m., all
Page 6 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
the accused unlawfully assembled near the vacant site belonging to A3,
armed with deadly weapons, such as a crowbar and shared a common object
to murder the deceased. At that time, A3 instigated A1 and handed over a
crowbar, pursuant to which A1 struck a heavy blow on the head of the
deceased, causing fatal injuries. Simultaneously, A2 and A4 caught hold of
the deceased, thereby facilitating and abetting A1 for committing the murder.
Subsequently, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint (Ex.P1).
(c) P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P1 from P.W.1,
registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2012 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 IPC and prepared the First
Information Report, Ex.P13. Thereafter, P.W.11 forwarded the copies of FIR,
to the jurisdictional Court and higher officials.
(d) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P13 from P.W.11,
took up further investigation on the same day and went to the place of
occurrence on 20.09.2012 at about 16.00 hours and in the presence of
witnesses Seshadri and P.W.7 - Rajendiran, he prepared the Observation
Mahazar Ex.P2 and drew Rough Sketch Ex.P14. Thereafter, he seized the
Page 7 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
material objects M.O.2 blood stained soil mixed with small stones and
M.O.3 ordinary soil mixed with small stones under the seizure mahazar
Ex.P3. He enquired the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7. Subsequently, on 21.09.2012,
he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the
witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P15.
Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable,
P.W.10 along with a requisition letter Ex.P.10 for conducting post-mortem.
(e) PW9-Doctor, on receipt of requisition, conducted post-mortem and
issued the post-mortem certificate Ex.P11. P.W.10 Head Constable seized
M.O.6 blood stained lungi and M.O.7 blood stained T-Shirt from the dead
body and handed over the same to P.W.12.
(f) P.W.12 further proceeded with the investigation and has arrested
the accused on 21.09.2012 at 13.30 hours near the Pichanatham Colony
junction road and obtained the voluntary confessional statements of the
accused in the presence of P.W.8 Village Administrative Officer and one
Sagadevan. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 was
marked as Ex.P4, A2 was marked as Ex.P5 and A4 was marked as Ex.P6,
Page 8 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
respectively. On the basis of Ex.P4, P.W.12 seized M.O.1 crowbar from A1
under seizure mahazar (Ex.P7) near a bush situated on the river on the
Western side of Ongapadi village. Further, he seized M.O.4 wooden log
from A2 under seizure mahazar (Ex.P8) and M.O.5 spade from A4 under
Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.8 and witness Sagadevan. Thereafter, P.W.12
remanded the accused to judicial custody. He sent the seized material objects
to the Court under Form-95. Thereafter, on receipt of the requisition letter,
P.W.13 Scientific Officer examined the case properties and detected blood in
M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.6 and M.O.7 and not detected blood in M.O.3 and
issued Ex.P16 Biological report. Ex.P17 Serology report was issued by the
Assistant Director, Forensic Sciences Department. P.W.14 - Doctor
examined the injured P.W.1 on 21.09.2012 at 9.30 a.m., admitted her as an
in-patient, and issued the medical report Ex.P19 and the wound certificate
Ex.P20.
(g) After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the final report in
Crime No.311 of 2012 against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 IPC before the Court.
Page 9 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore took the charge
sheet on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2013 and after completing the formalities
under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Vellore, since the offences are exclusively triable by the
Court of Session. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge took the
case on file in S.C.No.137 of 2013 and made over the same to the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore for disposal in accordance
with law. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, after
completing all the formalities, framed charges against A1 for the offence
punishable under Sections 148, 342 read with Section 149 and 302 IPC;
against A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts),
294(b), 323, 352, 342 and 302 IPC; against A3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 352, 342 and 302 IPC; against A4 for the offences
punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 323, 324, 352, 342 and 302 IPC;
against A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 352,
342 read with Section 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC; and against A6 for the
offences punishable under Sections 147 (2 counts), 324, 352, 342 read with
Sections 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC.
Page 10 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
4. During the trial, in order to substantiate the charges framed against
A1 to A6, on the side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined
as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20, besides 7
material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 7. On completion of examination
of the prosecution witnesses and the incriminating circumstances were
culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which were put to
A1 to A6 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they have denied the same as false.
However, on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was
let in. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on
either side, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,
found A1 to A6 guilty of the offence(s) and sentenced them to undergo the
sentence(s) as mentioned above, leading to the filing of the present appeals
before this Court by the accused.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A2 to A6 contended
that all the alleged eye-witnesses are interested witnesses, as they are close
relatives of the deceased. None of the independent witness had been
examined to substantiate the occurrence. It is pointed out that P.Ws.2, 4 and
Page 11 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
5, (brother, sister and son of the deceased) did not speak about the presence
or specific overt acts of A2 to A6 at the scene of occurrence, and yet the
prosecution did not treat them as hostile. Though P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.4
(sister) of the deceased, claimed to be eye-witnesses and deposed that A2
and A4 caught hold of the deceased and that A1 attacked him with a crowbar
(iron rod), allegedly brought by A4, such version is not corroborated by the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.1, being uncorroborated
and allegedly motivated by prior civil dispute, is unreliable.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A2 to A6 further
contended that the complaint (Ex.P1) forming the foundation of the
prosecution case, is doubtful. While P.W.1/de-facto complainant stated that
she lodged a written complaint at about 3.00 p.m on 21.09.2012 at the
hospital, where she was admitted, P.W.4 and P.W.11(Sub Inspector of
Police), deposed that the complaint was lodged at the Police Station and that
no examination took place at the hospital. This inconsistency, casts serious
doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case itself. It is further submitted that
P.W.11 admitted that two First Information Reports have been registered for
the same occurrence, one of which was subsequently quashed by this Court
Page 12 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
in Crl.O.P.No.21442 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014. The non-disclosure of the
said fact before the trial Court and the registration of multiple FIRs for the
same occurrence, vitiates the investigation. It is further contended that
though a charge under Section 352 IPC was framed against A2 to A6, no
evidence was adduced in support thereof by the prosecution and hence, they
were acquitted of the said charge. In the absence of cogent and consistent
evidence, the conviction of A2 to A6 for the remaining charges is
unsustainable and calls for interference by this Court.
7. In addition, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1
submitted that the conviction of A1 is unsustainable, both on facts and in
law. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence, particularly with regard to material discrepancies and lack of
corroboration, and erroneously convicted A1. It is further submitted that the
prosecution has not established the specific overt act attributed against A1
beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of P.Ws.2 to 5 at the scene of
occurrence itself is doubtful. Further, the entire case rests upon the testimony
of interested witnesses, who are the close relatives of the deceased, and their
testimonies require careful scrutiny and cannot be accepted without
Page 13 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
independent corroboration. The learned counsel further contended that the
genesis of the occurrence itself had been suppressed and that the prosecution
has not placed the true and complete version before the Court. Admittedly,
there exists a civil dispute between the de-facto complainant and A1 and the
other accused. Owing to such prior enmity, a false case has been foisted
against A1, when the complainant was unable to secure relief through lawful
means. It is pointed out that except P.W.1, no other witness has clearly
spoken about the presence and specific role of A1 at the scene of occurrence.
The trial Court, without properly reconciling the inconsistencies and
contradictions in the evidence, proceeded to convict A1 on assumptions and
surmises, rather than on cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, it is prayed
that the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 be set aside and that he may
be acquitted of all the charges.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-Police submitted that owing to the civil dispute that had arisen
between the deceased and A3, the occurrence took place at the instigation of
A3. It is contended that A1 to A6, sharing a common intention, joined
together and that A1, with the active aid of the other accused, attacked the
Page 14 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
deceased by using a deadly weapon (crowbar). As a result, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The
prosecution has established the guilt of the accused (A1 to A6) beyond
reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence. He further submitted
that the ocular testimony of P.W.1, who is an injured eye witness, is natural,
consistent and inspires confidence of this Court. Merely because the
witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded,
when it is otherwise trustworthy and duly corroborated by medical and
documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the presence of the
accused at the scene of occurrence and the specific overt acts attributed to
each of them, have been clearly spoken to by prosecution witnesses. The
medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular version regarding the manner
of assault and the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witness
(P.W.1). P.W.1 also sustained injuries during the occurrence and her
presence at the scene cannot be doubted.
9. With regard to the alleged contradictions, it is contended by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that they are minor discrepancies
which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Such minor variations
Page 15 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
are natural in the testimony of witnesses deposing after lapse of time and do
not discredit the core version of the prosecution. It is further contended that
the prior land dispute between the parties, furnishes motive for the
occurrence and does not by itself establish false implication. The registration
of FIR and subsequent investigation were conducted in accordance with law
and no prejudice had been caused to the accused. The trial Court rightly
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and properly convicted and
sentenced the accused as noted above. Hence, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court be
confirmed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
and also perused the materials available on record.
11. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that due to prior
enmity arising out of a land dispute between the deceased and the accused,
all the accused formed an unlawful assembly on the date of occurrence, and
attacked the deceased. A3, A5 and A6 allegedly surrounded the deceased,
Page 16 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
A2 and A4 restrained him, and A1 assaulted him with a crowbar, inflicting
grievous injuries that resulted in his death.
12. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 as eye-witnesses.
Among them, P.W.1, the complainant and wife of the deceased, deposed that
on 20.09.2012, while she was working near the school along with her
husband and her sister-in-law (P.W.4), they were informed that land
measurement was being carried out and that they went to the disputed site.
There, A2, A4, A5, and A6 were digging the land, which led to a quarrel. A2
abused the deceased in filthy language, and A4 to A6 assaulted him. When
P.W.1 intervened, A4 beat her on the nose with the wooden handle of a spade
and A6 assaulted her on the head with a stone, causing injuries. P.W.3 and
P.W.6 attempted to pacify the quarrel. Thereafter, A2 summoned A1, who
arrived at about 11.15 a.m., whereupon a crowbar was handed over to him
by A4. A3, A5 and A6 surrounded the deceased, while A2 and A4 caught
hold of his hands, A1 then struck the deceased on the head with the crowbar
(iron rod), causing grievous head injuries. The accused fled from the scene
of occurrence as the villagers gathered. The deceased was taken to hospital,
where he was declared as brought dead. P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1)
Page 17 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
and identified the crowbar (M.O.1). She also spoke about the injuries
sustained by her and her subsequent treatment.
13. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased, deposed that there existed
a land dispute between the accused and his brother Mathi @ Mathiazhagan.
According to him, on 20.09.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the Maniyakarar
measured the disputed land. At that time, A1 (Karunakaran) stated that he
would not give up the said land. P.W.2 further deposed that A1 assaulted his
brother with a crowbar on his head, as a result of which, the deceased fainted
and fell down. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the place of occurrence.
He identified M.O.1 (crowbar) as the weapon used in the commission of the
offence. He also deposed that all the accused were known to him, as they
were residents of the same village. After the occurrence, the deceased was
taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Subsequently,
P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police.
14. P.W.3, deposed that there had been a land dispute between the
deceased and the accused for about two years prior to the occurrence. On
20.09.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., a quarrel took place between the deceased
Page 18 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
and the accused. He further deposed that his residence is situated at the place
of occurrence. He stated that while he was engaged in a mobile phone
conversation, the deceased fell down, and when the deceased was taken to
the hospital, the Doctor declared him as brought dead. Though he was cited
as an eye witness, he did not support the prosecution case regarding the
actual occurrence or attributing any overt act on the accused and was treated
only as a hostile witness. He only reiterated that there was a land dispute
between the parties.
15. P.W.4 being the sister of the deceased, has deposed that there was
a land dispute between her brother’s family and the accused. She deposed
that about two years prior to the date of occurrence, at around 11.00 a.m.,
while she was engaged in coolie work, she heard that a quarrel had arisen at
the disputed land. Then she went to her house, which is situated near the
disputed property and at that time, A2 and A4 initially attempted to assault
the deceased with sticks, which was prevented by her along with Kumar
(P.W.3) and Parthiban. Thereafter, she returned to her house. Subsequently,
on the same day, A2 called A1 to come to the place of occurrence. A1
arrived there, and A4 handed over a crowbar to him. P.W.4 categorically
Page 19 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
deposed that A1 attacked the deceased with the said crowbar, as a result, the
deceased fell down on the spot with bleeding injuries on his head and nose.
The deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Thus,
P.W.4 has specifically spoken about the overt act attributed against A1 in
assaulting the deceased with the crowbar (M.O.1).
