Madras High Court
Padmapriya vs State By on 17 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1946 of 2020 and 2440 of 2021
Padmapriya ... Appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.574/2019
1. Karunamoorthy
2. Mahendran
3. Sekar
4. Rajendran
5. Ganesan ... Appellants/A2 to 5 & 7 in Crl.A.No.102/2020
Chandrakumar ... Appellant/A6 in Crl.A.No.100/2021
-vs-
State by
The Inspector of Police,
B-5, Singanallur Police Station,
Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.1887 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against
conviction and sentence passed by judgment dated 07.08.2019 in S.C.No.77
of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Mahalir
Neethimandrm, Coimbatore.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy
(in Crl.A.No.574/2019)
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh
(For A1 to A4) & Mr.A.R.Balaji
(For A5) in Crl.A.No.102/2020
Mr.T.R.Sivaram
(in Crl.A.No.100/2021)
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.) These appeal arise against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandrm, Coimbatore, passed in S.C.No.77 of 2015 dated 07.08.2019. While acquitting the 8th accused, the Appellants herein (A1 to A7) were convicted by the Trial Court as detailed below:
Rank Conviction Sentence A1 to A7 Section 120-B r/w To undergo Life Imprisonment each 302 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year each 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 A1 and Section 147 IPC To undergo 2 years R.I. each with fine A3 to A6 of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each.
A2 Section 148 IPC To undergo 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
A1 to A6 Section 460 IPC To undergo Life Imprisonment each with fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year each A1 to A6 Section 302 r/w 34 To undergo Life Imprisonment each IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year each All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone by the accused was directed to be set off. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandrm, Coimbatore, the Appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeals before this Court.
2. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that during pendency of the appeal, the 2nd accused, namely, Karunamoorthy died and he has also filed a proof thereof.
3.Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows: 3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 3.1. The deceased (Ranganayaki) is the mother of P.Ws.1 & 2 and mother-in-law of the 1st accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the 1st accused had enmity with the deceased as the deceased did not give any property to the 1st accused and therefore, decided to do away with the deceased. The 1st accused engaged other accused to eliminate her. On 26.12.2013 at about 3.30 hours, the 1st accused hired other hooligans, formed in the house and cut the deceased with M.O.25. P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and A1.
P.W.1, on hearing the news about the death of the deceased / mother, rushed to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint before P.W.34, who registered a case under Ex.P52 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. When P.W.2 rushed the spot on 26.12.2013, she found that Police were already present in the house. P.W.3, who is a Driver by profession went to Sabarimala on 24.12.2023 was informed over phone that his mother was done to death by somebody.
3.2. P.W.4 signed the Observation Mahazar Ex.P4. Ex.Ps.2 and 3 are the seizure mahazars and M.Os.1 to 7 were seized in his presence. 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 P.W.6's signature has been obtained under Ex.P5 in the confession statement of one of the accused. P.W.7's signature has also been obtained under Ex.P6 in the confession statement of one of the accused and seizure mahazar was marked under Ex.P7 and P.W.7 also identified photos of 5 persons under Ex.P8. P.W8 is the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.15 is her Assistant. P.W.8 deposed that while she was in her office, the 1st accused appeared before her on 27.12.2013 at 10.00am and confessed the crime and admitted that she engaged other accused to eliminate the deceased. The confession of A1 was recorded by P.W.8 under Ex.P9 and later, she gave a special report and handed over the accused to the Inspector of Police, who examined A1 and recorded her confession. In pursuance of the admission portion of the confession, Police seized dresses under Ex.P12. P.W.10's signature was obtained by the Police in the confession statement of A3 and also in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.14 & 15). P.W.11's signature was obtained in the confession statement of A8 and also in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.16 & 17). P.W.12's signature was obtained in the confession statement of A8 and also in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.18 &
19). P.W.13's signature was obtained in the confession statement of A8 and 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.20 & 21) as also the signature of P.W.14 was obtained in the confession statement of A4 and in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.22 & 23). P.W.15's signatures were obtained in the extra judicial confession statement of A1, in the confession statement of A1, in the seizure mahazar, in Form No.95 and also in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.24 to 28).
3.3. P.W.16 is the Manager of Sri Anubav Jewellers.
According to him, two years' back, A1 purchased a chain under Ex.P.29. P.W.17 is the Secretary of Erakudi Co-Operative Society and on 26.12.2013, one Chitra / P.W.27 mortgaged a gold chain and two studs and received Rs.30,000/-, in respect of which, receipts were given under Ex.Ps.31 and 32. According to P.W.17, Police has shown the chain. P.W.18's signature has been obtained in the confession statement of A2 and in the seizure mahazar (Ex.Ps.33 & 34). According to P.W.21, a Cashier in Erakudi Co-Operative Society, Chitra was brought by the Police and the Secretary handed over the jewel on paying the amount by himself. P.W.21's signature was obtained in the seizure mahazar under Ex.P37 and the xerox 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 copy of the register for giving loan on jewel was marked as Ex.P38. P.W.23 is the Nodal Officer for Vodafone and according to him, as per the request of the Investigation Officer, he had given the call details of phone numbers (Ex.P39). P.W.23 stated that owners of the cellphone numbers, viz., 9843095514 and 9843095515 are one Chinnadurai, Muthu City Developers and similarly, phone no.9789247725 belongs to one Baskar. P.W.24, photographer took the photographs under Ex.P40 series and P.W.25 has removed the tiles from the place of occurrence at the request of Police and handed over the same to Police. P.W.26 stated that phone number 9751272161 belongs to him and other Vodafone Nos.9843095514 and 9843095515 do not belong to him. According to P.W.27, she denied the signature in Ex.P32 / receipt for jewel loan. P.W.28, a Scientific Assistant was examined in respect of material objects and issued reports under Ex.Ps.42 and 43. P.W.29, a Finger Print Expert deposed that on receiving a call from Control Room, she went to the place of occurrence and found two finger prints. When those finger prints were compared with A1's signature, it did not tally and she had issued a report to that effect under Ex.P44. Further, she also compared the finger prints with one Chandrasekar / A6 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 and Karunakaran / A2 and both chance finger prints were tallied with the accused and she issued a report under Ex.P45. P.W.30 / Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and noted the followings in the post-mortem report (Ex.P47):
“1) Scratch nail mark abrasion three in number noted over medial aspect of left side cheek.
2) Abrasion 0.5x0.5cm noted over tip of nose, 0.5x0.5 cm noted over lateral aspect of right upper lip and 0.5x0.5cm noted over base of nose.
3) A Tranverse cut injury 8x4 cm x tracheal deep noted over lower part of neck in its front of both sides.
On dissection of Nect: The wound cutting the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves including both carotid sheaths and its contants and cutting the lower part of thyroid cartilage. Trachea and bronchioles filled with blood clots.
4) Reddish contusion 4x2 cm noted on front and both side of lower part of right leg and another reddish contusion 3x2cm noted ob front of lower part of left leg.
5) Reddish contusion 3x2 cm noted on front of mid right arm and another reddish contusion 4x2 cm noted on front of lower part of left arm.
P.W.30 finally opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury in the neck and his final opinion was marked after receipt of forensic report under Ex.49.
3.4. P.W.31, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri conducted identification parade on 23.01.2014, wherein witnesses identified the 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 accused and he had given a report under Ex.P.50. P.W.32 is the Special Sub-Inspector in Deductive Dog Squad and according to him, the Dog went to left side for some distance and later stopped. P.W.33 is the Nodal Officer in Bharathi Airtel Limited and he provided cellphone call details under Ex.P.51. P.W.34, Sub-Inspector of Police registered the FIR (Ex.P52) and forwarded the complaint to the Court with a copy to the Investigation Officer and gave a requisition to collect the sample hair from A1. P.W.35 has also issued call particulars under Ex.P53. P.W.36's signature was obtained in Form-95 under Ex.P54.
3.5. P.W.37 / Inspector of Police, after receipt of FIR, conducted investigation, went to the scene of occurrence on 26.12.2023 at 11.30pm, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P4), rough sketch (Ex.P55), conducted inquest over the dead body (Ex.P56), seized M.Os.1 to 5 from the dead body, sent the body for autopsy with a requisition for post-mortem and seized blood stained tiles and ordinary tiles in M.Os.6 & 7 from the place of occurrence under Ex.Ps.2 & 3. In the meanwhile, A1 was handed over by P.W.8 with extra judicial confession and thereafter, P.W.37 arrested A1 and 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 recorded her confession in the presence of P.Ws.8 & 15 and seized M.O.16. As per the admitted portion in the confession (Ex.P57), he recovered blood stained saree (M.O.8) and also her jacket (M.O.9) under Ex.P12. A1 was sent to the hospital to collect her hair sample that was marked as M.O.11 and forwarded the same to the Court. Thereafter, P.W.37 arrested A7 and after examination, sent him for remand. Later, P.W.37 arrested A3 at 14.00 hours in the presence of one Senthilkumar and Jayaraman and recorded his confession and pursuant to the admitted portion in the confession statement (Ex.P60), he seized blood stained t-shirt M.O.12 under seizure mahazar (Ex.P61). P.W.37 thereafter took the custody of the accused Rajendran and secured from the Court and later, arrested the accused A8 on 07.01.2014 and seized Rs.1470/- and cellphone (M.Os.15 & 14) under Ex.P63 in pursuance of the admitted portion of the confession (Ex.P62). Thereafter, P.W.37 took the custody of A4 and recorded his confession and pursuant to the admitted portion of the confession (Ex.P64), seized M.Os.16 to 18 under Ex.P.65. Subsequently, P.W.37 arrested Chandrakumar (A6) and recorded his confession and seized cellphone, pursuant to the admitted portion of the confession (Ex.P69), took the Police custody of the accused 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 Karunamurthy/A2, recorded his confession and also seized blood stained t- shirt and knife (M.Os.25 & 26), pursuant to the admitted portion of the confession (Ex.P71). He also requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct Test Identification Parade and after examination of all other witnesses, he finally laid a final report against the accused under Section 302 r/w 120-B, 147, 148, 450, 302 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 149 and 460 IPC.
3.6. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 38 witnesses and marked 74 exhibits and 31 material objects. On behalf of defence, neither witness were examined and nor exhibits marked. On appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, the Trial Court, under judgment dated 07.08.2019, convicted and sentenced them as afore-stated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the so-called extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.8 is highly doubtful. All other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 have not been established. None of the witnesses to the alleged confession and recovery has spoken about the involvement of the accused. That apart, the prosecution has not established the alleged call details and the ownership of the cellphone. Further, lifting of so-called finger prints is highly attached with artificiality. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the guilt of the accused was duly unearthed by the prosecution through the extra judicial confession of A1 (Ex.P9), which led to the recovery and other material objects. That apart, the lifting of chance finger prints of two of the accused has been duly spoken by P.W.29. The Trial Court rightly convicted the accused to undergo sentences as afore-stated. The judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record. 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
7. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstance, namely, i) motive, ii) extra judicial confession given by A1 iii) seizure of material objects, such as blood stained dress from A1 and other accused and seizure of chain from P.W.26 and iv) the evidence of P.W.29 with regard to the alleged finger prints of A2 & A6. To prove a case of circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that all the circumstances should be complete and there should not be any missing link to base conviction.
8. Insofar as motive is concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that A1 had the grudge with her mother-in-law for not giving any property and she also caused harassment to A1 and therefore, A1 decided to eliminate her mother-in-law. In this regard, the family members of the deceased (P.Ws.1 to 3) have been examined. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the daughters of the deceased and P.W.3 is the husband of A1 and son of the deceased. In their evidences, there is no whisper about the alleged dispute between the deceased and A1. In fact, Ex.P1 has been lodged by P.W.1, in which it was stated that the deceased was residing in the same premises in a different portion. A1 and P.W.3 were living in an other portion. In their 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 evidence, they never stated that there was a dispute between A1 and the deceased. Thus, the alleged motive theory relied upon by the prosecution has not been established. There is no material to show that there was a motive to eliminate the deceased. Of course, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, which was clearly spoken by the Medical Officer (P.W.30) and issued a report under Ex.P49. The report discloses the fact that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. The prosecution has relied upon the extra judicial confession said to have been given by A1 to P.W.8 / VAO on 26.12.2013 at 10.00am, which led to the arrest of other accused. On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.8, it shows as if A1 appeared before her at 10.00am and gave a minute details about the occurrence and the same has been recorded in the presence of P.W.15, who is her Assistant. The evidence of P.W.8 that A1 appeared before her for the first time at 10.00am is highly doubtful. The evidence of P.W.3, when carefully seen, reveals that A1 was taken custody along with P.W.3 and they were in the Police Station and P.W.3 was subsequently let out. A1 was kept in the Police Station. Therefore, the appearance of A1 on the next day before VAO, particularly when P.W.3 clearly deposed that A1 was detained 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 in the Police Station, is highly doubtful. When the evidence of P.W.8 is carefully perused, she stated that she never visited the place of occurrence and her office is 300ft away from the place of occurrence, whereas in the cross examination of P.W.15 / Assistant, he deposed that they reached the spot immediately after the Police came to the place of occurrence. His evidence is that VAO reached the spot at 9.45am and till the dead body was removed from the place at around 11.00am, they were in the place of occurrence, including A1.
9. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.15 that P.W.8 went to the graveyard and till 5.00pm, they were in the spot. When A1 was present throughout the day, her appearance before P.W.8 on the next day as stated by P.W.8 is highly doubtful, as in view of the evidence of P.W.3, A1 was in the Police Station. It is relevant to note that normally, if extra judicial confession inspires confidence, the same will itself be sufficient to give conviction and it can be taken as a substantive piece of evidence to base conviction. However, when the extra judicial confession is doubtful and created for the purpose of the case, such confession cannot be relied upon. 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 Since the extra judicial confession is shrouded with doubt, it is very unsafe to rely on the same in respect of circumstance relied upon by the prosecution.
10. The version of prosecution is that A1 was arrested and blood stained dresses were seized near CTC Bus Depot under Ex.P12. In the evidence of P.W.8, it was stated that material objects were buried in the earth and thereafter, the same were recovered by the Police. But, the said evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.15. In the chief examination, P.W.15 stated that those material objects were seized from the bushes.This aspect creates doubt. It is relevant to note that the place where the material objects were seized is just 10 ft. away from the bus depot. It is an open place and therefore, the version that a person coming to the bus depot and concealing the material objects is also highly doubtful. To substantiate the seizure of material objects, none of the workers working in the bus depot has been examined. This creates doubt about the prosecution version.
11. With regard to other circumstance that accused gave confession and material objects, namely, dresses were recovered, we are of 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 the view that none of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove the confession and also the recovery has supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, Police seized such material objects after two days and the recovery effected from the place where the accused was residing is highly doubtful. No prudent person would conceal such blood stained dresses inside the house. The seizure of so-called material objects by the prosecution based on the confession recorded by the Investigation Officer is highly doubtful, which creates serious doubts.
12. It is to be noted that though the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.29, who is said to have lifted two chance finger prints in the place of occurrence, we are unable to comprehend as to how those prints have been developed, where was it developed and where were the developed copies, etc. There is no material whatsoever available to prove that those chance finger prints were lifted from the place of occurrence and later, it was developed. No material is available on record to show that finger prints lifted from the place of occurrence is magnified and copies have been sent to the Court immediately. The evidence of P.W.29 in the 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 cross examination, when carefully seen, discloses that it is unusual that P.W.29 has stated that she has not taken any photograph of finger prints. If really chance finger prints are lifted, the proper procedure is to enlarge them in a scientific manner and the enlarged copy should be sent to the Court and other copies should be retained in the office, so that whenever another print of suspect is taken, it has to be compared by magnifying and enlarging the prints. Such procedure has not been carried out in this regard. The lifting of finger prints itself is doubtful, as no material whatsoever is available to substantiate the same, as a copy has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police and not even to the Court. This fact creates doubt about the lifting of the finger prints in the place of occurrence. P.W.29 was, for the first time, examined on 23.01.2014 and as per the 161 statement available on record, it was sent to the Court on 27.01.2024. The delay in examining the finger expert and forwarding the same to the Court creates a cloud of suspicion.
13. The prosecution relied upon other circumstance with regard to cellphone said to have been used by the accused. A perusal of the entire evidence of the Investigation Officer shows that the owners of the cellphones have not been established. Though it was stated that the accused 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 purchased the cellphones, the evidence of P.W.33 indicates that the cellphone no.8870148381 belongs to one Bagavathiammal and 8754132983 is in the name of one Prabhakaran. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence as to how those two cellphones have been used by the accused. Similarly, P.W.26 stated that 9751272161 belongs to him and other cellphone nos.9843095514 and 9843095515 do not belong to him. Though call registers in respect of two numbers have been produced, ownership of the cellphones has not been established. Merely on the basis of such details, we are not in a position to conclude that accused only used those cellphones. Though Section 65-B certificate under Ex.P39 has been filed, the fact remains that use of cellphones by the accused exclusively has not been established. Further, the Trial Court sentenced the accused under Section 120-B IPC and there is no evidence to prove any conspiracy among the accused. Hence, we are of the view that circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to base conviction have not been established. Similarly, there is no incriminating materials produced on the side of the prosecution to justify the conviction imposed on the accused under Sections 147, 148 and 460 IPC.
19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
14. Considering the fact that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and also the fact that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, we are of the view that the judgment of the Trial Court has no legs to stand and requires interference by this Court.
15. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / accused in S.C.No.77 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore dated 07.08.2019, are set aside and the appellants / accused are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants/accused are directed to be released forthwith, unless their custody is required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16. There are eight accused in this case. A8 was acquitted by the Court below. The charges against A2 are abated, as he is reported dead. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant / A1 that suspension of sentence has already been granted by this Court in respect of the 1st 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021 accused. It is also stated that A3, A5, A6 and A7 are confined in Central Prison, Trichirappalli and A4 is confined in Central Prison, Vellore.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
17.11.2025
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
ar
To:
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
B-5, Singanallur Police Station,
Coimbatore City.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Trichirappalli.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Vellore.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ar
Crl.A.Nos.574 of 2019, 102 of 2020 and 100 of 2021
17.11.2025
22/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 07:41:16 pm )