Madras High Court
Govindan (A2) … vs The State Rep. By on 17 October, 2019
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2355
Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: Pronounced on:
05.08.2025 10.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
Govindan (A2) … Appellant in Crl.A.No.780 of 2019
1.Kuppan (A1)
2.Prabhu (A3)
3.Sundari (A5) … Appellants in Crl.A.No.773 of 2019
Sakthivel (A4) … Appellants in Crl.A.No.781 of 2019
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Kaveripattinam.
(Crime No.93 of 2016) .. Respondent in all the three appeals
Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the judgment made in S.C.No.147 of 2016 dated
17.10.2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellants in
Crl.A.No.780 of 2019 : Mr.A.S.Balaji
For Appellants in
Crl.A.No.773 of 2019 : Mr.Iyapparaj, for Mr.M.Jothikumar
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
For Appellant in
Crl.A.No.781 of 2019 : Mr.Murugendran
for Mr.M.Jothikumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assisted by
Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) These three appeals challenge the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri in SC.No.147 of 2016 dated 17.10.2019. Crl.A.No.773 of 2019 has been preferred by A1, A3 and A5. Crl.A.No.780 of 2019 has been preferred by A2. Crl.A.No.781 of 2019 has been preferred by A4. As the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they were clubbed and heard together by us.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
A1 and A2 are brothers. A3 is the son of A1 and A5. A4 is the son of A2 and A5 is the wife of A1. The deceased Puttappan and A1's father were brothers. The aforesaid persons equally divided their property, which is an agricultural land situated at Moranahalli in Krishnagiri District. There was a common pathway for the access of both their families. There is also a common well from which pipes were laid out by the accused and deceased's family members to bring 2/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 water to their fields.
3. On 28.01.2016, at and around 10 am, Beeraj, (PW1) who is the grandson of the deceased, Puttappan, hired an earth moving machine (hereinafter referred to as “JCB”) to lay a pipeline from the common well to his land. When the JCB reached the land, all the accused, who are the adjacent land owners, joined together and objected to the same. They did not want PW1 to lay pipeline under their land. A1, Kuppan started abusing Beeraj and his family members, including PW2 and his deceased grandfather. He also threatened that he will do away with them, in case PW1 and his family members choose to go ahead with the laying of pipelines. Noticing this quarrel, the driver of the JCB, one, Anbu-PW9 took the vehicle away from the land.
4. All of a sudden, Kuppan used a reaper stick and struck Puttappan on the left side of his head. Sundari, A5, who was carrying a Billhook, handed over the same to A2-Govindan and exhorted him to do away with Puttappan, thereby finding a solution to the entire dispute. On this exhortation, A2-Govindan delivered blows on the front and back portions of Puttappan's head. Prabhu, A3, picked up a 3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 stone, which was lying nearby and attacked Puttappan on his left eye. Thereafter, A4-Sakthivel, using a Bamboo stick, hit Puttappan on his nose and on right hand. Not stopping with that, Sakthivel also attacked PW2-Mittaiyammal on her right hand and other portions of the body. Sundari, A5 joined this melee and attacked Mittaiyammal with the billhook. While the attack was going on, PW1, PW2 & Puttappan raised a commotion. On hearing this, PW4 and PW12, who owned lands adjacent to the deceased, rushed to the spot.
5. In the meantime, all the accused had fled from the scene of occurrence. PW1 immediately called his brother-in-law, Murugan PW7. Together with his assistance, the injured persons were rushed to the Government Hospital at Kaveripattinam. Taking note of the injuries, the Doctor referred them for further treatment to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri. Attending Doctors in Krishnagiri adviced them that they should get specialised treatment, and sent Puttappan to the Government Hospital at Dharmapuri. At Dharmapuri too, they were informed that the appropriate treatment would be available only at Salem. Therefore, the deceased Puttappan was taken by PW1 and PW7 to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem. Despite the efforts of the doctors at Salem, Puttappan succumbed to his injuries, and passed away at 4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 11.30 pm on the same day.
