Madras High Court
Mariammal vs Sakthivel on 25 October, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 07.10.2025
Pronounced on 25.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A. (MD) No.334 of 2022
Mariammal : Appellant/victim
Vs.
1. Sakthivel
2. Esakkimuthu@ Kumar
3. Samadurai@ Chinnadurai
4. Marimuthu@ Mari ...Respondents/accused
5. State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Palayamkottai Police Station
Tirunelveli District ...Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.367 of 2017 on the file
of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and set aside the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judge on 02.03.2022 and
thereby allow the appeal by convicting the accused for the charges framed
against them.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.R. Anand
For R5 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J., This Criminal Appeal is filed by the mother of the deceased against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.367 of 2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The fifth respondent police registered a case against the respondents 1 to 4 herein in Crime No.107 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(2) of IPC. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirunelveli, who took the same on file in PRC No.29 of 2015 and furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., to the accused, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was taken on file in S.C.No.367 of 2017 and made over to the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against the respondents 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(2) of IPC.
2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
3. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 22 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22, and 7 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.7.
4. After the examination of prosecution witnesses, when the respondents 1 to 4 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, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and four exhibits were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D4.
5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side, by judgment dated 02.03.2022, found the respondents 1 to 4 not guilty of all the charged offences and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased, has filed the present appeal before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/victim would submit that the private respondents waylaid the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons and also caused multiple injuries on the vital 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 parts of the body due to previous motive. Further, P.W.9 and P.W.10 had deposed about the motive between the deceased and the private respondents. The trial Court has failed to consider the motive attributed by the prosecution, which was also substantiated by the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.9 and P.W.10 and also by P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant, alleged to have given the complaint before the official respondent, and he is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.2 is also another eyewitness to the occurrence, who is also an auto driver and knows very well about both the deceased and the private respondents. They are all auto drivers of the same locality, and there was some previous enmity between them regarding parking of autos in a particular place. Therefore, all the private respondents with a common intention to take away the life of the deceased, on 25.02.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., when the deceased came by auto along with P.W.1, the accused persons waylaid the deceased, and when the deceased diverted the auto, all the accused persons waylaid and abused him in filthy language, and in order to execute the plan with a common intention, they attacked him with deadly weapons and caused multiple injuries to the deceased, and thereby the deceased died on the spot.
7. The respondent police registered a case and investigated the matter. P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the motive attributed against the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 accused persons and also identified the deadly weapons handled by the private respondents. Though P.W.2 turned hostile, P.W.3 is also one of the eyewitnesses who has also spoken about the occurrence and also the overt act attributed to the accused persons. Further, through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons. P.W.6 is a witness to the confession statement and also recovery of weapons used by the private respondents during the course of occurrence. Though the recovery and confession made before the police are not admissible in evidence , being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; however, the confession statement leading to recovery is admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. From the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10, the prosecution has established the motive behind the brutal murder. Further, the eye witnesses are also co-auto drivers in the same locality and the same stand, and they are engaged in taking school trips. Further, all the private respondents are siblings and they with a common intention attacked the deceased with deadly weapons on the vital parts of the body, due to which he sustained multiple injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries.
8. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased has also clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 deceased and also corroborated the witnesses and the weapons used by the private respondents. Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has given much importance to the immaterial contradictions and discrepancies and also to the presumption and has decided that due to communal rivalry, there was complete traffic block in the said area and they staged a demonstration and protest; due to pressure, the respondent police had wrongly fixed the private respondents as accused without any materials.
