Madras High Court
Pandi @ Saravanakumar vs State Through on 7 October, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07/10/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.328 of 2023
Pandi @ Saravanakumar : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State through:-
The Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
(In Crime No.718 of 2017) : Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of the
Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected with the judgement
rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in SC
No.62 of 2018, dated 13/09/2022 and to set aside the same and consequently to
acquit the appellant and pass such further or other orders.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sakthivel
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am )
CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J.) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhu Nagar, in SC No.62 of 2018, dated 13/09/2022 and consequently to acquit the appellant.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused are friends. The deceased was working as a Mason. The accused used to compel the deceased to purchase liquor for him. The deceased told about this to his mother and brother. Before one week prior to the occurrence, the accused went to the house of the mother of the deceased and told her that her son was speaking ill of him and so, he would kill him. So, the mother of the deceased asked the deceased to avoid the company of the accused. On 30/09/2017 at about 08.00 am, the deceased went for his job in constructing a new house building of one Murugan near Sengunthar High School, Aruppukottai-Virudhu Nagar Main Road. On the same day evening at about 06.15 pm, the deceased and the accused purchased two bottles of liquor from a liquor shop situated in Chekkadi Street and the deceased told the accused that they would consume liquor in the building where construction is going on, which belongs to one Murugan. On the way, the 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 accused quarrelled with the deceased which was noticed by one Sundaravadivel who was standing in front of a Medical Shop. Both the accused and the deceased again quarrelled in front of the shop of one Tamilarasan and from there, they went inside of the on going construction of the new house building of one Murugan and there, at about 09.15 pm, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased and at that time, the accused with an iron rod beat on the head of the deceased and caused his death.
3.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the mother of the deceased, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.718 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and the same was taken on file as PRC No.2 of 2018.
4.After completing the formalities, since the offence is triable exclusive by Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhu Nagar and it was taken on file as SC No.62 of 2018 and thereafter, the same was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhu Nagar, for disposal.
3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023
5.After completing the formalities since there were prima facie materials to frame charges against the appellant, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhu Nagar, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
6.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and 19 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P19 and 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7.
7.After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the charges as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
8.After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhu Nagar found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He was acquitted from 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 the charge under Section 201 IPC levelled against him. The period of detention already undergone by the accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C
9.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused as appellant filed the present appeal.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is not the case of the prosecution that the prosecution has proved the case through eye witnesses to the occurrence; The prosecution has tried to establish the case through circumstantial evidence of last seen theory; The main ingredients of the circumstantial evidence like motive, last seen theory and recovery have not been proved by the prosecution in the manner known to law; The respondent Police has registered the case against the appellant only under presumption and conjunction without any material evidence; Unless the prosecution established the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is presumed to be an innocent; In this case, the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the links between all circumstances have not been established without any break of chain; PW1 to PW3 are relative witnesses and they are all interested witnesses and they have not seen the occurrence and PW4 to PW7 have also not the eye witnesses and they are material contradictions between the 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 evidence of the prosecution witnesses; The main case of the prosecution is that the deceased consumed alcohol over and above the limit and the appellant attacked the deceased with iron rod and due to that he died; whereas the medical evidence clearly shows that there is no alcohol contents detected in the stomach and intestine of the deceased; The motive attributed by the prosecution also flimsy and in cases of this nature, the prosecution has to prove the motive and last seen theory without any break of chain and also the recovery has to be proved; If any of the ingredients is not proved or there is a break in the link of chain, the Court cannot convict the appellant because on the ground of presumption and conjunction and therefore, the appellant is to be acquitted and the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are to be set aside and the appeal has to be allowed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Jabir and others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SAR (Cri) 325.