6. PW16, the Sub Inspector of Police had recorded the statement of PW1-Beeraj at Government Hospital in Krishnagiri, and registered an FIR bearing Crime No.93 of 2016 on 28.01.2016 at 4.00 pm. The statement given by Beeraj was treated as a complaint and the FIR was registered. The statement was exhibited as Ex.P1 and the FIR was exhibited as Ex.P20. The Sub Inspector of Police also prepared an observation Mahazar under Ex.P2, Seizure Mahazar under Ex.P4 and a rough sketch under Ex.P21. He also made an alteration report under Ex.P22. Thereafter, the case was taken over by PW17, who continued the investigation. He apprehended the accused and arrested them. He also recorded their contentions and effected recovery.
7. PW17 sent a requisition for post mortem and other related aspects. He filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate – I at Krishnagiri. It was in PRC.No.6 of 2016. Finding that it was a case which has to be tried only by a Court of Session, he committed the case to the District and Sessions Judge at Krishnagiri. The learned District Judge, thereafter, made over the case to the Additional District and Sessions Court for trial.
5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
8. The case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 294B, 341, 324, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC. A1 to A5 was charged with offence under Section 147, 148, 302 r/w 109 IPC. Apart from the aforesaid offences, A1 was charged with offence attracted under section 294B, 324, 506(ii). A3 and A4 were charged with offence under section 324 and A2 was charged with offence under section 302, while A5 was charged with offence u/s 302 r/w 109.
9. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. It exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 and marked MO.1 to MO.9.
10. After trial, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty in the following manner:
Sl. Appeal Accused Conviction and Sentence
No.
1 Crl.A.No.773 A1-Kuppan U/s.148, 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
of 2019 a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
&
U/s.324 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
A3-Prabhu U/s.148, 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
&
U/s.324, 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
A5-Sundari U/s.148, 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
&
U/s. 302 r/w 109 Life imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
6/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
2 Crl.A.No.780 A2-Govindan U/s.148, 3 years rigorous imprisonment with
of 2019 a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
&
U/s.302, Life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
3 Crl.A.No.781 A4-Sakthivel U/s.148, 3 years rigorous Imprisonment with
of 2019 a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
&
U/s.323, one year Simple Imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 3 months S.I.
&
U/s.324, 3 years rigorous Imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 6 months S.I.
11. We heard Mr.C.Iyyapparaj for Mr.M.Jothikumar for the petitioner in Crl.A.No.773 of 2019. Mr.A.S.Balaji for the appellant in Crl.A.No.780 of 2019 and Mr.Marugendran for Mr.M.Jothikumar in Crl.A.No.781 of 2019. All the appeals were opposed by Mr.A.Damodharan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem, Advocate for the State.
12. The learned counsels for the appellants urged as follows:
(i) There is no whisper about A5, a close relative of PW1 and the deceased, either in Ex.P1 or Ex.P20.
(ii) While the prosecution heavily relied upon Ex.P14/the Accident Register, the original of the same was not produced before the Court.
(iii) It is admitted by PW16 that he received the complaint from PW1 at Krishnagiri Hospital. However, no intimation was produced by 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 the prosecution to show that the deceased had undertaken treatment at Krishnagiri and thereafter, at Dharmapuri. The learned counsels pointed out that while Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 (Accident Registers) point out to the treatment at Kaveripattinam. The only record available thereafter is the post-mortem report from Salem Hospital.
13. Hinting at falsity of the case, they pointed out as follows:
(i) The entire case of the prosecution is based on the JCB being brought by PW9, to the land belonging to PW1. Reading extensively from PW9, they pointed out that the JCB was never brought to the land.
(ii) Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 have been manipulated and no reliance can be placed upon the same. The distance between Moranahalli and Kaveripattinam can be covered within half an hour, whereas the alleged incident is said to have been taken place at 10 am, and the injured and the deceased were brought to Kaveripattinam Hospital only 2 ½ hours thereafter.
