Madras High Court
Saravanan vs State By : Inspector Of Police on 24 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
Crl.A.No.872 of 2018 :
Saravanan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State by : Inspector of Police,
Elachipalayam Police Station,
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.197 of 2015)
2.Karuvakungi @ Karuvamani @ Mani
3.Ravi @ Vettairavi @ Ravichandran
4.Mohanraj ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2018 in S.C.No.93 of 2016 on the file of
the Additional Sessions Court, Namakkal.
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vasudevan
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.No.583 of 2019 :
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Elachipalayam Police Station,
Namakkal. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Karuvakunji @ Karuvamani @ Mani
3.Ravi @ Vettairavi @ Ravichandran
3.Mohanraj ... Respondents
Prayer in Crl.A.No.583 of 2019 : Criminal Appeal filed under Section
378(1) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2018 in
S.C.No.93 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.93 of 2016, dated 20.11.2018, acquitting the accused A1 to A3 for the offences under Section 396 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 201 r/w. 396 r/w. 36 IPC, the State has filed Crl.A.No.872 of 2018 and the complainant (P.W.1) has filed Crl.A.No.583 of 2019.
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.The deceased are aged parents of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The 1st deceased is the father of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the 2nd deceased is the mother.
They were residing in the farmhouse separately. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were residing separately. The deceased were looking after the agricultural farm. On 15.10.2015, when the deceased were inside the house, at about 9.00 p.m., some unknown persons entered into the house, and with an intention to commit dacoity, murdered the parents of P.W.1 and P.W.2 using deadly Page 3 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 weapons, and looted 12 sovereigns of gold jewels, viz., gold bangles (M.O.5), gold ring (M.O.6), gold ear stud screw (M.O.1), gold thali chain (M.O.2), gold stud with screw (M.O.3), gold stud without screw (M.O.4) and an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the bureau and two mobile phones from the house and thereafter, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence and concealed the deadly weapons used for committing the murder in a thorny bush and threw the sim-cards of the stolen mobile phones and the gloves worn at the time of offence, in the river. On the next day morning, i.e., on 16.10.2015, P.W.4, who was the driver and also used to supply milk to the house of the deceased, found both the parents of P.W.1 and P.W.2 murdered and immediately informed P.W.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2, on coming to know about the murder of their parents through P.W.4, rushed to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) on the same day, i.e., on 16.10.2015. Immediately, an FIR (Ex.P31) came to be registered in Crime No.197 of 2015 by the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.13) Elachipalayam Police Station, for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 302 IPC against unknown persons.
Page 4 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 2.2.Then, the Inspector of Police (P.W.14) took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P33) in the presence of witnesses and also seized M.Os.10 to 23, namely blood stained shirts, skirt, blouse, saree, etc., under Seizure Mahazar (Exs.P3 and P4) in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies and prepared inquest reports (Exs.P34 and P35) and sent the dead body of Rangasamy for post- mortem through P.W.11 (Special Sub-Inspector of Police) and the dead body of Ramayi through P.W.12 (Head Constable).
2.3.P.W.10 (medical officer) conducted autopsy over the dead bodies and issued post-mortem certificates (Exs.P24 and P28) and after receiving the viscera reports (Exs.P25 and P30), opined that the death of both the deceased persons was due to homicidal violence and various injuries all over the body.
2.4.P.W.14 (Investigating Officer), in continuation of investigation, forwarded all the collected materials to the Court under Form-91 and later, handed over the case file to P.W.15 (Inspector of Police). Page 5 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 2.5.On 31.10.2015, when P.W.15 was on regular patrol, the accused persons came in motor cycles, and on enquiry, they confessed about the murder and their confession was recorded in the presence of P.W.9 (Village Administrative Officer). Recording the confession of A1, he seized the cell phones and two sovereigns gold ring under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P9) on the same day at 2.00 p.m. Again, on the confession made by A2, he recovered two sovereigns gold bangle under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P11) at 3.50 p.m. On the same day at 4.15 p.m., he recorded the confession of A5 and recovered the gold ear stud under Mahazar (Ex.P14). Again, he recorded the confession of other accused A3 at 6.05 p.m. Thereafter, he recorded the confession of one Muneeswaran at 7.35 p.m. and recovered the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-33-BA-7306 under Mahazar (Ex.P17). Thereafter, he recovered 5 ½ sovereigns gold thali chain from the house of A1 at 10.05 p.m. under Mahazar (Ex.P18). Thereafter, on the next day morning, i.e., on 01.11.2015 at 05.35 a.m., he seized the blood stained pen knife under Mazahar (Ex.P19). On the same day, at 06.00 a.m., he seized 62 cm crowbar under Mahazar (Ex.P20). Thereafter, he handed over all the Page 6 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 accused and the seized material objects to the Court. After conducting further investigation, the charges were altered vide alteration report (Ex.P39) and finally, laid a charge-sheet against five persons namely, Karuvakungi @ Karuvamani (A1), Ravi @ Vettairavi @ Ravichandran (A2), Mohanraj (A3), Hansmani @ Manikandan (A4) and Kannan @ Priyakannan (A5) for the offences under Sections 396 and 201 IPC, in P.R.C.No.14 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode.
3.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.93 of 2016 and was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Namakkal, for trial.
4.The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 396 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 201 r/w. 396 r/w. 34 IPC as against A1 to A5. Since A4 and A5 were juvenile, the case was split insofar as A4 and A5 were concerned, and the Sessions Case proceeded as against A1 to A3. When questioned, A1 to A3 pleaded “not guilty”.
Page 7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
5.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked Exs.P1 to P39 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.30. On the side of defence, no witness was examined nor any document marked.