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the alleged offence through circumstantial evidence and PW5-Sundaravadivel in his evidence has clearly stated that on 30/09/2017 at about 08.15 pm in Virudhu Nagar road, he was standing in front of Murugan Medical Shop, at that time, he saw the appellant and the deceased 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 together were shouting each other and going towards west; PW6 has also stated in his evidence that near his shop, one Murugan was constructing a new house building and one Mr.Senthil Kumar was the Contractor and he has also clearly stated that the appellant and the deceased were present there and on 30/09/2017 at about 08.30 pm; the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling each other in front of his shop; Further, he also stated that the appellant asked the deceased that whether he was speaking ill of him and he would kill him; PW6 pacified the quarrel and thereafter, both of them went inside the house of the on going construction building of the said Murugan; PW4 one Isakkimuthu, who is also residing nearby the place of occurrence, has stated that on 30/09/2017 at about 09.00 pm, he heard the noise from the on going construction of new house building of one Murugan and therefore, he went inside the building and there, he saw both the accused and the deceased were quarrelling each other and at that time, the appellant was holding an iron rod in his hand; He also identified the iron rod (MO1) during the trial; The defence has not stated and established that there was an animosity between the appellant and PW4, PW5, PW6 and they need not to say any incriminating evidence against the appellant; From the evidence of PW6, it is seen that after about 45 minutes, the accused alone came out from the occurrence building and the deceased did not come out thereafter; The evidence of PW6 in this regard was corroborated by PW7, who is an auto driver and he has stated that on 30/09/2017 at about 11.00 pm, while he was in 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 Gandhi Maidhanam Pottal, the accused passed there wearing a banian and lungi; Therefore, even soon before the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased were seen together; Even at the occurrence place also, both of them were seen together; Soon after the occurrence also, the appellant alone was seen out of the on going construction of the new house building and thereafter, on next day morning at about 11.00 am, when the Contractor Senthil Kumar entered into the on going construction of the house building for his regular work, he found the dead body of the deceased and subsequently, the case was registered and materials were recovered, based on the confession statement given by the appellant and thereafter, they were sent to Forensic Lab for chemical examination and the Biological report (Ex.P8) and Serology Report (Ex.P9) would show that iron rod was with bloodstained of 'A' group which tallies with the control blood collected from the body of the deceased; When on perusal of Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P10), one of the injuries is fracture of skull bone in multiple chip; This would clearly probabilise the heavy blow on the head with iron rod (MO1) and the Finger Print Expert took the print and collected the materials at the scene of occurrence and the finger print found in the empty alcohol bottle tallied with the finger print of the appellant; Therefore, on the materials also, the presence of the appellant at the occurrence place is confirmed; Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, motive has been clearly established and the last seen theory also established without any break of 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 chain and recovery also confirmed that the appellant was present at the time of the occurrence and therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Trial Court, while appreciating the oral and document evidence has held that even though, no eye witness to the prosecution, the prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal has to be dismissed.
12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
13.It is the specific case of the prosecution that the appellant had animosity with the deceased. Therefore, on 30/09/2017 at about 09.00 pm, inside the on going construction of the house building of one Murugan, the appellant with MO1 iron rod beat the deceased on his head and caused injury in the vital part of the deceased and due to which, he succumbed to the injuries. The mother of the deceased gave the complaint. The brother and the erstwhile wife of the deceased also spoken about the enmity between the accused and the deceased. 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023
14.Even though, there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence, PW8-Senthil Kumar, who is the Centring Contractor with whom the deceased was working, saw the deceased dead body, on 01/10/2017 at about 11.00 am. Therefore, he informed the mother of the deceased, who in-turn informed the Police and the Police registered the case under Section 302 IPC and subsequently during investigation, Section of the offence was altered and conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet against the appellant, based on the oral and documentary evidence for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
15.Admittedly, in this case, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence. The main ingredients of the circumstantial evidence are the motive, last seen theory and recovery. A reading of the materials produced by the prosecution during the course of trial before the trial court, the prosecution has established the motive between the appellant and the deceased from the evidence of PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, PW2 who is the brother of the deceased and PW3 who is the erstwhile wife of the deceased. They have clearly spoken about the enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant and the deceased were close friends and they used to consume alcohol together. The deceased propagated that the appellant used to get free alcohol from him and 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 since he ruined his reputation by propagating with others, the appellant got irritated and also went to the house of PW1 and informed the same to the mother of the deceased and at that time, brother of the deceased namely PW2 was also there. The erstwhile wife of the deceased namely PW3 also spoken about the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. The defence has not challenged the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the motive for taking the life of the deceased by the appellant was clearly established by the prosecution.
16.So far as the last seen theory is concerned, in order to prove the same, the prosecution examined PW5 one Sundarvadivel. He has spoken about last seen theory of the appellant and the deceased at about at 08.15 pm on 30/09/2017. He has stated that at that time, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and they were shouting each other and going towards west. PW6-Tamilarasan is one of the witnesses to the last seen theory has also spoken about the presence of the appellant and the deceased nearby the occurrence place i.e., on going construction of the new house building. He has also spoken that both the appellant and the deceased went inside the on going construction of the house building. PW4 one Issakkimuthu has also spoken about the last seen theory, who was residing in a nearby place of the occurrence stating that on 30/09/2017 at about 09.00 pm, he heard the sound from the place 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 of occurrence and when he went there, at that time, the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling each other and at that time, the appellant was holding an iron rod in his hand, which was also identified later during the trial and marked as MO1.