16. P.W.5, the son of the deceased, has deposed that on 20.09.2012 at
about 11.15 a.m., A1 assaulted his father with a crowbar (iron rod) on his
head in the garden area of their house. As a result, his father fell down and
blood was oozing out from his head. On hearing the commotion, people
gathered at the spot and the accused fled from the scene. Thereafter, his
father was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, where he was declared
dead. P.W.5 has identified the weapon used in the assault as M.O.1 crowbar
(iron rod) as the weapon used in the commission of offence. In cross-
examination, he affirmed that he had directly witnessed the occurrence and
categorically stated that A1 stood opposite to his father and struck him with
the crowbar. He further deposed that his mother (P.W.1) had also sustained
injuries during the incident and had undergone treatment.
Page 20 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
17. P.W.6, who is a resident of the same village, has not supported the
case of the prosecution. Consequently, he was treated as a hostile witness.
18. P.W.7, one of the mahazar witnesses, clearly deposed regarding
the preparation of the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and the rough sketch
(Ex.P14) and also deposed about the seizure of M.O.2 and M.O.3 under the
seizure mahazar (Ex.P3).
19. P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer, has clearly deposed
regarding the recovery of material objects, the confession statements of the
accused, and their arrest. His testimony establishes the procedural aspects of
the investigation, particularly the recovery and seizure of incriminating
articles, as well as the formal recording of confessions and the apprehension
of the accused persons.
20. P.W.9 being the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the deceased, has deposed that he found the following
injuries on the dead body :
External Injury:
Lacerated wound measuring 7 cm × 2 cm × bone deep over the
Page 21 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
back of the mid-parietal region, extending to the occipital
region.
Internal Findings (on dissection of scalp, skull, and dura):
Diffuse subscalp contusion over the back of the scalp on both
sides.
Marked subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage over both
cerebral hemispheres.
Intracerebral hemorrhage on both sides.
Cerebellar hemorrhage noted on the right side.
He has opined that the deceased would appeared to have died due to injuries
sustained on the scalp and brain. The medical evidence thus clearly
establishes that the fatal injuries were caused by a lengthy hard iron weapon,
namely a crowbar. Accordingly, the medical evidence fully supports the
prosecution case and it is consistent with the ocular testimonies of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.4, and P.W.5, without any contradiction.
21. P.W.10 is the Head Constable of Veppankuppam Police Station,
and he has deposed that on 21.09.2012, as per the instructions of the
Inspector of Police, he took the body of the deceased to the Government
Hospital, Adukkampaarai, for post-mortem. After its completion, he handed
over the post-mortem report to the Inspector of Police.
Page 22 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
22. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has deposed that he received
the complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1 and, on the basis of the same, he
registered the First Information Report (Ex.P13). He has further stated that
the FIR was duly forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Vellore, as well
as to the higher officials concerned. His testimony thus establishes the
formal initiation of the criminal proceedings and the procedural compliance
in forwarding the FIR to the competent authorities.
23. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, deposed that he carried out all the
procedural formalities in the investigation, including inspecting the scene of
occurrence, preparing the observation mahazar and rough sketch, seizing
material objects, examining witnesses, conducting the inquest, sending the
body for post-mortem, recording the confession statements of the accused,
recovering the weapons based on their confession, and remanding the
accused to judicial custody.
24. P.W.13, the Scientific Officer attached to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, deposed that he examined the material objects forwarded by the
investigating officer and issued the Biological report (Ex.P16), which
Page 23 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
revealed the presence of blood on M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.4 and M.O.5,
whereas no blood was detected in M.O3. He further deposed that the
Serologist Report (Ex.P17) was issued by Assistant Director of Forensic
Science Department and the viscera of the deceased was examined by
Scientific Officer N.Suresh, who issued the Toxicological Report Ex.P.18.
25. P.W.14, the Doctor, has deposed that on 21.09.2012, while on
duty in the Emergency Ward of the Government Vellore Medical College
Hospital, he examined one Dharani (P.W.1), aged about 34 years, who
reported that she had sustained injuries in an assault by five known persons
on 20.09.2012. On examination, P.W.14 found a swelling on the left side of
her head and admitted her as an in-patient. The Accident Register was
marked as Ex.P19, and the medical report was marked as Ex.P20. He further
opined that such injuries could have been caused if a person was attacked
with an iron weapon like a crowbar.
26. This Court, being the first appellate Court and the final Court of
fact finding, is required to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence
on record and determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond
Page 24 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from
any perversity or misappreciation of evidence.
27. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this
Court finds that P.W.1, being an injured eye witness and the author of the
complaint, has spoken in a clear and cogent manner about the prior enmity
between the parties, the manner of occurrence and also the specific overt
acts attributed against each of the accused. The injuries sustained by her in
the same transaction, establish her presence at the scene beyond doubt.
28. It is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness carries
great evidentiary value and is ordinarily considered to be very reliable. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2010) 10 SCC, 259, has held that the evidence of an injured
witness stands on a higher footing, and as such, a witness would not
ordinarily shield the real offender and falsely implicate another.
29. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.1, who sustained injuries
in the very same occurrence, inspires confidence of the Court and stands
Page 25 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
duly corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.14 and the records marked as
Ex.P19 and Ex.P20. There is no material to discredit her version, and her
evidence clearly establishes the role attributed to A1 in inflicting the fatal
injury. Further, the occurrence admittedly took place near the residential
houses, and all the accused were known to the witnesses. Hence, there is no
dispute either with regard to the place of occurrence or the identity of the
accused.
30. The ocular evidence provided by P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 consistently
establishes that A1 attacked the deceased on the head with a crowbar (iron
rod) and the said version is duly corroborated by the medical evidence.
P.W.9, who conducted the post-mortem, has noted the injuries on the
deceased and opined that the death was due to head injury. The nature of the
injuries recorded in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P11) and the final
opinion are consistent with the ocular version that A1 struck the deceased on
the head with an iron rod. Thus, the medical evidence fully corroborates the
evidence of ocular witness.
31. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Page 26 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
appellants/accused that no specific overt acts were attributed against the
other accused, except by P.W.1. However, the evidence of P.W.4 clearly
reveals that A2 summoned A1 to the spot and A4 handed over the crowbar to
him, confirms a common intention and the specific overt acts. A conjoint
reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, along with the contents of the
complaint, discloses the specific role played by each of the accused and
establishes their participation in the occurrence.
32. The evidence of P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer,
regarding arrest, recovery and confession, has remained unshaken in cross
examination. Nothing material has been elicited to discredit his testimony
and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 investigating
officer. In cases arising out of village disputes, independent witnesses cannot
realistically be expected, as villagers are often closely related or acquainted
with the parties and may be reluctant to depose either for or against them.
The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, does not weaken the
prosecution case, when the testimony of the injured and natural witnesses
are found reliable.
Page 27 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
33. It is a well settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that it is the
quality of evidence and not the quantity that has to be considered. As held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR
1957 SC 614), evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can
be based on the testimony of a single wholly reliable witness, if the Court
finds such evidence to be trustworthy and inspires confidence of the Court.
Merely because certain witnesses have turned hostile or some independent
witnesses have not been examined, the prosecution case cannot be discarded
when the evidence of the injured eye-witness is credible and stands
corroborated by medical and documentary evidence.
34. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.1 being an injured
witness, is clear, consistent and inspires confidence of the Court. Her
evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the supporting
testimonies of other witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore, the
prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that the independent
witnesses are not examined.
35. With regard to the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by
Page 28 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A6, this Court finds that the
same are minor and trivial in nature and do not go to the root of the
prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 20.09.2012 and the
witnesses were examined in chief after a considerable lapse of time and were
also recalled subsequently on several occasions during the years 2016 and
2018. In such circumstances, minor discrepancies and variations are
inevitable due to lapse of time and fallibility of human memory. Such minor
discrepancies cannot be magnified to discard the prosecution evidence in
toto.
36. This Court, being an appellate Court, has re-appreciated the entire
evidence on record and finds that the ocular testimony is consistent,
trustworthy and duly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence.
There is no perversity or illegality in appreciation of the evidence by the trial
Court. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that A1
attacked the deceased with a crowbar, causing fatal head injury and that the
other accused (A2 to A6) shared the common intention and participated in
the occurrence.
Page 29 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the trial
Court has rightly convicted A1 to A6 for the offences proved against them
and imposed appropriate sentences as mentioned above. Insofar as the
acquittal under Section 352 IPC is concerned, the State has not preferred any
appeal against said finding. This Court finds no merit in the appeals and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
38. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are hereby dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.
The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants, shall stand cancelled, and
the authorities are directed to take necessary steps to secure their custody for
undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
(P.V., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
20.02.2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ms
Page 30 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page 31 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ms Judgment in Crl.A.Nos.509, 647 and 648 of 2019 20.02.2026 Page 32 of 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 04:36:25 pm )