Krishnamoorthy @ Narayanasamy vs State Represented By

[Cites 28, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Krishnamoorthy @ Narayanasamy vs State Represented By

The appellants, who are accused 1 to 9, have filed these criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2019 in S.C.No.305 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in and by which the appellants are convicted and sentenced as under:

Rank of Charges against the Conviction under Sentence of Accused accused by the Trial Section by the Trial Imprisonment imposed Court Court by the Trial Court A1 to A9 Sections 147, 148, 120(B) IPC – A1 to 449, 302 r/w. 149 A9 Acquitted IPC, 120(B) IPC A1 to A9 -convicted 3 years rigorous under Section 148 imprisonment IPC A1 to A9 convicted 10 years rigorous u/s.449 IPC imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to 2 months simple imprisonment A1 to A8 – Life Imprisonment with convicted u/s.302 fine of Rs.2,000/- each r/w. 149 IPC in default to undergo 4 months simple imprisonment A1 convicted u/s.302 Life Imprisonment with r/w. 109 and 149 IPC a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 4 months simple imprisonment for A1 294(b) IPC 294(b) IPC 3 months simple imprisonment 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 A1 & A4 324 IPC 324 IPC 1 year simple imprisonment A9 302 r/w. 109 IPC A2, A3, A5 (2 323 IPC A2, A3, A5, A6 to counts) and A6 A9 are acquitted for to A9 323 IPC (1 count) A2 A3, A5 1 year simple convicted u/s. 323 imprisonment IPC (1 count)

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 / defacto complainant – Siva @ Sri Ram is the son of the deceased Krishnan. He deposed that the deceased had entered into a Sale Agreement with one Shanmugam of Mathur Village to purchase his land.

The said Shanmugam did not sell the land to the deceased, but sold the land to A4. Hence, the deceased had filed a Civil Suit against the legal heirs of the said Shanmugam and one Kuppusamy six months prior to the occurrence. Hence A4 had developed enmity with them. Three months prior to the occurrence, while PW1 and the deceased were travelling in a two wheeler in Kalapattu Mathur Road, A4, A1, A2, A3, A7 A5, A8 attacked the deceased, in which the deceased sustained injuries. In this regard, PW1 lodged a complaint before Kottakuppam Police Station and the deceased was admitted in the hospital.

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 2.2. Ten days prior to the date of occurrence, Panchayat was convened and at that time, A4 threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if he enters into the disputed land, he would do away his life. In the Panchayat, A4 was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the deceased, but A4 did not pay the amount.

2.3. On 19.08.2013, one Elumalai of their village died. PW1, deceased, PW2 – Rajendran and PW3-Natarajan went to attend the funeral of the said Elumalai on 20.08.2013. After garlanding the dead body, they were standing beside. At that time, A4 and his men picked up quarrel with them. Out of fear, the deceased ran away to the house of one Marimuthu- PW12. At that time, A1 picked up Iron Spade – M.O.4. lying there, A9 picked up iron pipe and gave to her son / A4 and demanded them to kill the deceased. A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8 each picked up a log and chased the deceased. PW1 and PW3 ran behind them. While the deceased was running, his lungi slipped down and ran with Jetty into the house of PW12. A1 scolded the deceased and attacked him with M.O.4 – Iron Spade on the back side of his head for filing case against them. A4 attacked the deceased with 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 iron pipe on his head. Again A1 attacked the deceased on his face with M.O.4. The other accused restrained the deceased from running and attacked him with wooden logs – M.Os.5, 11, 13 and 14. When A1 attempted to attack the deceased with M.O.4, it fell down. Thereafter, A1 picked up an iron pipe lying at the house of PW12 and attacked the deceased on his head.

2.4. Then A2 attacked the deceased. A1 attacked PW3, who went for rescuing the deceased, with iron pipe and log. A2 and A5 attacked PW3 with wooden logs. When PW2 went to stop the fight, A3 attacked PW2 with log. The deceased fell down in the pool of blood. A1 stating that “Krishnan / deceased did not yet die” attacked the deceased with iron pipe on the front side of his head . Due to injuries succumbed, Krishnan (deceased) died. All the accused left the place with the weapons. PWs.2 & 3 were admitted at PIMS Hospital.

2.5. PW1 lodged a complaint – Ex.P1 on 20.08.2013 at 15.00 hours before PW26- Tr.Jagadeesan, Sub Inspector of Police. PW26 registered a case in Crime No.374/2013 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 448, 323, 324 and 302 IPC against all the accused at 16.00 hours on the same day. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 The FIR registered is Ex.P41. PW26 forwarded the FIR to higher officials / Inspector of Police and to the Court concerned.

2.6. PW27-A.Rajan, Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station took up the case for investigation and inspected the scene of crime in the presence of PW7 Tr.Sathishkumar, Village Administrative Officer and LW8- Natarajan, his Assistant and prepared Ex.47 – Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch – Ex.P48 in their presence. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses in the scene of crime and prepared Ex.P49-Inquest Report. He sent the body for postmortem to find out the cause of death at 23.05 hours to PIMS Hospital through PW22- Head Constable 654 Tr.Ramesh Kumar. PW27 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He forwarded the material objects to the Court through Form 95 under Ex.P63.

2.7. PW20 – Dr.Sajeev Slader conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P37- Postmortem Certificate and final opinion, noting down the following injuries:

i. Through and through laceration, measuring 3.5 cms x 0.5 cms on the pinna of right ear.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 ii. Vertically-oblique, contused-laceration, 2 cms lateral to the corner of right eye measuring 5.5 cms x 1 cms x bone depth. iii. Vertically-oblique, cruciate laceration, 3 cms above the right eyebrow measuring 3 cms x 1.5 cms x cranial cavity deep with multiple fractures of underlying frontal bone. iv. Horizontally-oblique, laceration, 4.5 cms above the outer corner of right eyebrow, measuring 3 cms x 1 cms x cranial cavity depth with underlying fracture of frontal bone.

v. Vertically-oblique, cruciate laceration, 7 cms above the corner of right eyebrow, measuring 6 cms x 5 cms x cranial cavity deep, with multiple fractures of underlying frontal bone. vi. Vertically-oblique, laceration, 6.5 cms above the outer corner of right eyebrow (1cm lateral to wound no.5), measuring 3 cms x 1 cms x cranial cavity depth.

vii. Horizontally-oblique, laceration, 5 cms above the right eyebrow, on right side of forehead measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm x cranial cavity depth.

viii. Laceration, 7 cms behind the right ear of 1.5 cms x 0.5 cms x muscle depth on the right occipital area. ix. Cruciate, impression abrasion, 1.5 cms to the left of midline in frontal scalp, 4 cms above the middle of left eyebrow. x. Vertical, contused-laceration, on the corner of left eye, measuring 1.5 cms x 1cms x muscle depth.

xi. Horizontal, contused-laceration, on the corner of left eyebrow, measuring 1 cm in muscle depth.

xii. Cruciate, laceration, on the left frontal area, 9 cms above the middle of left eyebrow, measuring 4.5cms x 3cms x cranial cavity depth with depressed fracture of underlying frontal bone. xiii. Horizontal-oblique, cruciate, laceration, on the left parietal scalp, measuring 8.5cms x 4.5cms x bone depth. xiv. Laceration with fracture of distal phalanx of left middle finger. xv. Contused-laceration, 1.5cms below the left eyebrow measuring 1.5cms x 1cms x muscle depth.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 xvi. Contusions (Tram line) measuring 21cms x 1.5cms each on the left side of abdomen.

2.8. PW20 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Cranio Cerebral injuries sustained.

2.9. PW2-Tr.Rajendran is the younger brother of the deceased and PW3-Natarajan is the elder brother of the deceased. PW4-Sathishkumar is the son of PW3. PW5-Tmt.Vijayalakshmi is the wife of PW3. PW8 is the wife of the deceased. PW6-Tmt.Kausalya is the wife of PW2.

2.10. PW2 deposed that on 20.08.2013, PW1, deceased and PW3 gone to the funeral of one Elumalai and at that time, A4 and his associates stated that the deceased should not be left alive and they assaulted the deceased with wooden log. The deceased in order to save himself, ran to the house of PW12-Tr.Marimuthu. While so, A1, A2, A5, A3, A6 chased the deceased and entered into the house of PW12 and closed the door. All the accused assaulted the deceased with iron spade, iron pipe and wooden logs. When PW2 tried to rescue and prevent the same, A3 assaulted PW2 on his head. He got injuries and he was sent to PIMS hospital. PW3 also got assaulted and he was also sent to the hospital.

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 2.11. PW3 deposed on similar lines as that of PW2. PW3 deposed that the accused assaulted the deceased at the funeral of one Elumalai. The deceased ran away to the house of PW12. A1, A2, A5 and A4 assaulted the deceased with iron spade. The accused assaulted the deceased by using wooden logs by removing the wooden log from the funeral bier. A2, A3 and A4 assaulted PW3. A3 assaulted PW3 with iron pipe. While so, the deceased fell down on the floor. A9 handed over iron pipe to A4 / her son and asked him to kill the deceased. A1 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and the deceased fell down and died on the spot.

2.12. PWs.2 and 3, who were injured, went to the hospital. PW3 gave statement before the Judicial Magistrate Court Tindivanam and he has signed in the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Ex.P3.

2.13. PW4- Tr.Sathishkumar deposed that on 20.08.2013, when he along with PWs.1 to 3 went to attend the funeral of one Elumalai at about 2.45 p.m., the accused involved in a quarrel with the deceased. The deceased ran out of fear to the house of PW12-Marimuthu. A1 attacked the deceased with Iron Spade – M.O.4. While chasing by the accused, the 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 deceased’s lungi slipped down and he ran with inner wear to the house of PW12. A1, A2, A7, A6 and A8 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and wooden log saying that the deceased should not be left alive. They also assaulted PWs.2 and 3.

2.14. PW5 wife of PW3 deposed that she came to know about the occurrence and he went to the house of PW12 and saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. She also deposed that there is civil dispute between the accused and deceased family with regard to purchase of land which was decreed in favour of the deceased.

2.15. PW6, who is the wife of PW2 deposed that on 20.08.2013, when the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 went to attend the funeral of one Elumalai, she heard that someone quarrelling with the deceased. After hearing that, she rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw A1 chasing the deceased and at that time, the deceased’s lungi fell down, he rushed to the house of PW12 at about 2.45 p.m. At that time, A1 having iron spade in his hand, A4 was having iron pipe and other accused picked up wooden logs from the funeral bier. A1 assaulted the deceased with iron spade on his back head. At that 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 time, the iron spade fell down. Again he took the iron spade and attacked the deceased on his head. PWs.2 and 3 tried to prevent the same. A1, A2 and A5 together assaulted PWs.2 and 3. All the accused assaulted the deceased.

2.16. PW7- Shasti Kumar- Village Administrative Officer deposed that on 20.08.2013, he received an information that there was a murder in the Mathur Village. Immediately, PW7 and his Village Assistant – Tr.Natarajan went to Mathur Village. At that time, PW27 – Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and recovered M.Os.1 to 5 under Seizure Mahazar- Ex.P5.

2.17. PW8 – Tmt.Kala, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed about the dispute between A4’s family and her family with regard to purchase of lands. PW8 also deposed on similar lines to the version of PW1.

2.18. PW27 / I.O., on continuation of his investigation, on 21.08.2013 at 3.30 p.m. he arrested A9 at Kalapattu Bus Stop, who was standing there, brought to the police station and subjected to judicial custody on the same day. He received information that A1, A5, A4, A3 have surrendered before 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 the Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and lodged at Cuddalore Central Prison on 26.08.2013. PW27 chose to file an application seeking for their police custody and after taking them under police custody, on enquiry, A1 voluntarily gave confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of PW13-Sundar and PW14-Murugan. In pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 under Ex.P50, PW27 recovered Iron Pipe – M.O.10 from the accused in the presence of the same witnesses from the back side of his house under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P54. Later at 8.00 p.m. on the same day, he corded the confession statement of A5 in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A5 under Ex.P51, PW27 recovered M.O.11 – wooden log under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P55. Later at 9.30 p.m. PW27 recorded the confession statement of A3 and the same has been recorded in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A3 under Ex.P52, PW27 recovered M.O.5 – blood stained log measuring 76cm under Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P56. Later at 11.45 p.m., PW27 recorded the confession statement of A4 in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the confession statement of A4 under Ex.P53, PW27 recovered M.O.12 – 53cm length Iron Pipe – M.O.12 under 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 Ex.P57. PW27 recorded the statement of PW13 and PW14. He sent the accused for judicial custody. He forwarded the material objects to the Court in Form 95 -Ex.P68.

2.19. On 30.08.2013, PW27 sent a requisition letter for sending the material objects seized for forensic science examination. On 02.09.2013, A2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tindivanam. On 04.09.2013, he filed a petition seeking police custody of A2 and recorded his voluntary confession statement on 05.09.2013 in the presence of PW15- VAO and PW16- Village Assistant. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession statement of A2 under Ex.P58, he recovered M.O.5 – Savukku Thadi under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P59 in the presence of PWs.15 and 16. Thereafter, A2 was subjected for judicial custody. PW27 recorded the statement of LW21 – Dr.Varun Kumar, who treated PW2 on 30.09.2013 and issued Ex.P35 – Wound Certificate. He also recorded the statement of PW19- Dr.Helen, who treated PW3 and issued Ex.P34-Wound Certificate. He also recorded the statement of LW23 – Rosemani, Scientific Officer, who examined the internal organs of the deceased and issued Ex.P36 – Toxiological Report stating that they did not contain alcohol or other poison. 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 He recorded the statement of PW22 – Head constable Thiru.Ramesh Kumar, who identified the body for postmortem to PW20 – Dr.Sajeeve Slater.

2.20. PW19- Dr.Hari, deposed that on 20.08.2013 at 4.00 p.m., PW3 – Natarajan came to the hospital for treatment. He has noticed various injuries sustained on 20.08.2013 due to wooden logs at Mathur Village. He found laceration in right and left side of the head. He issued the Wound Certificate – Ex.P34. He also deposed that Dr.Varun Kumar has issued Ex.P35 – Wound Certificate and he knows his signature. As per Ex.P35-Wound Certificate, PW2 was brought by PW2’s brother’s son Sathish Kumar / PW4 to the hospital on 20.08.2013 and in Ex.P35, it has been stated that the injures said to have been caused on 20.08.2013 at Mathur Village at 4.00 p.m., due to assault. As per Ex.P35, the details of injuries has been mentioned as laceration of Size 4x 1 cm @ left side of frontal region and laceration of size 3 x 1 cm @ vertex.

2.21. PW21- Tr.R.Manickam – Scientific Officer deposed that 12 material objects were subjected for medical examination and he has issued Ex.P38 – Scientific Analysis Report, wherein it has been stated that except 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 two items of cement concrete, other items are found with human blood.

2.22. After PW27/Inspector conducted inquest over the dead body, PW27 handed over the dead body with requisition letter for postmortem to PW22 and the same was handed over to PIMS hospital. On 21.08.2013, around 8.30 p.m. PW22 showed both requisition letter and body to the doctor. At 8.40 p.m. postmortem started. After conducting autopsy, he has seized the clothes worn by the deceased under M.Os.7 and 8 to the Forensic Department. PW23- Tr.Kannan, Head Constable deposed that he has handed over FIR on 20.08.2013 at 17.00 hours before the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW24-Tr.Dhakshinamoorthy, deposed about he has taken photographs at the scene of occurrence as per the requisition made by PW27 and the photographs taken by him is M.O.9 series.

2.23. PW25- Tmt.Vijayalskhmi – Forensic Scientist deposed that after analysing the case properties, she found that the properties received from the Court were stained with blood and he has issued a report in this regard under Ex.P39. She has also deposed that on examination she found that the blood group of the deceased is “O” Group and she has issued Serological Reports under Ex.P40.

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 2.24. PW27/Investigating Officer further deposed that in continuation of his investigation, on 22.10.2013, he arrested A8 in the presence of PW17 and PW18. On enquiry, the accused voluntarily gave confession statement and in pursuance to the admissible portion of his confession statement under Ex.P31, he has handed over M.O.13 – Bamboo Thadi, which was recovered under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P60. He forwarded the same to the Court under Form 91 under Ex.P70. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He also made arrangements for recording the statement of PWs.1 and 2 under Section 164 CrPC with a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate. On 16.11.2013, he arrested A7 in the presence of PWs.13 and 14 at Kaluperumbakkam Bus Stop. On enquiry, A7 voluntary gave confession statement and the same has recorded and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement under Ex.P61, he recovered M.O.14- log under Ex.P62 – Seizure Mahazar. He sent him to judicial custody on the same day and the case properties were sent to the Court. He altered the Sections to 147, 148, 120(B), 449, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 109, 302 r/w. 149 IPC. The Alteration Report is Ex.P72.

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 2.25. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 27 witnesses, marked Exs.P1 to P73 and produced 14 Material Objects. Upon completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and marked Exhibits D1 to D7. Upon appreciating oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found A1 to A9 guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, all the accused / appellants herein have preferred these criminal appeals.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / A1 to A3 put forth the following submissions / contentions:

(i) The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the time of the alleged occurrence, since in Ex.P1/complaint and in the F.I.R., time of the occurrence was interpolated. PW1, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that the alleged occurrence held between 2.45 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., whereas PW19-Dr.Hari, who issued Exs.P34 and P35 – Wound Certificates of PW1 and PW2 / injured witnesses, wherein it has been stated that the time of occurrence as

4.00 p.m. and in the Wound Certificate, there is no mention that the 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 alleged assault made by known or unknown persons, which creates serious doubt in the prosecution case.

(ii) PW4, who is the son of PW3, in his cross examination, categorically deposed that police has arrived the scene of occurrence at 3.30 p.m., and they have obtained complaint from PW1 at about 4.00 p.m. After 3.30 p.m. only police have taken the dead body from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, according to PW4, police have received the complaint from PW1 in the scene of occurrence. Per contra, PW1 deposed that he went to the police station and lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 at 4.00 p.m.

(iii) PW22 deposed that on 20.08.2013 at night 11.05 alone he has received the requisition conducting inquest over the dead body by PW27, Inspector of Police. Per contra, PW1 deposed that after the occurrence, after lodging the complaint before PW26, after registration of F.I.R. under Ex.P.41, PW27 visited the scene of occurrence, whereas PW7- VAO stated that at 3.30 p.m. police have arrived to the scene of occurrence.

(iv) Though the prosecution claimed that the FIR came to be registered at 4.00 p.m., whereas the learned Judicial Magistrate has received the FIR only at 10.30 p.m.

(v) The evidence of PW1 is inconsistent with the evidence of PW4 and therefore, PW1 would not be a eyewitness in this case and it creates serious doubt in the prosecution case. 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

(vi) In the Inquest Report under Ex.P49, time of conducting of inquest is contradictory to the evidence deposed by PWs.1 and 4.

(vii) There is no material produced by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence of Section 149 IPC, since they have no knowledge or intention to assault the deceased without having deadly weapons in their hands.

(viii) Though the prosecution has relied upon recovery of M.O.10 – Blood Stained Iron pipe from A1, in pursuance to his confession statement, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the blood group found in M.O.10, which belongs to the deceased. The prosecution has only proved that human blood is found in M.O.10 and the blood group is unproved.

(ix) Once the F.I.R is held to be doubtful and also brought into existence long after the alleged occurrence, the entire prosecution case collapses.

4. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel and Mr.C.Venkatesan, legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.429 of 2019 / A7 would put forth the following submissions / contentions: 20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

(i) PWs.1 to 6 are highly interested witnesses, as they are close relatives to the family of the deceased. As per the evidence of PW1, huge people have gathered during the occurrence. In such circumstances, non-examination of any independent witness creates doubt over the prosecution case. A7 was not at all present in the alleged scene of occurrence, since he is permanent residence in Puducherry. The Court below has erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC.

(ii) There is no recovery of weapon from the appellant / A7 and the appellant was arrested on 16.12.2013 after a gap of four months. The Trial Court failed to note that PW12, in whose house the deceased took shelter, turned hostile and hence the offence under Section 449 IPC will not be attracted.

(iii) PW7-VAO in his cross examination deposed that he reached the occurrence place at 3.30 p.m. and at that time, PW27 – Inspector of Police and other police officials arrived the occurrence place. Contra to the evidence of PW17, PW27/ I.O. deposed that after received the FIR, he reached the occurrence place at 4.25 p.m. and he has prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch.

(iv) PW27 categorically admitted that though in this case 9 accused were cited, only 2 accused said to have assaulted the deceased. PW27 further deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body from 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., and thereafter sent the 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 body to the hospital for conducting postmortem, whereas PW4 deposed that at 3.30 p.m. itself police have arrived the scene of occurrence and thereafter, taken the deceased body to the hospital.

The genesis of the incident in this case is fully suppressed by the prosecution. The First Information Report seems to be fabricated and brought into existence after the occurrence and therefore, the entire prosecution case would collapse.

To strengthen his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A7 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala [(1980) 4 SCC 425], to show that once the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence, the entire prosecution case would collapse. Yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2023) 10 SCC 470] to show that the prosecution has suppressed the information with regard to the FIR lodged and held that the prosecution attempted to suppress the real genesis of the incident and therefore, considering this aspect, coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

5. The learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants in Crl.A.No.565 of 2019 / A6 would submit that A6 worked in abroad in Malaysia between 28.02.2009 and 08.02.2016 for a period of over 7 years. On 20.08.2013 and 21.08.2013, the appellant / A6 was travelling to Tindivanam and he used to meet his sister at Omandur on the way. The appellant / A6 came to know about his implication only during later stage of the case and he has never been part of crime or never been at the crime scene. The appellant / A6 returned only during the year 2016 and could not take part in the trial of the case. There were no previous enmity or whatsoever between A6 and the victim. To strengthen his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant / A6 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dudh Natha Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1981 SC 911] show that failure of an alibi plea does not automatically lead to a conviction, the prosecution must still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [AIR 1997 SC 322] to show shat the accused must prove the alibi with certainty once the prosecution has discharged its initial burden. Therefore, the Court below has committed error in convicting the appellant / A6 without appreciating the oral and 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 documentary evidence in a proper manner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.461 of 2019 / A4, A5, A8 and A9 would submit that the Court below has failed to note that no specific overt act was attributed against the accused. The Court below failed to note that A9, mother of A4 is concerned, she gave iron rod to A4 and instructed him to attack the deceased and no witness have spoken against these witnesses. According to the prosecution, there was previous enmity between A1 and the deceased and not against the appellants herein and no independent witness was established to establish the prosecution case. The evidence of PW1/defacto complainant and the evidence of PW27- I.O. is contradictory in nature and there are lot of inconsistencies with regard to time of the alleged occurrence, lodging of the complaint and conducting inquest over the body of the deceased and no independent witness was examined to establish the case of the prosecution.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.565 of 2019 has put forward the following submissions:

(i) It is highly unsafe to apply Section 149 IPC and brag A1 making everyone constructive liable. When the appellants are not 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 members of unlawful assembly, it would be unsafe to apply Section 148 IPC on the basis of ombinus allegations / statements made by the prosecution, which is not corroborated in any manner by medical evidence too.

(ii) The Court below failed to appreciate the fact the entire case of the prosecution from the place of one Elumalai funeral to all through by the road to the house of PW12-Marimuthu.

Further, the injury sustained on the deceased within the closed door and no mention of injury being inflicted on the run or outside by any mode of dangerous weapon.

(iii) The evidences of PWs.1 to 7, PW11 and PW12, so far as it relates to the manner in which the incidence took place is inconsistent and seriously contradictory.

(iv) The omnibus allegations narrated eye witness and others read along with the medical evidence renders the prosecution case highly improbable and doubtful about the presence and participation of the appellants in the assault.

(v) As per the prosecution version, PW12- Marimuthu has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Further PW12, in whose house the deceased took shelter narrated to be dead was also not at home. When no one is at home, an empty house usually must be locked.

(vi) PW 4, in his cross examination, categorically admitted from where M.O.1 – Iron Spade come, he does not know. PW3 admits that the iron spade was taken from PW12- Marimuthu house only.

25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

(vii) PW1, in his cross examination, admits that no witness was inside the house of Marimuthu – PW12. In this regard, PW2 admits that PW12’s house door was shut, no one can see through, but how PW2 and PW3 peep in and how the occurrence of the hit on head as per narration is unimaginable. Further the case of injuries they sustained on themselves and PWs.2 and 3 failed to mention the exact person hitting and causing injury and the actual weapon use on them.

(viii) The prosecution miserably failed to prove the confession and recovery from A1 and A3. On the other hand, Pws.13 and 14 were called to Kottakuppam Police Station and got their signatures in the confession statement of the accused. Pws.13 and 14 never even gone to the spot of recovery of the material objects, as spelt out by them in their cross examination.

(ix) PW4 takes PW2 and PW3 to PIMS hospital for treatment, though PW4 had mobile phone, he did not inform the police or complain. But police reached there by 3.30 hours and also narrates that before going to hospital, police had already come to Mathur and on the next day only, complaint was given.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to motive to the offence through the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. The deceased and A4 already had land dispute, 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 wherein the deceased entered into an agreement with one Mr.Shanmugam for purchase of land and advanced Rs.1 lakhs, but the said Shanmugam sold the said land to A4 and therefore, the deceased filed a suit for specific performance and the same was decreed in his favour and hence, enmity between the deceased and A4 arose. In such circumstances, Panchayat was also convened wherein A4 was directed to pay Rs.35,000/- to the deceased. On 20.08.2013 at 12.40 p.m., the deceased along with PWs.1 to 4 and other relatives to the deceased attended the funeral of one Elumalai in their village. At that time, A1 to A4 involved in wordy altercation with the deceased and out of fear, the deceased ran towards the house of PW12- Elumalai. At that time, A1 scolded in filthy language for lodging case and attacked the deceased on the backside of the iron spade on the had of the deceased. A4 also attacked him in the head with iron pipe. Again A1 attacked the deceased on the right side of the face and all other accused restrained the deceased and attacked him with log on the had. PW1 to PW3 also came to PW12’s house to rescue the deceased. A3 attacked PW2 on head with wooden log and A1 attacked with iron spade on the bead but spade fell down. But A2 hit on the head with wooden log. When PW3 came to rescue the deceased, 1 attacked PW3 on head with iron pipe lying in 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 the corner of PW12’s house and A2 hit on the right hand side with wooden log and A5 also attacked with a log on the head. The deceased fell in pool of blood and at that time, A1 said that the Krishnan did not die yet and therefore, attacked on the front side. A4 attacked the deceased with iron pipe on the head and others with wooden log and hit on the head. Knowing that the deceased is dead, all the accused left with their weapons from the scene of occurrence.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 corroborates with each other with regard to specific overt acts of each accused. During the cross examination of PW1 to PW27, nothing has been elicited by the defence to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The eye witnesses to the occurrence as well as the injured witnesses PW2 & PW3 categorically deposed the manner of commission of offence by the appellant / accused. The evidence of the Doctor, who issued Exs.P34 and P35-Wound Certificates also corroborates the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence also corroborates the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has established the recovery of material objects from the accused in pursuance to the confession statements made by 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 the accused. The material objects seized from the accused were found with human blood, though the Blood Group is inconclusive.

10. To strengthen his contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

(i) Nitya Nand v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2024) 9 SCC 314] to show that Section 149 IPC says that every member of an unlawful assembly shall be guilty of the offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

Section 149 IPC is quite categorical. It says that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such of that object, every person who, at the time of committing of that offence, is a member of the said assembly, if guilty of that offence.

(ii) Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 13 SCC 365] to show that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(iii) Baban Shankar Daphal and Others v. State of Maharashtra [2025 SCC Online SC 137] to show that though the eyewitnesses who have been examined were closely related to the deceased, their testimonies are consistent and it was quite natural for the other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the trial Court’s conclusion that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable.

(iv) K.P.Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police [2025 SCC Online SC 958], to show that the Court cannot ignore the testimonies of witnesses only because they are close relatives of the victim.

30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

(v) Edakkandi Dineshan @ P.Dineshan and Others v.

State of Kerala [(2025) 3 SCC 273] to show that either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc. at this stage, it may not out of place to refer to the principle called as “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”.

11. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

12. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, has relied upon the following circumstances:

(i) Motive and Eye Witness

(ii) Evidence of the Injured Witnesses

(ii) Recovery of Material Objects

(iii) Medical Evidence 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 MOTIVE AND EYE WITNESS

13. PW1 / defacto complainant, who is the son of the deceased deposed that the deceased had entered into a Sale Agreement with one Shanmugam of Mathur Village to purchase his land. The said Shanmugam did not sell the land to the deceased, but sold the land to A4. Hence, the deceased had filed a Civil Suit against the legal heirs of the said Shanmugam and one Kuppusamy six months prior to the occurrence, which led to enmity among them. Three months prior to the occurrence, while PW1 and the deceased were travelling in a two wheeler in Kalapattu Mathur Road, A4, A1, A2, A3, A7 A5, A8 attacked the deceased, in which the deceased sustained injuries. In this regard, PW1 lodged a complaint before Kottakuppam Police Station and the deceased was admitted in the hospital.

14. PW1 further deposed that 10 days prior to the occurrence, Panchayat was convened and at that time, A4 threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if deceased enters into the disputed land, he would do away his life. In the Panchayat, A4 was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the deceased, but A4 did not pay the amount. On 19.08.2013, one Elumalai of their village died. PW1, deceased, PW2 – 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 Rajendran and PW3-Natarajan went to attend the funeral of the said Elumalai on 20.08.2013. After garlanding the dead body, they were standing beside and at that time, A4 and his men picked up quarrel with them. Out of fear, the deceased ran away to the house of PW12. At that time, A1 picked up Iron Spade – M.O.4. lying there, A9 picked up iron pipe and gave to her son / A4 and asked them to kill the deceased. A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8 each picked up a log and chased the deceased. PW1 and PW3 ran behind them. While the deceased was running, his lungi slipped down and ran with his underwear into the house of PW12. A1 scolded the deceased and attacked him with M.O.4 – Iron Spade on the back side of his head for filing suit against them. A4 attacked the deceased with iron pipe on his head. Again A1 attacked the deceased on his face with M.O.4. The other accused restrained the deceased from running and attacked him with wooden logs – M.Os.5, 11, 13 and 14. When A1 attempted to attack the deceased with M.O.4, it fell down. Thereafter, A1 picked up an iron pipe lying at the house of PW12 and attacked the deceased on his head. Then A2 attacked the deceased. A1 attacked PW3, who went for rescuing the deceased, with iron pipe and log. A2, A3 and A5 attacked PW3 with wooden logs. The deceased fell down in the pool of blood. A1 attacked the deceased with iron 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 pipe on the front side of his head stating that “Krishnan / deceased did not yet die”. Due to injuries succumbed, Krishnan (deceased) died.

15. PW2 deposed that on 20.08.2013, PW1, deceased and PW3 gone to the funeral of one Elumalai and at that time, A4 and his henchmen stated that the deceased should not be left alive and they assaulted the deceased with wooden log. The deceased in order to save himself, ran to the house of PW12-Tr.Marimuthu. While so, A1, A2, A5, A3, A6 chased the deceased and entered into the house of PW12 and closed the door. All the accused assaulted the deceased with iron spade, iron pipe and wooden logs. When PW2 tried to rescue and prevent the same, A3 assaulted PW2 on his head. He got injuries and he was sent to PIMS hospital.

16. PW3 also deposed on similar lines as that of PW2. PW3 deposed that the accused assaulted the deceased at the funeral of one Elumalai. The deceased ran away to the house of PW12. A1, A2, A5 and A4 assaulted the deceased with iron spade. The accused assaulted the deceased by using wooden logs by removing the wooden log from the funeral bier. A2, A3 and A4 assaulted PW3. A3 assaulted PW3 with iron pipe. While so, the 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 deceased fell down on the floor. A9 handed over iron pipe to A4 / her son and asked him to kill the deceased. A1 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and the deceased fell down and died on the spot.

17. PW4, who is the son of PW3, deposed that on 20.08.2013, when he along with PWs.1 to 3 went to attend the funeral of one Elumalai at about 2.45 p.m., the accused involved in a wordy quarrel with the deceased. The deceased ran out of fear to the house of PW12. A1 attacked the deceased with Iron Spade – M.O.4. While chasing by the accused, the deceased’s lungi slipped down and he ran with inner wear to the house of PW12. A1, A2, A7, A6 and A8 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and wooden log saying that the deceased should not be left alive. They also assaulted PWs.2 and 3.

18. PW5 wife of PW3 deposed that she came to know about the occurrence and she went to the house of PW12 and saw the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. She also deposed that there is dispute between the accused and deceased family with regard to purchase of land. 35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

19. PW6, who is the wife of PW2 deposed that on 20.08.2013, when the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 went to attend the funeral of one Elumalai, she heard that someone quarrelling with the deceased. After hearing that, she rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw A1 chasing the deceased and at that time, the deceased lungi fell down, but with inner wear he rushed to the house of PW12 at about 2.45 p.m. At that time, A1 having iron spade in his hand, A4 was having iron pipe and other accused picked up wooden logs from the funeral bier. A1 assaulted the deceased with iron spade on his back head. At that time, the iron spade fell down. Again he took the iron spade and attacked the deceased on his head. When PWs.2 and 3 tried to prevent the same, A1, A2 and A5 together assaulted PWs.2 and 3.

20. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 6, and their evidence corroborates with each other with regard to motive and attribution of overtact against each accused. The defence has stated that the evidence of the eye-witnesses Pws.1 to 3 and the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 cannot easily relied upon as they are close relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P.Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 Superintendent of Police [2025 SCC Online SC 958], wherein it has been held that “the Court cannot ignore the testimonies of witnesses only because they are close relatives of the victim”. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the motive aspect has been proved by the prosecution, as previous enmity emanated between the deceased and A4 with regard to property dispute and initiation of civil suit. The prosecution has proved its case with regard to manner of offence committed by the accused through the evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 6, whose evidence are reliable, cogent and consistent throughout with regard to overtact attributed against each accused.

EVIDENCE OF INJURED WITNESSES

21. PWs.2 and 3 are injured witnesses in this case. PW2 deposed that when he tried to rescue and prevent the assault of the deceased, A3 assaulted PW2 on his head. He got injuries and he was sent to PIMS hospital. PW3 deposed that A2, A3 and A4 assaulted him. A3 assaulted PW3 with iron pipe. The evidence of Pws.2 and 3 are corroborated by the evidence of PW19- Dr.Hari, who treated PW2 and PW3, has deposed that on 20.08.2013 at 4.00 p.m., PW3 – Natarajan came to the hospital for treatment. He found 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 laceration in right parietal region and left parietal region. He issued the Wound Certificate – Ex.P34. He also deposed that one Dr.Arun has issued Ex.P35 – Wound Certificate for PW2. PW19 knows the signature of Dr.Arun and PW19 states that as per Ex.P35-Wound Certificate, PW2 was brought by one Sathish Kumar to the hospital on 20.08.2013 and in Ex.P35, it has been stated that the injures said to have been caused on 20.08.2013 at Mathur Village at 4.00 p.m., due to assault. In Ex.P35, the details of injuries has been mentioned as laceration of Size 4x 1 cm @ left side of frontal region and laceration of size 3 x 1 cm @ vertex. The evidence of the injured witness - PW2 and PW3 are corroborated by the Wound Certificates under Exs.P34 and P35. It has been mentioned that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. There is no mention about known or unknown persons. In Ex.P35 it is also stated that the patient is not willing for any investigation at the time of hospital stay. PW3 had stated in the chief examination that the accused persons attacked the deceased at PW12’s house. PW3 stated that he was attacked by A1 with an iron rod in his chief, but to the doctor in wooden log. The minor contradictions with regard to non-mentioning the accused persons known or not known will not affect the entire prosecution case. 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 RECOVERY

22. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW7, PWs.13 to 18 for recovery of Material Objects. PW7- Shasti Kumar- Village Administrative Officer deposed that on 20.08.2013, he received an information that there was a murder in the Mathur Village. Immediately, PW7 and his Assistant – Tr.Natarajan went to Mathur Village. At that time, PW27 – Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and recovered M.Os.1 to 5 under Seizure Mahazar- Ex.P5.

23. As per the evidence of PW27 / I.O., in continuation of his investigation, on 21.08.2013 at 3.30 p.m. he arrested A9 at Kalapattu Bus Stop, who was standing there, brought to the police station and subjected to judicial custody on the same day and he received information that A1, A5, A4, A3 have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and lodged at Cuddalore Central Prison on 26.08.2013. He chose to file an application seeking for their police custody and after taking them under police custody. On enquiry, A1 voluntarily gave confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of PW13-Sundar and PW14-Murugan and in pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 (Ex.P50), PW27 recovered Iron Pipe – M.O.10 from A1 in the presence of the same witnesses from the back side of his house under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P54. Later at 8.00 p.m. on the same day, PW27 recorded the confession statement of A5 in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A5 (Ex.P51), PW27 recovered M.O.11 – wooden log under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P55. Later at 9.30 p.m. PW27 recorded the confession statement of A3 and the same has been recorded in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A3 (Ex.P52), PW27 recovered M.O.5 – blood stained log measuring 76cm under Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P56. Later at 11.45 p.m., PW27 recorded the confession statement of A4 in the presence of PW13 and PW14. In pursuance to the confession statement of A4 under Ex.P53, PW27 recovered M.O.12 – 53cm length Iron Pipe under Mahazar Ex.P57. PW27 recorded the statement of PW13 and PW14.

24. PW27 further deposed that on 30.08.2013, PW27 sent a requisition letter for sending the material objects seized for forensic science examination. On 02.09.2013, A2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate 40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 Court No.II, Tindivanam. On 04.09.2013, he filed a petition seeking police custody of A2 and on enquiry, A2 gave voluntary confession statement on 05.09.2013 and the same has been recorded in the presence of PW15-VAO and PW16- Village Assistant. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession statement of A2 (Ex.P58_, PW27 recovered M.O.5 – Savukku Thadi under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P59.

25. PW27 further deposed that in continuation of his investigation, on 22.10.2013, he arrested A8 in the presence of PW17 and PW18. On enquiry, the accused voluntarily gave confession statement and in pursuance to the admissible portion of his confession statement (Ex.P31), A8 handed over M.O.13 – Bamboo Thadi, which was recovered under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P60. On 16.11.2013, PW27 arrested A7 in the presence of PWs.13 and 14 at Kaluperumbakkam Bus Stop. On enquiry, A7 voluntary gave confession statement and the same has recorded and in pursuance of confession statement (Ex.P61), recovered M.O.14- log (Ex.P62). The evidence of PW7, PWs.13 to 18 totally corroborates to the evidence of PW27, with regard to recovery of material objects in pursuance of the confession statement of the accused persons.

41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 MEDICAL EVIDENCE

26. PW20- Dr.Sajeev Slader, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P37-Postmortem Certificate, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Cranio-Cerebral injuries sustained by the deceased. Ex.P36- Viscera Report shows that the inner organs of the deceased did not contain poison. The evidence of PW1 with regard to assault made by the accused with weapons on the head and face of the deceased is fully corroborated to the evidence of PW20 and also with the evidence of PW6 and PW8. The prosecution proved that it is the homicidal death.

27. The appellant / A6 has taken the defence of Alibi to create reasonable doubt about his presence at the crime scene. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Sections 11 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act:-

Sec.11- When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant:

Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant.- (1) If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

(2) If by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 Sec.103 – Burden of proof as to particular fact The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

28. It is to be noted that with regard to burden of proof, while the prosecution always has to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, once the accused raises an alibi, the burden of establishing the specific fact shifts to the defence and it can be established through oral evidence, documentary proof and through digital data.

29. Though the appellant / A6 has taken a stand of alibi, burden of proof rests upon him to establish alibi through oral and documentary evidence, whereas A6 neither has chosen to examine any independent witness or nor chosen to file any document to establish the fact that on the alleged date and time of the occurrence, he was not in the scene of occurrence and he was travelling near Tindivanam to meet his sister at Omandur on the way. A7 examined himself as DW2 and marked Exs.D3 to D7 to establish that A7 was not present in the scene of occurrence and he was previously residing at Puducherrry. As per the evidence of PW27, on 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 16.11.2013, he arrested A7 in the presence of PWs.13 and 14 at Kaluperumbakkam Bus Stop and after arrest, A7 voluntarily gave confession statement and the same was recorded and in pursuance of his confession statement, PW27 recovered M.O.14 – Log. The prosecution has proved the case that A7 was present in the scene of occurrence and participated in the crime.

30. As far as the charge under Section 149 IPC, the appellants/ accused have taken the defence that there is no common object among the accused persons, since the accused persons had gone to attend the funeral of one Elumalai. The prosecution has proved that initial assembly of the accused persons to attend the funeral place was not unlawful, subsequently when the deceased arrived to attend the funeral and the accused were involved in quarrel with the deceased, it became an unlawful assembly.

31. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikau Pandey and Others v. State of Bihar [(2003) 12 SCC 616], wherein it was held as under:

“10…. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged 44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019 to be a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141….. the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur with it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. … 11…. The “common object” of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the are some of the relevant considerations. What the common object of the unlawful is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident….”

32. Section 149 IPC unequivocally provides that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object or of one which such members knew to be likely committed in furtherance thereof. Once participation and sharing of the common object are proved, every member becomes vicariously liable for offences committed in prosecution of that object.

45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

33. In the case on hand, as per the evidence of PW1, 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, Panchayat was convened, at that time A4 threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if he enters into the disputed land, he would do away his life and futher, in the Panchayat, A4 was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the deceased. On the fateful day on 19.08.2013, for the funeral of one Elumalai PWs.1 to 3 went to attend the funeral of the said Elumalai on 20.08.2013 and after garlanding the dead body, they were standing beside and at that time, A4 and his men picked up quarrel with them, out of fear, the deceased ran away to the house of PW12 and thereafter, all the accused committed the murder. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 also corroborates the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 conclusively establishes that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly by facilitating the attack and ensuring its execution in furtherance of the common object.

34. This Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court and finds no merit in this appeal.

46 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019

35. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Appeals stand dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2019 in S.C.No.305 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. Since the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court are confirmed, the respondent police is directed to secure the presence of the accused persons, if their sentence of imprisonment was suspended by this Court pending appeal and they shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, less the period already undergone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.





                                                                                                  [P.V., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
                                                                                                     10.02.2026
                     Index              : Yes / No
                     Internet           : Yes / No
                     Jvm




                                                                         47




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                      ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm )
                                                                                      Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019




                     To

                     1.The Inspector of Police
                       Kottakuppam Police Station,
                       Villupuram District

                     2.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                       Tindivanam.

                     3.The Public Prosecutor,
                       High Court, Madras.




                                                                48




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm )
                                                                            Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019




                                                                              P.VELMURUGAN, J.
                                                                                           and
                                                                              M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

                                                                                                        Jvm




                                                                       Common Judgment in
                                                           Crl.A.Nos.461, 429 and 565 of 2019




                                                                                               10.02.2026


                                                      49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/02/2026 03:49:02 pm )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court