17.Therefore, from the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6, it is seen that the appellant and the deceased were seen together immediately prior to the occurrence. From the evidence of PW6, it is seen that after 45 minutes, the appellant alone came out from the on going construction of the new house building and the deceased did not come out thereafter. From the evidence of PW7, who is the auto driver also, it is seen that on 30/09/2017 at about 11.00 pm, while he was in Gandhi Maidhanam Pottal, he saw the appellant passed there wearing a banian and lungi. Therefore, on the same day soon after the occurrence also, PW6 and PW7 seen the appellant alone out side of the on going construction of the new house building and the deceased was not seen soon after the occurrence out side of the said building.
18.Therefore, the prosecution has proved from the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 regarding the last seen theory without any break of chain and thereafter, on the next day morning at about 11.00 am, the Centring Contractor went to the building for regular work, at that time, he saw the dead 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 body of the deceased. Therefore, he informed to the mother of the deceased, who in-turn informed the police and thereafter, the Police registered the case and conducted investigation. Even after the arrest of the appellant, he also made a voluntary confession in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and he also handed over the blood stained shirt, which was also admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, since the confession was leading to recovery of the bloodstain. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer also recovered the body and also sent it for postmortem. During postmortem, intestine of the deceased was seen and it was also sent to the Forensic Lab and received the biological report (Ex.P8) and serological report (Ex.P9). Ex.P10 postmortem certificate also clearly shows the homicidal injuries sustained by the deceased and MO1 also found bloodstains, which also match with the deceased and the bloodstained shirt also match with Ex.P9. Serology report also shows that 'A' group of blood was found in the shirt and further the thump impression of the appellant was also found in the empty brandy bottle. The recovery was also proved through the Village Administrative Officer and the expert opinion also corroborated the same. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the motive, last seen theory and also recovery. Therefore, all the ingredients of the circumstantial evidence have been established by the prosecution without any break of chain and therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Once the witnesses have spoken that there 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 was a motive between the appellant and the accused and soon before the date of occurrence, both the appellant and the deceased alone were seen together and especially, PW6 has clearly stated that seen before the occurrence, both went inside the on going construction of the new house building and within the proximate time that is after 45 minutes, the appellant alone came out of the house. Considering the evidence of the above said witnesses, the presence of the witnesses is also not doubtful. PW4 who is a nearby resident of PW5 was also running a shop nearby the place of occurrence and he also saw the appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence and also specifically stated that both went inside the on going construction of the new house building. The evidence of PW5 clearly shows that he saw the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling inside the on going new construction house building and at that time, the appellant was holding iron rod (MO1) and he pacified the quarrel and came out and thereafter, PW6 saw the appellant alone came out of from the on going construction of the new house building and thereafter also, PW7 seen at about 11.00 pm in a distance place, the appellant alone going by wearing a banian and lungi. The evidence of the Village Administrative Officer-PW10 clearly shows that the appellant took the bloodstained baniyan and handed over it to him and subsequently Ex.P9 serological report also confirmed the blood group of the deceased and the finger print was also confirmed the presence of the appellant in the occurrence place during the relevant time.
14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023
19.Though there is no eye witness to the occurrence, the circumstantial evidence has clearly established that the appellant alone was caused the injury to the deceased. Due to the said injury, he died. The postmortem report also strengthened the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution also proved the recovery beyond all reasonable doubt.
20.There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jabir & Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand reported in (2023 SAR (Crl) 325) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt, in the case of circumstantial evidence, the ingredients of motive, last seen theory and recovery have to be established. Whereas, in this case, the prosecution has clearly established the motive, last seen theory and the motive between the appellant and the deceased prior to the occurrence and subsequent to the occurrence and recovery has also been clearly proved in the manner known to law. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the case on hand.
21.Though the learned counsel for the appellant raised certain contradictions, which are not the material contradictions. Though there is a discrepancy or contradiction, which is only a minor contradiction which will not go to the root of the prosecution case. In all criminal cases, it may not be based 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 on the eyewitness. Some of the cases only based on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has to prove the case only the materials whether the prosecution has proved the motive, the last seen theory without any break of chain and recovery. In this case, all the three ingredients were clearly established by the prosecution and therefore, since there is no eye witness in this case, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away. Therefore, as the Appellant Court, being a fact finding Court while re-appreciating the evidence independently, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case through oral and documentary evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. So there is no other view to be taken. This Court consistently finds the only view that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC and therefore, the appellant found guilty under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
22.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.
(P.V.,J) (R.P,J) 07/10/2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 To,
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Town Police Station, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am ) CRL.A.(MD).328 of 2023 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and R.POORNIMA,J er Crl.A(MD)No.328 of 2023 07.10.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:46 am )