9. Though in this case the prosecution has established substantial charges, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for reasons best known. The State has not filed any appeal. However, the victim has filed this appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that the deceased died in the early morning on the date of occurrence and they were not aware of the incident and also the presence of the accused causing injuries to the deceased. Since the community people of the deceased made a demonstration and protest in the public place and also the respondent police were unable to find out the real culprits and in order to control the situation, they registered a false case against the private respondents. Further, P.W.1 could not have witnessed 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 the occurrence, and his presence at the place of occurrence is also highly doubtful. At the same time, P.W.2 to P.W.4 could not have witnessed the occurrence and their very presence is also doubtful. It was a very busy hour, and the auto drivers were taking school trips and dropping the school students, and therefore due to the pressure of the respondent police, they made themselves eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1, P.W. 3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, he would submit that they have not identified the weapons to the doctor at the time of examination of the witnesses and the possibility of causing injuries through the marked weapons were was not established. The occurrence is said to have taken place near Galaxy Hospital, whereas in the rough sketch, the said Galaxy Hospital is not shown, and therefore the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, thereby the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in order to control the communal riot in the village, they registered the false case; therefore, none of the witnesses have stated about the weapons used by the accused persons and the specific time when the accused persons are said to have assaulted the deceased and what injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused persons. Further, P.W.1 does not even speak about the motor cycle in which the accused are said to have ridden on the alleged date of occurrence, and he did not specify the number of the vehicle and the colour of the vehicle, and he does not even specify the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 at the scene of occurrence. He just deposes that on seeing the accused, he crossed over to the other side of the road and was not able to watch the occurrence. He does not speak about the injuries said to have been caused by the accused, or who had caused which injury. P.W.3 and P.W.4 also, though specified certain overt acts to each of the four accused, however the same do not tally with the place and number of injuries as found on the body of the deceased as referred by the doctor. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also adopted the settled proposition of law that if two views are possible, the trial Court should only take into account the view favouring the accused. Since the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the private respondents. There is no merit in the appeal, and that is the reason the State has not filed any appeal. In order to wreck vengeance, the family members of the deceased have filed this appeal, and there is no merit in the appeal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor during the arguments made an attempt to challenge the judgment of the trial Court. However, since the prosecution has not filed any appeal and challenged the judgment of the trial Court he is not entitled to make any submissions. However, this Court has heard the submissions of the 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased as well as the defacto complainant, the other eyewitnesses, and the first accused were all auto drivers, especially they had their autos stationed at Sandhimarithamman Auto Stand, Thatchanallur. The accused are siblings and they belong to Thevar community, while the deceased belongs to Yadavar community, which is a predominant community in Thatchanallur. In 2011, due to the murder of Postmaster Periyasamy, who belongs to Thevar community, there was some internal tussle between the accused and the deceased Ponniah. A complaint was also lodged at Thatchanallur Station, and both communities were called upon and advised not to trouble each other and create any problem. Subsequently, there was a dispute between the first accused Sakthivel and Ponniah, which led to Sakthivel beating Ponniah, who in turn had beaten Sakthivel. Sakthivel was pondering over this particular incident, and had discussed it with his brothers, the remaining three accused, and all four had an ill motive towards Ponniah. As a continuation of this particular ill motive, on 25.02.2015, when Ponniah was returning back, the accused, in two motorcycles, intercepted him, and all four wielding aruval (billhook) had 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 struck him, which led to the death of Ponniah at the same spot. This was witnessed by Nellaiappan, the defacto complainant, and the other three witnesses who had followed them, and they shouted at the accused, when all four threatened them and criminally intimidated them, as well as the other bystanders who were shouting, which led to a standstill in traffic. Due to vengeance, to take revenge the accused had waylaid Ponniah, abused him in public, murdered him, and also criminally intimidated the witnesses and others who were standing there, and they also proceeded with a common intention. Thereafter, based on the complaint given by P.W.1, who is none other than the auto driver who also travelled along with the deceased in the said auto at the time of occurrence, they conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet.
13. The main defence taken by the private respondents is that the evidence of the so-called witnesses is highly doubtful since it was peak hour; all the witnesses and the deceased would have been busy in picking and dropping the school students at 8.15 a.m., and therefore the presence of the witnesses and other auto drivers at the place of occurrence is highly improbable and doubtful. Further, they have not specifically identified the weapon, and there are material contradictions, and therefore the trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt to the private respondents.
10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
14. On a perusal of the complaint/Ex.P.1, it is seen that P.W.1 is the informant who gave the complaint has clearly spoken about the occurrence and that on 25.02.2015 at about 08.15 a.m., he had made a drop to the school, and when the auto neared Chellapandian statute, the auto driven by him was stopped midway due to mechanical default he got lift from the deceased to pick up mechanic and while reaching a agro finance vacant site where A1 and A2 came in a two-wheeler bearing Reg. No.TN 72 AD 9153 and waylaid the deceased, and when the deceased diverted the auto at that time A3 and A4 were already in the place and all of them surrounded the deceased, having aruval in their hands, and they attacked the deceased on the vital parts of the body, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, and that the eye witnesses immediately moved to a distant place due to fear. The place of occurrence was a vacant site and nobody was there, during the occurrence the people gathered there, and at that time P.W.3 and P.W.4 came to the nearby place and they saw the occurrence. Though P.W.2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are the auto drivers taking school trips at that time, witnessed the occurrence, and they have clearly spoken about it and thereby corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. Further, the evidence of P.W.9, who is also another auto driver of the same stand, has spoken about the previous motive that there was a dispute between the deceased and the 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 private respondents, and they made a complaint before the Thatchanallur Police Station, and they were advised not to quarrel. Further, P.W.10, who is the Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, has clearly stated that on 14.11.2014, when she was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9 gave a complaint against one of the respondents regarding a dispute in the auto stand; she also gave CSR No.216/2014, and thereafter she called both the parties and pacified the dispute and advised them not to repeat the same, and thereafter she heard about the death of the deceased on 25.02.2015. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W. 10, the prosecution has proved the previous motive. There was a dispute between A1 and the deceased regarding stationing the auto in the stand, and therefore he made a complaint; thus, there was a previous motive and to wreck vengeance, A2 to A4, who are the brothers of A1, with a common intention, on the date of occurrence, waylaid the deceased and caused his death. P.W.13 is the witness for the confession and recovery.
15. P.W.7, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, has spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased. From the combined reading of the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7, the injuries tally with the weapons recovered. Therefore, there is a motive, and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and also the occurrence through witnesses. All the medical evidence and the recovered weapons also 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 corroborated the same, and therefore, while re-appreciating the evidence, this Court has found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court would show that much importance was given only to certain contradictions and discrepancies. According to this Court, those are not material contradictions which would go to the root of the case of the prosecution. The contradictions pointed out by the respondents are only minor contradictions and are not material enough to affect the root of the case of the prosecution.
16. P.W.3, in his evidence before the Court, even specified the registration number of the two-wheelers in which the accused are said to have travelled, whereas in the statement before the police, there is no such reference, and the number which is referred is TN72 AP 9153. There is no other reference regarding the other two-wheeler, and the very same number finds place in the statement of P.W.4. The case was registered in the year 2015, and the trial commenced only in the year 2019, and after four years it is difficult to remember the colour and name of the two- wheeler, and those are not material contradictions.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that mere defect in investigation is not a sole ground for acquitting the accused. When the 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 witnesses have clearly spoken about the overt act and also the motive with specific corroboration, the trial Court ought to have considered the said materials. Further, one of the defence taken by the private respondents is that the Court has given much importance to the theory that there was a communal clash and, due to non-tracing of the real culprits and inability to control the situation, the prosecution had fixed the private respondents as accused. There are no materials to show that there was a communal clash immediately soon before the occurrence. The private respondents stated that the murder took place in the early morning, but there is no material to show that there was any such incident in the early morning. The eyewitnesses, namely P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, have clearly stated that it occurred only after 8.10 a.m., between 8.00 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. The materials show that since the accused brutally attacked the deceased, the fifth respondent police registered the case against the named accused. Since the respondent police did not arrested the accused, people gathered and made a demonstration to give justice to the family of the deceased; thereafter, only the accused were arrested on the next day, and thereafter, in order to escape from the clutches of law, they invented the said defence.
18. The trial Court has also given much importance to the defence version that the occurrence took place in the early hours. Since 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 the respondent police could not trace or identify the real culprits and due to previous enmity of the community people, they fixed the private respondents as accused. However there is no materials to prove such incident. In the absence of the same, the findings of the trial Court is not sustainable. The clear motive has been established by the eyewitnesses, and they have spoken about the specific overt act as against the private respondents, and the private respondents were arrested only on the next day.
19. Further this Court finds that the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent, consistent and reliable which inspires the confidence of this Court and there is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1.
20. From the reading of the entire materials, this Court, while re-appreciating the evidence, has found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but in spite of that, the trial Court has given much importance only to immaterial contradictions and the illusory motive fails to appreciate the facts and evidence on records and has acquitted the private respondents herein. The judgment of the trial Court suffers from perversity, having been rendered without proper appreciation of evidence and law and therefore liable to be set aside. 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
21. There is no specific overt act attributed against the private respondents herein that they used abusive words towards the appellant and others in the public place; therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not proved, and therefore this Court finds that the private respondents herein have not committed the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and thereby acquits them of the said offence.
22. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is clear that due to previous motive, the private respondents herein waylaid the deceased with an intention to cause his death; they attacked him brutally with deadly weapons, and therefore they have committed the offences under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC.
23. P.W.3 has also specifically stated that when he tried to save the life of the deceased, the accused persons also threatened the witnesses with dire consequences, and therefore they have committed the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC.
24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since it is a reversal judgment, it is necessary to direct the respondents 1 to 4/accused to appear before this Court.
16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022
25. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 / Accused shall ensure the presence of the appellants on the next date of hearing.
26. The Registry is directed to list this matter on 03.11.2025 for questioning the respondents 1 to 4 / Accused on the sentence for the proved charges.
(P.V.,J.) (R.P.J.,) 25.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav To:
1.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli
2. The Inspector of Police Palayamkottai Police Station Tirunelveli 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.17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and R.POORNIMA,J.
aav Crl.A(MD)No.334 of 2022 25.10.2025 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 03:39:07 pm )