6.The trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence on record, by impugned judgment dated 20.11.2018, found that there is no incriminating evidence as against the accused and the extra-judicial confession is not reliable and ultimately, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted A1 to A3 from all the charges.
7.Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed Crl.A.No.872 of 2018 and the complainant (P.W.1) has filed Crl.A.No.583 of 2019.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant (P.W.1) would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence with regard to recovery. The knife used to commit murder and the other gold ornaments Page 8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 looted from the house of the deceased have been recovered from the accused based on their confession. P.W.9, the Village Administrative Officer, who was the witness to the confession and recovery, has also clearly deposed about the recovery. Therefore, when the articles belonging to the deceased were in possession of the accused and recovery has also been established, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, the trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution evidence against the accused and convicted them for the offences. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar reported in (2018) AIAR (Criminal) 1057 to show that the confession made by the accused in the police custody also has evidentiary value under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, he would submit that the judgment of the trial Court has to be set aside and the accused have to be convicted and sentenced for committing brutal murder of two age old persons.
9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State also made his submissions in line with the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant.
Page 9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
10.We have perused the entire materials available on record.
11.The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and the chain of evidence must be complete and even if one link gets broken, conviction cannot be made based on the weak piece of evidence. No doubt, the murder is grave in nature. Two aged persons have been brutally murdered in the night hours. There is no eye- witness, whatsoever. Even P.W.3, said to be residing in the same vicinity, has not even heard anything about the murder. P.W.1, the son, and P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, also came to know about the murder of their parents only on the next day through P.W.4, who used to supply milk to the house of the deceased.
12.Though it is stated that certain gold jewels were missing, it is relevant to note that P.W.1, the son of the deceased, who lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) has not even given the details or description of the gold Page 10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 jewels owned by their parents. Though P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that the so-called recovered jewels belong to their parents, P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, who is the best person to identify the jewels, has never whispered anything about the identity of the jewels. In fact, she (P.W.2) has pleaded ignorance of the gold ring. Further, she has also admitted that the gold ring, ear studs are new ones. This clearly shows that the prosecution has not clearly established the identity of the jewels recovered. Be that as it may.
13.The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.9 (Village Administrative Officer) and the Inspector of Police (P.W.15). On careful reading, we are unable to accept their evidence as true. Their entire evidence appears to be artificial in nature. P.W.15 has allegedly arrested the accused persons on 31.10.2015 at 11.30 a.m., and started recording the confession at 12.30 p.m. According to him, confession was first recorded from one of the accused and thereafter, recovery was effected, and again, confession was recorded from another accused and then again recovery was effected, and according to him, this process of confession and Page 11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 recovery repeated one by one, upto 6'o clock in the next day morning. This Court is of the view that such a conduct of the Investigating Officer recording confession of one accused and effecting recovery, and thereafter, recording the confession of the other accused and again effecting recovery, one after the other, is highly against normal human conduct. If really all the accused were present, the normal course of investigation would be to record the confession of all the accused first in the Police Station and later, recovery would be effected. Therefore, the very evidence of P.W.15 (Investigating Officer) with regard to confession and recovery, appears highly artificial.
14.Though the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Manjhi's case (supra) for the proposition that the confession made by the accused in the police custody satisfies the test of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is also admissible in evidence, Section 27 ibid., provides that the extent of information received from the accused leading to a discovery alone, can be construed to be proved. However, in the present case, when the recovery pursuant to the alleged confession made by the accused, itself is Page 12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 not satisfying the conscience of the Court and the very confession recorded by the Police itself is in artificial manner and against normal human conduct, we are not in a position to accept such recovery or the evidence of the accused emerging from such confession.
15.Further, though certain jewels are stated to have been seized from the accused, the fact remains that P.W.2, being the daughter of the deceased who is the best person to identify the jewels, has not identified the jewels owned by her parents. She has, in fact, stated that the jewels appear to be new ones. Therefore, merely on the basis of recovery and the alleged confession, which this Court considers to be highly artificial, it is highly unsafe to pass a judgment of conviction against the accused for such a grave crime.
16.Further, it is relevant to note that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly show that the forensic experts visited the spot and examined the entire area. Similarly, P.W.4 also, in the cross-examination, has clearly stated that his finger print was also taken by the Police. However, there is Page 13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 no whisper with regard to the chance prints lifted by the forensic experts. This aspect has been totally suppressed by the prosecution.
17.Further, though prosecution has examined P.W.7 to show that one of the accused (A5) approached him to cut a crowbar into two pieces, his evidence clearly indicates that he did not identify such person. Be that as it may.
18.Further, to show that the cellphones which were recovered actually belong to the deceased, absolutely, there is no evidence produced. The prosecution could have atleast produced some call records from the concerned Telephone authorities. However, no such records have been filed to substantiate that the recovered cellphones were actually used by the deceased.
19.To sum up, when there is no evidence with regard to description of the gold jewels missing from the house of the deceased nor the identity of Page 14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019 the gold jewels recovered from the accused being established; when the prosecution has not given any explanation as to why the chance prints lifted from the place of occurrence have not been placed before the Court; when there is no evidence to establish that the seized cellphones belong to the deceased; more particularly, when this Court has held that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in recording the confession and effecting recovery appears to be highly doubtful and artificial in nature, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the alleged confession and recovery and pass a judgment of conviction based on the same.
20.Therefore, this Court holds that the impugned judgment of the trial Court extending the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting them of the offences, warrants no interference. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
24.10.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Namakkal.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Elachipalayam Police Station,
Namakkal District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page 16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
Crl.A.Nos.872 of 2018 & 583 of 2019
24.10.2025
Page 17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )