Madras High Court
Unknown vs Loganathan on 21 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.590 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.01.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.590 of 2019
---
The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Tiruchendgode
Namakkal District
(Tiruchengode Rural P.S.
Crime No.428 of 2017) .. Appellant
Vs.
Loganathan .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of
acquittal of the respondent/accused in Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2018 dated
27.11.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and convict the
respondent/accused for the charges framed against him.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For Respondent : Mr.D.Silambarasan
Page No.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm )
Crl.A.No.590 of 2019
ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused in Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2018 dated 27.11.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and convict the respondent/accused for the charges framed against him.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is a widow. The deceased was staying in her parental home along with her three children. On 16.07.2017 at 5 p.m., the deceased had gone to a spinning mill for coolie work and thereafter, she did not return home on that night. Next day morning i.e. on 17.07.2017 at 6 a.m., one Ilango, informed the father of the deceased/P.W.1 that his daughter/deceased was found dead near Mala Temple, Appaiyamedu. Hence, P.W.1 rushed to the scene of occurrence along with Ilango in his two wheeler and found his daughter dead in mess condition with torn blouse. There were blood stains in the left nose of his daughter and there were empty liquor bottles, meal with meat. Thereafter, he rushed to Tiruchengode Rural Police Station and lodged the complaint/Ex.P.1.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, the FIR in Crime No.428 of 2017 was registered by the Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and during the course of investigation, it revealed that the deceased had the habit of drinking alcohol and also had illicit contacts with many Page No.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 persons. The accused/respondent is a drunkard and he used to involve in small thefts. On the date of occurrence i.e. 16.07.2017 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused saw the deceased walking in Tiruchengode bus stand under the influence of alcohol. The accused who intended to rob and rape her using her intoxication, followed her and by inducing her to provide brandy and biriyani, abducted her in his TVS XL Moped bearing Reg. No.TN 56E 9828 and took her behind Mala Koil situated at Appiya Medu, Sindampalayam and had forcible intercourse with the deceased. Further, as the deceased resisted the accused from robbing her jewels from her body, the accused dashed her head against the stone found on the earth and caused her death and subsequently, the accused robbed a cell phone, a golden nose stud and a pair of metal ear studs from the deceased. It was also found that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the accused is a non member of Scheduled Caste and therefore the offences were altered to Sections 392, 376, 302 read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) and handed over the case file to the Deputy Superintendent of Police based on the order of the Namakkal Superintendent of Police, Namakkal. The Deputy Superintendent of Police after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2018. The learned Sessions Judge, on appearance of the accused and perusal of records found that prima facie case was made out and thereby framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 366, Page No.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 376, 302, 392 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and when the accused was questioned on the charges, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for the detailed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, on the side of the prosecution 27 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.27 and 43 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.43 and 10 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.10. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.
5. After completion of trial and upon hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and perusal of records, the trial Judge found that the offences are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges laid against him.
6. Aggrieved over the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal before this Court.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the accused/respondent is a drunkard and used to involve in small thefts. On the date of occurrence i.e. 16.07.2017 at about 9 p.m., the accused saw the deceased walking near Tiruchengode bus stand under the influence of alcohol. The accused in order to rob and rape her using her intoxication, followed her and by inducing her to provide brandy and biriyani, took her in his two wheeler to the scene of occurrence and forcibly had intercourse with her. Thereafter, when he tried to rob her jewels, the deceased resisted him. Hence, the accused dashed the head of the deceased against the floor and caused Page No.4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 the death of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused robbed the golden nose stud, a pair of metal ear studs and a cell phone from the deceased and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Next day morning, one Ilangovan/P.W.3 who went near the scene of occurrence to attend nature’s call, found the deceased lying dead with blood dripping from her left nose, her jacket was torn, her Saree and Skirt were all in disarray. Immediately, informed the same to the father of the deceased/P.W1 who in turn, rushed to the spot and lodged a complaint before the police. In the scene of occurrence, empty liquor bottles, water, meat and meal and pair of chapals were found.