(iii) From the time of incident till the death, there are no medical records.
(iv) The Judicial Magistrate had sent a pink lungi and a billhook to a serologist at Salem for examination under Ex.P29. A report had been submitted for the same under Ex.P27 wherein, the Serologist did 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 not discover any bloodstains either on the cloth or on the billhook, which is a weapon alleged to have been utilised by A2 and A5.
(v) Relying upon the accident register of the deceased, it is urged that there is no record of any injury on the nose.
(vi) Pointing out to the charge, they urged that Sections 147 and 148 are not attracted and the same is the situation with respect to Section 324, as no deadly weapons were used by A4.
(vii) No certificate has been produced to show that PW1 was conscious to give the complaint.
(viii) The statements marked invoking Section 27 of the Evidence Act have to be rejected as they do not fall within that section.
14. The learned counsels relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate the case of the appellants:
(i) Nga Po Nyan and Another v. Emperor, 1937 Cri LJ 299;
(ii) Manjunath and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 1421;
(iii) Madhusudan & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A.No.1509 of 2010 dated 02.05.2024;
(iv) Periyasamy v. The State, in Crl.A.No.270 of 2019 and Crl.A.No.271 of 2019 dated 18.03.2024.
9/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
(v) Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A.No.2300 of 2009 dated 08.11.2023; and
(vi) Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 3 SCC 350;
15. Rejecting these arguments, Mr.A.Damodharan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor urges that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW8 are cogent and those when combined with the recovery, points out to the guilt of the appellants. In an attempt to demolish the case of the appellants with regard to PW4, he states that PW12 had spoken about the presence of PW4 and therefore, this amounts to corroboration of her evidence. Drawing our attention to the post mortem report, he points out that the nine injuries mentioned by the eye witness stand confirmed by the said report and hence, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He urges that the learned Trial Judge has analysed the issue in detail. He points out that A4 had given a confession statement wherein he has stated as follows:
“vd;id Tl;og; nghdhy; ehd; rk;gtj;jpd; nghJ gad;gLj;jpa nkhud ms;spapy; cs;s v';fsJ bghJ fpzw;wpd; mUfpy; cs;s Kl;g[jhpy; kiwj;Jitj;Js;s Ma[jj;ij vLj;J M$h; bra;fpnwd;/ rk;gtk; ele;j ,lj;ija[k; milahsk; fhl;Lfpnwd;/”
16. Mr.A.Damodharan states that no improvement or embellishment has been made by any of the witnesses and as their 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 evidence are trustworthy and credible, the appeals ought to be dismissed. He relied upon the following authorities:
(i) Edakkandi Dineshan Alias P.Dineshan and Others v.
State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273;
(ii) State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan, (2016) 2 SCC 607;
(iii) Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365; and
(iv) Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Others v. State of Punjab, Crl.A.No.1389 of 2012.
17. We have carefully gone through the records and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.
18. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. They are close relatives and in fact, the land owners of adjacent farmlands. The complaint is said to have been received by PW16 at Krishnagiri . The complainant, Beeraj, has nowhere mentioned about the presence of A5 either in Ex.P1 or Ex.P20.
19. The nature of charges against A5 is a crucial one. The fifth person necessary, to complete the chain for Sections 147 and 148, is the presence of Sundari-A5. If Sundari had, in fact, played a crucial role at the time of occurrence, the alleged eye-witness PW1, who gave the complaint, would have certainly spoken about her presence. While 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 PW2 is said to have been attacked by the accused, she was neither admitted in the hospital, nor was any record produced by the prosecution to substantiate the said case. The fact that Beeraj did not mention about the presence of Sundari is accepted by him in his deposition. This casts a cloud over the case of the prosecution.