7.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that though there is no eyewitness to this case, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. P.W.13 is the person who saw the deceased lastly along with the accused. He has clearly stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased had come to his shop in an inebriated condition and asked him to drop her in her residence and since his owner was in the shop, he refused to drop her for which, the deceased told that Logananthan/accused is here and he would drop her. Thereafter, he saw the deceased going along with the accused. P.W.14 who is running a biriyani shop near Tiruchengode new bus stand, has also stated that on the date of occurrence between 9 and 10 p.m., the respondent/accused came to his shop and bought biriyani. He further submitted that a photograph of biriyani, taken from the scene of occurrence was shown to P.W.14 and he confirmed that it was his shop biriyani. Further, P.W.12, in his evidence has clearly stated that on 16.07.2017 at about 11 p.m., Page No.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 while he was returning home, he stopped his two wheeler near Appiyamedu and was urinating and at that time, he saw a two wheeler coming in a high speed and when he saw it in the street light, it was Loganathan/accused from Tiruchengodu riding the two wheeler. P.W.15 is running a jewelry shop and he has clearly stated that on 17.07.2017 at about 9 a.m., the respondent came to his shop along with a lady alleging to be his wife and pledged a nose stud weighing 100 m.g. stating due to poverty he was pledging the same for which, P.W.15 gave Rs.200/- to the respondent/accused. P.W.18/Village Administrate Officer has spoken about the arrest, confession leading to recovery. The nose stud of the deceased recovered through the confession of the accused was marked as Ex.P.6 and the cell phone of the deceased recovered from the accused was marked as M.O.7. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.12 to 15, the prosecution proved the three cardinal principles of motive, last seen theory and recovery. Though the prosecution proved the circumstantial evidence without break in chain, the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and acquitted the appellant on the ground that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has also failed to consider the medical evidence. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside and this appeal has to be allowed and the respondent/accused has to be convicted and adequately be punished.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are parents of the deceased. P.W.3 is the Page No.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 person who saw the body of the deceased first at about 6.00 a.m. on 17.07.2017 and intimated to P.W.1/father of the deceased and thereafter, P.W.1 rushed to the scene of occurrence and thereafter lodged a complaint. When there is no eyewitness, it is settled proposition that the prosecution has to prove its case through circumstantial evidence without break in chain. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove its case by establishing the strong motive for murder, last seen theory and the subsequent recovery effected from the accused. If any one of the chain is broken, conviction cannot be recorded. In this case, there is no material to show that there was a strong motive for the respondent/accused for commission of offence as stated by the prosecution. Further, there is no last seen theory that immediately prior to the occurrence the accused and the deceased were seen together and soon after the occurrence, within the proximate distance and time, the accused alone was seen. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or in cases of this nature, the prosecution has to prove the foundational fact with probability of the commission of offence. If the prosecution has established the last seen theory, then the accused has to establish his defence. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the cardinal principles of motive, last seen theory and recovery. The trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and acquitted the respondent. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Page No.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019
10. In this case there is no eyewitness to this occurrence. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution 27 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.27 in which, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased and they have spoken about their missing daughter/deceased on the date of occurrence and on the next day they went to the scene of occurrence based on the information given by P.W.3 and found their daughter lying dead and they have admitted that the deceased had relationship with many persons.
11. The prosecution witnesses namely, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 have spoken about the affairs they had with the deceased. Since there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution has to prove its case through circumstantial evidence viz., the motive, last seen theory and recovery, without break in chain.
12. As far as last seen theory is concerned, P.W.13, in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased had asked him to drop her in her house and since his owner was there in the shop, he refused to drop her, at that time, the deceased told that Loganathan was there and he would drop her and thereafter, he saw the deceased going along with the accused. Except this, there is no other witness to show that the respondent/accused and deceased were seen together immediately before the occurrence and the respondent/accused was seen alone immediately after the occurrence. Even P.W.12 has only stated that on 16.07.2017 at about 11 p.m., through street light, he saw the accused riding his two wheeler. Since there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, the Page No.8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 time of occurrence is not proved. Even the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report has only fixed an approximate time of death.
13. P.W.14 who is the beef biriyani shop owner has only stated that on the date of occurrence, the respondent/accused had bought biriyani from his shop. The prosecution has connected the biriyani pack found in the occurrence place with the respondent. It is not the case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence, the respondent alone had bought biriyani from P.W.14. Therefore, it is not enough to prove the case of the prosecution.
14. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 8 to 11 shows that the deceased was having the habit of consuming alcohol and used to wander and also accompanied several persons. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.13 alone is not sufficient to prove the last seen theory.
15. As far as motive and recovery of cell phone are concerned, as per the prosecution the cell phone of the deceased was recovered from the accused. However, there is no materials to show that the accused was using the said phone or the deceased was using the said cell phone. Hence, the recovery of cell phone is also not proved to whom it belongs.
16. P.W.15, in his evidence has stated that on 17.07.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., the appellant came to his shop along with his wife and pledged a nose stud for Rs.200/- and based on the confession of the accused, the police have recovered the same from P.W.15 and the same was identified by P.W.2. According to the version of prosecution, ear stud Page No.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 was also removed from the deceased, however it was not gold and therefore, the accused thrown it away and therefore, they did not recover the same. Therefore, except the recovery of nose stud, no other material is connected and no valuables/jewels were found missing. Therefore, the motive as alleged by the prosecution, is not strong. A man cannot murder a woman for gold worth about Rs.200/-. As far as the other motive regarding rape and murder, there is no material except the confession statement. It is settled proposition that confession statement recorded by the police is not admissible in evidence and only the recovery portion leading to recovery is admissible. As per the admitted portion of confession statement, the police have recovered only the nose stud worth Rs.200/. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case in the manner known to law, which are in piecemeal evidence. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstantial evidence.
17. Further, this Court as an appellate Court and final Court of fact finding, while re-appreciating the entire evidence, finds that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. As far as the charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.W.13 clearly shows that the deceased voluntarily went along with the accused and she was not kidnapped by the accused as stated by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court finds that the charge against the respondent/accused under Section 366 was not proved. Page No.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019
19. As far as the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, the medical evidence does not prove the same. The medical report clearly shows that the deceased was under
consumption of alcohol.
20. As far as the charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, as stated above, in the absence of any direct evidence to prove the circumstantial evidence, the charge under Section 302 IPC also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21. As far as the charge under the SC/ST Act is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused knows about the caste of the deceased and committed the offence.
22. Therefore, the charges framed against the appellant for the offences under Section 366, 376 and 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) are concerned, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed and the respondent/accused is acquitted from the above said charges. This Court finds no perversity in appreciation of evidence regarding the above said charges.
23. From the evidence of P.W.15, the prosecution has only proved the recovery of nose stud. However, the prosecution has not marked the pledge receipt. Therefore, the offence under Section 379 IPC only is proved. However, there was no separate charge for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The trial Court has framed charge only for the offence under Section 392 IPC. A reading of the entire materials even at best, the prosecution proved proved its case only for the offence under Section 379 IPC and not Page No.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 under section 392 IPC. Since lesser punishment is attracted under Section 379 IPC than Section 392 IPC, the charge under Section 392 IPC is modified as Section 379 IPC.
24. This Court finds that the respondent/accused has committed the offence under Section 379 of IPC only and the prosecution has not proved the other charges framed against the respondent/accused.
25. Accordingly, the respondent/accused is convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the respondent/accused is treated as punishment for the offence under Section 379 IPC.
26. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 21.01.2026 ksa-2 Page No.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Copy to:
The Section Officer V.R. Section Page No.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm ) Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 P.VELMURUGAN, J and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J ksa-2 Crl.A.No.590 of 2019 21.01.2026 Page No.14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/02/2026 03:02:52 pm )