20. PW16 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He is said to have enquired into the complaint. During the course of his examination, he has accepted that the statement was recorded in the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri. However, the prosecution did not produce any material as to how he got the knowledge of PW1 being at Krishnagiri. Furthermore, though he is said to have recorded the 161 statement on 29.01.2016 itself, they reached the court with considerable delay. The following will vouch for the same:
(i) The statement of Mittaiyammal was recorded on 29.01.2016, but it reached the court on 26.05.2016. The same is the case with respect to Rani, Sivan, Manjammal, Govindan, Madesh, Thangaraj, Sekar, Beeramma, Mangamma, Saravana, Anbu, Muniyappan and Sakthivel.
(ii) Though the evidence of PW11 Dr.Hariram and Rajasekar is said to have been recorded on 16.03.2016, it reached the court only on 26.05.2016.
12/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
(iii) Dr.Karthick/PW14's statement also reached the court with delay. The reason as to why they reached the court with so much delay of nearly four months, has not been explained by the prosecution. Furthermore, though Ex.P14 has been marked through PW11, there is no endorsement on the said document to show that it had ever been sent to the court at all. We have to point out that Ex.P14 is the crucial accident register of the deceased Puttappan. These aspects too, cast a doubt over the case of the prosecution.
21. If this is the situation with PW16, the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by PW17 reflects an absolutely supine indifference in a case alleging a serious crime. The Investigating Officer, PW17, had not visited the scene of occurrence and had not recorded statements. He further states that he did not go over to the Krishnagiri Government Hospital for the purpose of collecting the medical reports regarding the treatment said to have been given to Beeraj and Puttappan.
22. On going through the records, we are able to see that one, Saravanan, is said to have accompanied PW1 and PW7. However, he was not examined as a witness. The same was the situation with respect to the driver of the pick up vehicle, who had taken the 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 deceased and PW1 to the hospital. In addition, while Ex.P23 shows as many as 5 witnesses were present at the time of inquest, none of them were examined during the course of trial.
Motive
23. The alleged motive for the incident is that, PW1 had engaged the services of a JCB in order to lay a pipeline to supply water for the property belonging to the deceased. It has come from the evidence of PW3 that the deceased had settled the property in the name of PW3 much earlier. As will be seen later, the presence of JCB in the site itself is doubtful. However, as not all crimes require a motive, we will independently analyse the evidence of each witnesses.
Analysis of the oral evidence
24. It is the specific case of PW1 that at 10.00 am on 28.01.2016, he went to the bus stand and had brought the JCB to the scene of occurrence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“28/01/2016 md;W fhiy 10 kzpfF
; ehd; ngUe;J
epiyaj;jpypUe;J JCB ,ae;jpuj;ij vdJ epyj;jpw;F miHj;Jr; brd;nwd;/” Whereas PW2 deposed that PW1 left the house only at 10.00 am. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“gPhu; h$; tPl;oypUe;J fhiy 10 kzpf;F ngha;tpl;lhh;/” 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 PW4, who is said to be a neighbouring land owner, deposed that the incident itself took place between 10 and 10.30. PW12, who was treated hostile, stated that the incident took place between 10 and 10.15. The approximation of the time in question is understandable, and that by itself does not throw a doubt on the case of the prosecution. However, it has to be seen that PW2 was clear that PW1 did not leave the house prior to 10 am. Therefore, the possibility of PW1 being at the bus stand in order to receive the JCB and take it to his land is doubtful.
25. PW9 is the driver who had been employed to drive the JCB.
In the course of cross examination, he admitted that he does not even possess a valid driving license for the purpose of driving a vehicle.
26. We will now turn to the contradictions in the evidence.
27. PW2 has been presented as an injured eye witness. Courts give importance to the testimony of injured eye witness as it puts them in the scene of crime. PW2 states that A5- Sundari picked up a billhook, which was thrown by Govindan to the ground and injured her. In order to show that she has suffered cut injury, no evidence has been brought forth before the Court. She initially deposed that she 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 took treatment for the cut injury, but soon thereafter, she would say that she did not go to hospital and take treatment for the same. An injury caused by a billhook would have been reflected in the accident register, had PW2, in fact, been injured. No accident register was produced by the prosecution to show that PW2 was injured at all. Even regarding the person as to who assaulted and gave PW2 her injury, there is a contradiction.
28. PW1 states that PW2 was assaulted by Sundari-A5, whereas PW2 deposed that she was assaulted by Prabhu-A3 using a bamboo stick. We have to recall here that the parties are not strangers to each other but are close relatives. Therefore, the possibility of confusing one person to another will not arise. On this matter, we have to point out another aspect. A5-Sundari is the wife of A1- Kuppan. Had Sundari been in the scene of crime when the complaint was lodged, certainly Sundari would have been named in the FIR. This is especially so, since the weapon which is alleged to have been used by A2-Govindan was handed over by Sundari. On this aspect, the complaint is totally silent. This gives raise to a doubt that Sundari was brought in as an accused, only for the purpose of satisfying the requirements laid down under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, for the said section cannot apply unless it can be established that participants were five 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 or more in number to constitute a riot. Furthermore, Sundari is the last remaining family member of A1 and A3, hence, it was proposed for that reason also, the prosecution could have brought her in as an accused. It is not as if solely on the basis of PW1, we came to this conclusion.
29. PW4 is a chance witness. She is not a natural witness, who is said to have been present at the time of incident by coincidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that PW4 had specifically stated that Selvi was present. It is here, we have to see whether it is plausible for PW4 to have been present at the scene of occurrence. PW4 states that she is a neighbor of PW1, PW2, as well as the accused. In her cross examination, she admitted that she had sold the property she possessed in that village. She deposed that she used to come from Moranahalli village for the purpose of grazing her goats. She states that she is a resident of Kariamangalam. She also admits that the distance between Kariamangalam and Moranahalli is about 24 kms. It is highly artificial and unnatural for a goat grazer to bring her goats for grazing from her residence at Kariamangalam to Moranahalli, which is about 24 kms away. In addition, it is natural that when a commotion is heard, the neighbours would rush to the scene of occurrence. However, PW4 states that the incident took place 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 between 10.00 am and 10.30 am and it was only after the commotion had ended, she went over to the site along with PW12. PW12 was treated as a hostile witness. He states that he accompanied PW4 to the scene of occurrence and did not see any of the accused there.
30 The court does not disregard the evidence of a chance witness. A chance witness is one who happens to be at the place of occurrence of an offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of course. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed. However, such chance witnesses are viewed with great scrutiny and caution than that of a regular witness. (See, State of Andhra Pradesh v. K.Srinivasulu Reddy, (2003) 12 SCC 660). The aforesaid discussion on the evidence of PW4 shows the possibility of PW4 having been present at the time of scene of crime, when she is admittedly residing 24 kms away from the said location, is doubtful. Furthermore, she has admitted in her cross examination that the area being a mountainous area, the lands of the accused and the deceased are about 15 feet higher than her land. Even if we assume that she was present and that she had looked up from her land, it would have been difficult for her to have seen as to what was taking place at a higher plane. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the evidence of PW4. 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
31. We now turn to the evidence of PW7. PW7 is said to have accompanied PW1 and the deceased to Kaveripattinam hospital. He states that they had utilized the services of a rental pick up vehicle for the purpose of undertaking this journey. The prosecution did not even examine the driver of the pick up van. In addition, no details of pick up van were furnished by the prosecution to the court. Apart from that, PW7 categorically states that he was in the police station for over one hour. The case of the prosecution is that, the Sub-inspector of Police came to know about the incident and had gone over to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri and it was only there, he came to know about the incident and had recorded the complaint. If PW7 is to be believed, then the complaining party should have been already present in the police station much before the deceased was taken to the Krishnagiri Government Hospital. It was not a fleeting visit, but he had been there for one hour. This too, raises a doubt in the case of the prosecution.
32. Now we turn to the crucial evidence of PW11 and PW14, who are the doctors, who examined the deceased when he was alive, i.e., the accident register doctor and the post mortem doctor. PW11 produced an accident register copy of the deceased. It is marked as 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 Ex.P14. It is a carbon copy. On a pointed question as to whether the original is available, PW11 answers in the negative. As to why the primary evidence of the original accident register was not produced, has not been explained by the prosecution. Even if we were to look into Ex.P14, it becomes clear that it surfaced for the first time before the court, only during the time of deposition. It was never sent to the Magistrate’s Court earlier. Ex.P14 does not have even a Sl.No. When a document is not produced before the Court along with the charge sheet, we are flummoxed as to how the same could have been produced at the time of examination for the first time. The doubt on the document produced by the prosecution does not stop here.
33. Ex.P15, the accident register of PW1, which was produced, also does not have any Sl.No. This had been sent to the Magistrate Court by the prosecution on 26.05.2016.
34. Ex.P16 is an intimation sent to the police from the hospital. Police station and the hospital are separated only by a common wall. Ex.P16 has certain telephone numbers written on them and it is not explained as to whose numbers they are.
35. There is an overwriting in the time of admission too. It was 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 originally written as 11.35 pm and subsequently, corrected to 12.35 pm. This insertion has also not been explained.
36. A crucial aspect, which comes from the evidence of PW11, is that there were no cut injuries found on the deceased Puttappan. The relevant portion of the evidence is extracted hereunder :
“g[ll; g;gd; kw;Wk; gPh;uh$; Mfpnahh;fSf;F Vw;gl;l fha';fspy; btl;Lf;fhak; ,y;iy/ /// Th;ikahd Ma[jj;jhy; jhf;fpdhy; btl;Lf;fha';fs; ,Ue;jpUf;Fk;. mt;thwhd fha';fs; g[l;lg;gDf;Fk;. gPh;uh$;f;Fk; ,y;iy/” PW11 further adds that the injuries, which were found on Puttappan and Beeraj, could have occurred on account of a fall also. It is pertinent to point out that no wound certificate or medical records showing treatment, other than Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 were produced by the prosecution to substantiate the case.
37. From the evidence of PW14, the post mortem doctor, we find there is a doubt in the case of the prosecution. PW14 states that the injuries found on the deceased were uneven and lacerated. He adds that such would not have been the case, had a sharp instrument been used to cause the said injury. The relevant portion of evidence is extracted hereunder:
“fha';fspy; Xu';fs; rPuhf ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jJ/ … ,e;j 21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 fha';fs; xt;bthd;wpd; khh;$[pDk; rPuhf ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jJ/ fj;jpia bfhz;L btl;Lk;nghJ rPuhd fhak; Vw;gLtjw;F tha;gg; [ss ; J/”
38. Another aspect of the case which cannot be brushed aside is Ex.P27 and Ex.29. Ex.P29 is a request made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri to the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Lab, Salem. The Magistrate had asked for the following queries:
“1/ gFg;gha;tpw;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;s jla';fspy; fhzg;gLtJ kdpj ,uj;jk; jhdh> 2/ kdpj ,uj;jk; vd;why; mJ ve;j tifiar; rhh;e;jJ> 3/ cilfspYk;. Ma[jj;jpYk; cs;sJ xnu ,uj;jk; jhdh> 4/ xnu ,uj;jk; vd;why; bfhiya[z;L ,we;Jnghd g[ll; g;gd; ,uj;jj;Jld; xj;Jg;nghfpwjh>”
39. In response to this request dated 16.02.2016, the Forensic Department Salem sent a report on 10.03.2016, which is marked as Ex.P27. The report shows that the pink lungi and the billhook, which were said to have been used to assault the deceased, did not contain any blood. We have to recollect here, the specific case of the prosecution is that the billhook was not only used by A2-Govindan to attack Puttappan, but the very same billhook had been used by A5- Sundari to injure PW2, Mittayiammal. If the case of the prosecution were to be true, there would have been some trace of human blood in the material objects. In a case already riddled with contradictions, this 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 scientific evidence delivers a huge blow to the case.
Recovery
40. We will now turn to another crucial aspect of the case, namely, recovery. The case of the prosecution is that, on the basis of the confessions that were given by A1 to A4, recovery was effected from the same place at 2.15 pm, 3.15 pm, 4.15 pm and 5.15 pm. It is truly bewildering that, when on the basis of the confession of A1, the Investigating Officer went to the location and effected recovery, he did not notice the other material objects, which he would have certainly seen at that time. It questions one's intelligence as to why in order to recover the remaining material objects, they would have to record the confession statements of A2, A3 and A4, and then go to the very same place and recover the weapons all over again.
41. Furthermore, the recovery had taken place from an open area, which is accessible not only to the accused, but also to the complaining party. It is an open agricultural land which is accessible to anyone. It is here, we will refer to a classic judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828. This judgment, more or less affirms the celebrated view of the privy council in Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor, (1947) 60 LW 258. In Mohmed Inayatullah’s case, a detailed 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was undertaken and three conditions were imposed. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“12. The expression “provided that” together with the phrase “whether it amounts to a confession or not” show that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only “so much of the information” as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word “distinctly” means “directly”, “indubitably”, “strictly”, “unmistakably”. The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered” is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.” Hence, there should be a “discovery” of a fact to invoke Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the information that is given by the accused, through his confession, should be the immediate and direct cause of the discovery. When the discovery would have been made from the statement of A1, if at all; the necessity for recording confession from A2 to A4 does not arise.
42. Recently, in Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 13 SCC 716, the Supreme Court pointed out that if recoveries are made from the places which are accessible to one and all, no reliance can be placed on such recovery. Useful reference can also be made for the same proposition to Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 6 SCC 605 and Manjunath and others v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online SC 1421.
25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019
43. It is only a person of highly diminished intelligence, who would go to the same spot four different times on the basis of four confession statements, to recover four material objects. A competent Investigating Officer, upon discovering the material object for the first time on approaching an area where the material objects were hidden for the first time, would immediately notice the others. He would not wait for the confession statement of the other accused, unless and until he required it for the purpose of foisting the case, so as to record the Section 27 recovery individually from each accused and effect recovery thereafter.
44. In the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370, the Supreme Court had pointed out that the article, which is recovered by virtue of Section 27 confession should be hidden from the ordinary view and should be discovered only due to the information given by the accused. If this view is taken into consideration, then by 2.15 pm, when the investigating officer went along with the first accused to recover the material certainly, he would have discovered the other material objects also. The principle is that the recovery must be from a hidden or concealed place, which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused, and only then, it satisfies the requirements of Section 27 because it is only on the 26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 information of the accused that the object which is secreted in a place, which is not known to others is recovered by the police. That not being the situation in the present case, the manner, in which the recovery had been done, casts huge doubt in the case of the prosecution.
45. The learned Trial Judge ought not to have permitted the making of the statements under section 27 of A2 to A4. A reading of the judgment shows that he has not analysed the evidence in the correct perspective. It is a settled position of law that where doubts arise in the case of the prosecution, benefit should go to the accused. As these aspects have escaped the attention of the learned Trial Judge, which has come to our attention after the entire analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, we are constrained to interfere.
46. In the light of the above discussion, we have no other option than to conclude that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Having come to the said conclusion, the natural consequence that has to follow is to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.147 of 2016 dated 17.10.2019 is set aside. They shall stand acquitted from the charges levied against them. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine 27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 amount, if any, shall be refunded.
(M.S.R., J.) (V.L.N., J.)
10.10.2025
nl
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 M.S.RAMESH, J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl Crl.A.Nos.780, 773 & 781 of 2019 10.10.2025 29/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )