Madras High Court
Ramachandar @ Ramachandran vs State Rep By on 27 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
2025:MHC:2485
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JOTHIRAMAN
Criminal Appeal Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018
and
Criminal R.C.No.831 of 2023
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018 :
Ramachandar @ Ramachandran .. Appellant in
Crl.A.No.612 of 2018
1.Marimuthu @ Mani @ Karuvamani
2.Subramani
3.Thamarai @ Manju @ Manjunathan .. Appellants in
Crl.A.No.760 of 2018
Shanmugam @ Siva .. Appellant in
Crl.A.No.761 of 2018
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Sankari Police Station,
Salem District-637 301.
(Crime No.799 of 2014) .. Respondents in
all Criminal Appeals
1/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 :
S.Kanakavalli .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Sankari Police Station,
Salem District.
2.Ramachandar @ Ramachandran
3.Shanmugam @ Siva
4.Marimuthu @ Mani @ Karuvamani
5.Subramani
6.Thamarai @ Manju @ Manjunathan .. Respondents
These Criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction an sentence dated
23.08.2018 passed in S.C.No.101 of 2015 on the file of learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and thus render justice.
The Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 has been filed under Section 397 read with
section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking for enhancement of the conviction and
sentence imposed on the accused persons by learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.101 of 2015 dated
23.08.2018 and to allow this revision petition considering the facts and
circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
2/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
For Appellants : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate
for Ms.Aruna Elango
in Crl.A.No.612 of 2018
Mr.B.Mohan in Crl.A.No.760 of 2018
Mr.T.Muruganantham
in Crl.A.No.761 of 2018
For Petitioner
in Crl.R.C. : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate
for Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,
in Crl.Appeals and Additional Public Prosecutor
for R-1 in Crl.R.C. assisted by
Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For RR2 to 6 in
Crl.R.C. : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate
for Ms.Aruna Elango for R-2
Mr.T.Muruganantham for R-3
Mr.B.Mohan for RR4 to 6
----
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
23.08.2018 made in S.C.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional
District and Sessions Court, Salem, A-1 has filed Crl.A.No.612 of 2018,
A-3 to A-5 have filed Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 and A-2 has filed
Crl.A.No.761 of 2018. The appellants/accused were convicted and
sentenced by the trial Court as follows :
3/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
Accused Conviction Sentence
A1 to A5 Section 120B read Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to
with Section 302 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
A2 to A5 Section 341 IPC Each to undergo Simple imprisonment for
one month.
A2 to A5 Section 364 IPC Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
A1 Section 364 read with To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a
section 120B IPC fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one
year Rigorous imprisonment.
A3 and A4 Section 302 IPC Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo
one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A2 and A5 Section 302 read with Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to
Section 34 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo
one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A1 Section 302 read with To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a
Section 120B IPC fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one
year Rigorous imprisonment.
A-2, A-3 and Section 404 IPC Each to undergo three years Rigorous
A-5 imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default to undergo Simple
imprisonment for six months.
A1 to A5 Section 201 read with Each to undergo Seven years Rigorous
Section 302 IPC imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default to undergo Simple
imprisonment for six months.
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently
Facts of the prosecution case :
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
4/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
2.1.The deceased Duraisamy is the husband of P.W.1, Kanagavalli
and the father of P.W.2, Meena. He was doing real estate business.
Normally, the deceased used to leave home to office at 7.00 a.m. in the
morning and come back for lunch and again leave to office at 03.00 p.m.
and return home back at 07.30 p.m. He used to go in a two wheeler
bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949. On 17.12.2014, as usual, the
deceased left the house at 03.00 p.m. and thereafter, he did not come
back. When P.W.1 tried to contact him over his cellphone number
9842952663, the same was switched off and not reachable. Therefore,
P.W.1 informed this to his relatives and her daughters and they all
reached her house. Despite search, they could not find the deceased.
Later, they went to Sankari Police Station and gave Ex.P.1, complaint on
18.12.2014 at 09.00 a.m.
2.2.The deposition of P.W.1 states that the deceased and his
friends one Selvam (P.W.10) and Marimuthu have jointly purchased a
land from A1. After the sale of the property, A1 filed a case through his
mother and sisters. During the pendency of the said suit, A1 also made an
attempt to sell the property. The deceased and P.W.10 thwarted the
attempt which resulted in a quarrel between them. With regard to the
5/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
same, A1 gave a complaint before Sankari Police Station against the
deceased and P.W.10. The police enquired and directed the parties to
settle the issue in a civil Court. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the
deceased went to the house of A1 and demanded either the property or
money. According to her, her husband informed her that he scolded A1
in filthy language.
2.3.P.W.3, Mohan, who owns a hotel nearby has deposed that on
17.12.2024 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was standing in the Sankari main
road, he saw the deceased proceeding in his two wheeler and following
him a omni van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 was proceeding.
The same was driven by A-2, who is the driver of A-1, and A-3 to A-5
were sitting on the back side. Later, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house
and returned back on next day. On seeing the crowd in front of the house
of P.W.1, he went there. P.W.1 informed him that her husband was
missing. He informed P.W.1 that he saw the deceased on the previous
day. When the police came to the house of P.W.1, P.W.3 informed the
police about the same. The police has prepared Ex.P.2, observation
mahazar, in his presence. The car driven by A-2 is M.O.5 and the two
wheeler of the deceased was marked as M.O.4.
6/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
2.4.P.W.2 who is the daughter of deceased and P.W.1, is also
aware of the purchase of the property and the dispute between the
deceased and A1. In the meanwhile, when P.W.4, Rajendran who was the
Village Administrative Officer of Sankari, was in his office along with
his assistant on 19.12.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., A-2 appeared before him
and gave an extra judicial confession voluntarily and the same was
recorded by P.W.4, who obtained the signature of A-2 and the said extra
judicial confession is Ex.P-3. Later, P.W.4 handed over A-2 to the police
with a special report which is Ex.P.4. At about 09.00 p.m., the police
arrested A-2 and recorded his confession in the presence of P.W.4 and
his assistant. Thereafter, pursuant to the confession of A-2, they
proceeded to the house of A-1 and the Inspector of Police arrested all
other accused. Thereafter, the confession statement of A-1 was recorded
in the police station at 12.30 a.m., on 20.12.2014 and at 01.30 a.m., the
Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-3, at about 02.45 a.m.,
the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-4 and at about 04.00
a.m., the confession statement of A-5 was recorded. In pursuance of
confession of A-3 to A-5, the place where the dead body of the deceased
was thrown in the Cauvery river was identified by the accused which is
7/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
near Kumarapalayam Kalaimagal street and with the help of P.Ws.7 to 9,
fishermen, three pieces of body parts, namely, head, two hands with
middle portion of the body and other part below the hip were recovered
under a separate seizure mahazars in the presence of P.W.4 and his
assistant. Thereafter, in the presence of P.W.4, a knife was recovered
from the house of A-4 Subramani under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter a
about 02.00 p.m., a knife and gold chain were recovered from the house
of A-3 under mahazar and at about 02.45 p.m., a gold ring of the
deceased was recovered from A-5 under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter at
3.15 p.m. the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 was
recovered as identified by A-5 under a cover of a seizure mahazar.
Thereafter, at about 04.15 p.m., the omni van having registration No.TN
30 AT 7192, as identified by A-3, was seized by the police in the
presence of P.W.4 and his assistant. On the same day at about 05.00 p.m.,
two sim cards and a Samsung mobile phone of the deceased were
recovered from A-2 under mahazar. Thereafter, at 06.00 p.m., in the
presence of P.W.4 and his assistant, the Inspector of Police prepared
observation mahazar at a place where the deceased was kidnapped. The
signature of P.W.4 in the confession statement of A-1 is marked as
8/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
Ex.P.5 and the admitted portion of the confession statement of A-2 is
Ex.P.6 and the seizure mahazar prepared in the house of A-2 is Ex.P.7.
The seized cell phone is marked as M.O.3. The admitted portion of the
confession statement of A-3 is Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 is the seizure mahazar
prepared in the house of A-3. M.O.1 is the gold chain and M.O.6 is the
knife recovered from A-3. The admitted portion of the confession
statement of A-4 is Ex.P.10 and M.O.7 knife is seized and the seizure
mahazar prepared in his house is marked as Ex.P.11. The admitted
portion of the confession of A-5 is marked as Ex.P.12 and M.O.2 is the
gold ring which is seized under Ex.P.13, seizure mahazar. The bike of the
deceased is marked as M.O.4 and the same was seized under Ex.P.14,
seizure mahazar. M.O.5 is the omni van bearing registration number TN
30 AT 7192 which was recovered from the house of P.W.5 and the
seizure mahazar is Ex.P.15. The body parts of the deceased, namely head,
middle portion and lower portion of the body, were recovered under
seizure mahazars, namely Ex.P.16 to P.18. The observation mahazar
prepared on 20.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m is marked as Ex.P.19.
2.5.P.W.11 Ganesamoorthy, while proceeding to a temple via
Mavelipalayam, in his motor cycle, on 17.12.2014, near the railway
9/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
bridge, a omni car bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192, came in a
rash manner to hit against his motor cycle and when P.W.11 immediately
questioned the omni van driver, he found that the same was driven by A2
and he saw the deceased sitting in the center and in both sides of the
deceased, A-3 and A-4 were sitting. Following the omni van, A-5 was
driving the motor cycle of the deceased. He was under the impression
that all of them are going for the purpose of real estate business. Later, he
went to the temple and returned back on 20.12.2014 and thereafter, he
came to know about the death of the deceased. On 21.12.2014 around
07.30 a.m., when P.W.11 was proceeding for his work via police station,
on hearing that the accused were arrested, he went to the police station
and saw that the accused were there and informed the police about what
he has seen on 17.12.2014.
2.6.P.W.5 has deposed that A-3 and A-2 have approached P.W.5
on 17.12.2014 at about 12.30 noon and took his omni van bearing
registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 on rent of Rs.1000/-. On the next day
when P.W.5 was not in his house, both the accused A-2 and A-3 came
and left the omni van in his house. A-2 and A-3 informed P.W.5 over
phone and P.W.5 asked them to hand over the key to his neighbour
10/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
P.W.6 Muthusamy. They handed over the key and the money of
Rs.1000/- to P.W.6. P.W.6 received the same and handed over them to
P.W.5. Later on 20.12.2014, the police came and seized the omni van
M.O.5.
2.7.P.W.10 is the partner of the deceased in the real estate
business. He along with deceased and one Marimuthu have purchased
2.46 acres of land for sum of Rs.40 lakhs from A-1. After the purchase,
A-1 has filed a case through his mother and sisters. Though P.W.10 and
deceased requested for settlement, the matter has prolonged. When the
matter stood thus, A-1 tried to sell his share which was objected to by
deceased and P.W.10 which resulted in a police complaint and finally,
the police directed them to settle the issue in a civil court. 10 days prior
to the incident, the deceased went to A-1 and demanded either money to
be returned or the property to be given and the deceased also scolded A1.
2.8.P.W.12 Elamparuthi is running a transport. On 13.12.2014 at
about 12.30 p.m., while he was proceeding to his aunt's house along with
his friend in a motorcycle, near the Mavelipalayam railway bridge, he
saw A-1 and other accused were discussing something and thereafter, he
proceeded and later, on coming to know about the incident, had given a
11/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
statement to the police above the gathering of the accused.
2.9.P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement
of P.W.5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.14 is the person in whose
presence the two wheeler M.O.8 bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298,
was handed over by P.W.16, Sankarbabu, in the police station. P.W.15 is
the sister of A-1. According to her, her brother (A-1) sold 2.10 acres of
ancestral land without their knowledge and therefore, they challenged the
same by way of a civil suit. P.W.16 is running a hardware shop. On
18.12.2014, A-1 came there and left the Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler
bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298. Later, P.W.16 handed over the
bike to the police and the same was seized and forwarded to the Judicial
Magistrate under Form 91 which is marked as Ex.P.26.
2.10.P.W.17 who is the photographer, in his deposition, has stated
that at the instructions of the police, he took photographs Ex.P.21 and
Ex.P.27 series. The medical officer who had conducted postmortem was
examined as P.W.19. According to him, the dead body was in
decomposed stage and rigor mortis is absent. He found the following
external injuries while doing postmortem:
12/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
'Injuries:-
1.A stab injury seen on front of the left shoulder M -4 CMS x 3
CMS x 6 CMS.
2.A Stab injury seen on the outer aspect of center of left arm M- 3
CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep.
3.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of left hand
A)The upper M- 3 CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep, B) 1 CMS
below another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep. C) 1
CMS below the another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone
deep, D)1 CMS below the another cut injury M 3 CMS x 1 CMS
x bone deep. E) 2 CMS below the another cut injury M 5 CMS x
1 CMS x bone deep, F) 1 CMS below another cut injury M 2
CMS x 0.5 CMS x Muscle deep.
4.A stab injury seen on the outer aspect of the left side chest M 3
CMS x 1 CM x Cavity deep, with underlying cut fracture of 4th
and 5th Ribs over the anterior axillary line.
5.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of right hand
A)The outer M-4 CMS x 1.5 CMS x bone deep, B)1 CMS inner
another cut injury M- 10 CMS x 2 CMS x bone deep. C) 1 CM
inner another cut injury M- 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, D) 2
CMS inner another cut injury M -2 CMS x 1 CMS x muscle deep,
(In all above stab and cut injuries, there is extravasation of blood
into the surrounding soft tissues – Antemortem).
6.Crush injury of right side of face extending from the inner
aspect of the left eye along the right cheek and right ear up to the
upper aspect of the right side of the neck, exposing underlying
compound communitted fracture of the right side cheek bones,
13/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
soft tissues with liquefied brain seen over the roof or right side
orbit, along with fracture dislocation of right side of lower jaw
with no extrvasation of blood postmortem.
7.Complete transection of the the neck at the level of C2, and C3,
all the structures at that level completely severed with no
extravasation of blood over the transected end surfaces. -
Postmortem. The edges of the transected ends are clean cut. The
transected head with portion of neck reciprocally aligns with the
neck portion of the trunk at the vertebral level.
8.Postmortem transection of thoracic and abdominal cavity
anteriorly with devoid of internal organs of thorax and abdomen
with no extravasation of blood over the transected edges.
9.Complete transection of abdomen at the level 1 CM below the
umbilicus with corresponding transection of lumbar vertebra with
no extravsation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues –
Postmortem, the transected portion of the abdomen reciprocally
aligns with the distal pelvis at the vertebra level. The colour and
contour of the transected the segments matches with the each
other.'
The internal injuries are as follows:
'Internal Examination:
O/D Head:- Scalp- Contusion seen over the frontal region M- 2
CMS x 1 CMS x 0.5 CMS and occipital region M- 8x4x0.5 CMS.
Cranial vault – Compound comminutted fracture of right side
frontal bone along with crush injury of anterior and middle cranial
fossa. Brain- Portion of liquefied brain present.
14/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
O/D Neck:- Vide injury column, on dissection of Hyoid bone
there is a fracture at the junction of right greater horn with the
body and fracture at the junction of left greater horn with the body
with surrounding soft tissue contusion.
O/D Thorax – Vide external examination.
O/D Abdomen :- Vide external examination, Pelvis – Pelvic
cavity intact.'
P.W.19 opined that the deceased died due to strangulation and also due
to multiple incised wounds and cut into three parts after dead. He issued
Ex.P.29 postmortem certificate.
2.11.P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police has received the alteration
report in Crime No.799 of 2014 and handed over it to the Judicial
Magistrate Court. P.W.21 who is the Sub Inspector of Police has
deposed that he received the request from the Inspector of Police and
handed over the same to the Duty Doctor of Government Mohan
Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. He accompanied the
Doctor and identified the dead body. During the process of postmortem,
he was with the Doctor and after postmortem, he handed over the dead
body to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased.
2.12.P.W.22, who is the Head Constable, in his deposition has
stated that he had typed all the statement of witnesses and the
15/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
confessions of accused in a laptop during the investigation. P.W.23 was
the Sub Inspector of Police. While he was incharge of the police station,
on 08.08.2014 at about 09.30 a.m., A-1 Ramachandran gave a complaint
against the deceased and P.W.10 in respect of a land dispute and based
on his complaint, CSR No.197 of 2014 was registered and both sides
were summoned to the police station and both agreed to settle the issue
before the civil court. The complaint given by A-1 is Ex.P.30 and the
CSR Receipt is Ex.P.31. Exs.P.32 and P.33 are statement of parties.
2.13.P.W.24, who was the Sub Inspector of police during the
relevant point of time deposed that on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 a.m., he
received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered Crime No.799 of 2014
for man missing and registered FIR is Ex.P.34. He forwarded the FIR to
the court and copies to higher officials. P.W.25, Inspector of Police, took
up the initial investigation and went to the house of the deceased and
prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P.35. He has
prepared notices with the photograph of the deceased with his
identification marks and he has also done arrangements to make a
publication in the daily newspaper. Ex.P.36 is the said notice. He had
also formed a special team. On 19.12.2014, P.W.4 VAO along with his
16/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
assistant handed over A-2 with the special report. Thereafter, he altered
the crime from man missing to Sections 147, 148, 120B, 341, 364, 302
and 201 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.37. He arrested A-2 and
recorded his confession and in pursuant to the same, he had also arrested
A-1, A3 to A-5 and recorded their confessions separately. Pursuant to the
confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered with the help of
fishermen P.W.7 to P.W.9 and the dead body was identified. Thereafter,
he conducted inquest on the three pieces and the whole body of the
deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest reports
Exs.P.38 to P.41. He had also requested the medical officer to conduct
autopsy on the dead body. Pursuant to the confession of A-4, he seized
40-1/2 cm length of sharp knife under seizure mahazar. In pursuance of
the confession of A-3 Karuvamani, he seized a long knife and also a gold
chain weighing 37.300 grams under seizure mahazar. Pursuant to the
confession of A-5, P.W.25 seized a gold ring weighing about 15.700
grams and he had also recovered a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle
bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 pursuant to the confession of A-5.
In pursuance of confession of A-3, he seized the omni van bearing
registration No. TN 30 AT 7192. Thereafter, in pursuance of confession
17/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
of A-2, he seized a Samsung cell phone with two sim cards. He had also
prepared Observation mahazar and rough sketch from the place where
the deceased was taken. Thereafter, P.W.25 sent the accused to judicial
custody and the material objects were also sent to Court. After
completing the investigation, he has filed the final report against all the
accused under Sections 120B, 341, 341 read with 120B, 364, 364 read
with 120B, 302, 302 read with 34, 302 read with 120B, 404 read with
120B and 201 read with 302 IPC.
2.14.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.101 of 2015 and was made over to the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Salem for trial.
Charges against the accused :
3.The trial Court framed the following charges against the
accused:
Accused Charges
A1 Sections 120B, 341 r/w 120B, 364 r/w 120B,
302 r/w 120B, 404 r/w 120B and 201 r/w 302
IPC
A2 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and
18/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
201 r/w 302 IPC
A3 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 and 201
r/w 302 IPC
A4 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 r/w 120B
and 201 r/w 302 IPC
A5 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and
201 r/w 302 IPC
4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 25
witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked 48 documents, namely
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and produced 8 material objections, namely M.O.1 to
M.O.8. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the deceased were also marked
as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2.
5.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the
incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced
by the prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating
circumstances. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded and
no documents were marked.
6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 23.08.2018, found
all the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and
19/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
sentenced them to undergo imprisonments as stated above.
7.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.612 of 2018
is filed by A1, Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 is filed by A3, A4 and A5 and
Crl.A.No.761 of 2018 is filed by A2. Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 is filed by
the wife of the deceased (who is the defacto complainant) for
enhancement of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Submissions on the side of Appellants :
8.It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel and counsel
appearing for appellants that though the prosecution has relied on seven
circumstances, as far as motive is concerned, the evidence of witnesses,
namely P.Ws.1,2 and 10 are highly improbable. In order to show that a
civil case filed by A-1 before the civil court is pending, no materials have
been placed. The evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate that though
there were some disputes with regard to the land purchased by the
deceased and P.W.10 and they were asked to approach the civil court for
settling their dispute, such being the position, the same cannot be taken
as motive to commit such a grave crime. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and
10 are highly improbable with regard to motive. The evidence of P.Ws.3
and 11 who have allegedly last seen the accused with the deceased is also
20/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
highly improbable. The last seen theory relied on by the prosecution is
also highly improbable. There is a long time gap between the point of
time when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the dead
body of the deceased was found. Their evidence is highly artificial in
nature.
9.The learned senior counsel further contended that the extra
judicial confession of A-2 relied on by the prosecution is highly
improbable which creates a serious doubt. Such confession of A-2 suffers
from serious defect as the signature of A-2 found in Ex.P.3 and the
signature of A-2 obtained by the police on the same day differs with each
other on bare comparison by the Court. It is the further contention that
though the extra judicial confession was said to have been recorded by
P.W.4 on 19.12.2014, it was not recorded as per the procedure to be
followed. Further, the extra judicial confession was sent to the Court
only on 21.12.2014 with an inordinate delay. This clearly creates a doubt
about the very extra judicial confession. The difference in the signatures
of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and before the police creates a
strong doubt about the very extra judicial confession. Further, there is
absolutely no evidence to show that there is conspiracy. Though P.W.12
21/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
has stated as if all the accused were seen together on 13.12.2014 and
were discussing, his evidence does not even show that there was
conspiracy. Therefore, his evidence is in no way helpful to show that
there was conspiracy. The recovery of gold jewels from A-3 and A-5 is
also highly doubtful and P.Ws.1 and 2 have also not clearly identified the
same and that the description was not given at the earlier point of time.
There is a lot of difference with regard to the weight of jewels. In respect
of the recovery of omni van said to be belonging to P.W5, though P.W.5
has stated as if the vehicle has been hired by A-3 and A-2, the evidence
of P.W.5 clearly indicates that he has purchased the vehicle from one
agent but the fact remains that the vehicle has been registered in the
name of his wife and the R.C. book has not been produced. Whereas the
report of R.T.O clearly shows that the vehicle is a diesel vehicle. This
fact clearly shows that the evidence of P.W.5 is also highly doubtful with
regard to the use of omni van.
10.It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that
though the prosecution has alleged that the dead body was admittedly
recovered from the river, the evidence of P.W.17, photographer clearly
shows that while he has taken photograph, the head of the deceased was
22/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
floating. Therefore, it cannot be said that only on the basis of the
confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered and hence, the
recovery is also highly doubtful. Therefore, the circumstances relied on
by the prosecution is doubtful and every witnesses are highly interested
and their version is improved at every stage. P.W.4 having allegedly
recorded the extra judicial confession, he was the witness for all the
confessions continuously made by all the accused and also the recovery,
which is highly improbable and attached with artificiality. The recovery
of gold articles though allegedly recovered on 20.12.2024, they were
sent to Court only on 21.12.2024 and in the complaint, the description of
jewels was not mentioned. It is contended by learned senior counsel that
in order to show that P.Ws.5 and 6 had conversation with regard to
handing over of omni van by A-2 and A-3, the prosecution has not made
any attempt to get the call details from the mobile phone. Further,
Ex.P.47 clearly shows that the omni van was registered in the name of
Manimekalai which has been suppressed by P.W.5, whereas he has stated
as if after the purchase of the vehicle from the agent, he has not changed
name. This fact clearly shows that his evidence is doubtful. Hence the
circumstances relied on by the prosecution are highly doubtful and the
23/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
entire edifice of the prosecution case on the so-called extra judicial
confession, on the face of it, creates serious doubt. Therefore, the
prosecution case is highly doubtful and the witnesses P.Ws.3 and 11 who
have allegedly last seen the accused in the car have not identified the
accused properly as the identification parade has also not been
conducted. Hence the learned senior counsel submitted that the entire
prosecution case is highly doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit
of doubt.
Submissions of respondent in Criminal Appeals:
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
would submit that P.Ws.1,2,10 and 23 have clearly spoken about the
civil dispute between the parties. Exs.P.30 to P.33 proved the fact that
there was an earlier complaint between the parties in respect of the
property purchased by the deceased from A-1. Their evidence has clearly
proved the motive aspect. P.Ws.3 and 11 have spoken about seeing the
deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014. Therefore, the prosecution
has clearly established the last seen theory also. The evidence of P.W.4
has clearly proved the extra judicial confession given by A-2. In fact, A-
2 has appeared voluntarily and has given the extra judicial confession
24/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
which has been recorded by P.W.4 and the same has been marked as
Ex.P.3. Thereafter, P.W.4 had handed over A-2 to the police and then,
the Investigating Officer P.W.25 has recorded the confession of all the
accused and effected seizures. Further, P.W.1 has also clearly identified
the jewels worn by the deceased. The recovery aspect has also been
clearly established and that the evidence of P.W.5 has clearly spoken
about the fact that he has given the car to A-3 and A-2 and that the car
has been handed over by the accused the next day, which fact has also
been spoken by the other witness, namely P.W.6. P.W.16 has also spoken
about the handing over of bike of A-1 in the police station. P.W.12 has
spoken about the conspiracy theory.
12.It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that the corpse has been recovered at the instance of the
accused. The confession made by the accused led to the recovery of the
dead body from the Cauvery river. According to the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, it is the clinching evidence to prove the prosecution
case. P.Ws.7 to 9 fishermen have also spoken about the retrieve of body
from the river. All the above facts have clearly established the chain of
link and therefore, the prosecution has clearly established all the
25/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
circumstances connecting to the crime.
13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of his
submissions, has relied on the following case laws:
(i)State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8
SCC 180;
(ii)Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010)
10 SCC 604;
(iii)Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6 SCC
610;
(iv)Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2023) 5 SCC 534;
(v)Baban Shankar Daphal Vs. The State of Maharashtra
[2025 INSC 97];
(vi)K.P.Tamilmaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of
Police reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958;
(vii)Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2025) 9
SCC 31.
14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on Raja
Ram case to say that the extra judicial confession if voluntary and true
and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court and that
the value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence
26/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. If
the evidence is found to be credible, it can solely form the basis of
conviction. Sansar Chand case has been relied on to say that there is no
absolutely rule that the extra judicial confession can never be the basis of
a conviction although ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be
corroborated by some other materials.
15.Satpal case has been relied on by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in regard to the circumstantial evidence and the last seen
theory and the explanation to be given by the accused under section 106
of the Evidence Act and on non compliance, the conviction can be
sustained on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and Ram Gopal
case has also been relied on for the very same proposition. The
prosecution has relied on Chetan case to argue that where the
circumstantial evidence is the basis for any case, where no eyewitness
account is available and when the incriminating circumstances are put to
the accused, if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers the
explanation that is found to be false, it provides an additional link to the
chain of circumstances.
27/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
16.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied on
K.P.Tamilmaran case to point out that the related witnesses are not
necessarily interested witnesses and merely because the witnesses are
interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their
testimony. Baban Shankar Daphal case has been relied on as to how the
evidence of a related witness has to be evaluated and that the court
should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony.
Submissions on the side of revision petitioner :
17.Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner would submit that the motive has been clearly
spoken by the witnesses and the same has been clearly established. The
evidence of P.W.3 lends corroboration to show that the accused was
following the deceased in a car and the recovery of jewels also has been
clearly established. P.W.1 has identified the jewels. P.W.1, the wife of
the deceased who is the best person to narrate the occurrence, in Ex.P.1
has narrated about the jewels. The recovery of dead body at the instance
of the accused is also another clinching circumstances and factor to
prove the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused. The learned
Senior counsel, hence, submitted that the prosecution has clearly
28/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
established all the circumstances leading to the crime committed by the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court requires no interference
and the same be sustained.
Discussions and Findings :
18.We have perused the entire materials and paid anxious
consideration to the submissions made by both sides. We have also
perused the charges framed by the trial court against the accused which
has been extracted supra.
19.Though the learned senior counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the charges are superflous and have not been framed
properly by the trial court, however, the appellants have not raised any
prejudice and their arguments have been made only with regard to the
merits of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution is based
on circumstantial evidence. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 had
sold his property to the deceased, P.W.10 and one Marimuthu. A-1,
having received Rs.40 Lakhs, had later set up his mother and sisters to
file a partition suit. Therefore, there arose a dispute between the deceased
and A-1. When the case is pending before the civil court, A-1 tried to sell
29/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
the property to one third party, which was objected by the deceased and
P.W.10 which had resulted in a quarrel between them, as a result of
which a complaint came to be filed before P.W.23 and a CSR has been
registered. Thereafter, both sides have agreed to settle the dispute in a
civil court and gave an undertaking Exs.P.32 and 33. 10 days prior to the
occurrence, the deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded either
the property to be given or the money be returned back. He had also
scolded A-1 in filthy language. This was the motive for the occurrence.
A-2 was the driver of A-1 and they engaged A-3 to A-5. Therefore, all
the accused conspired together. On 17.12.2014, they kidnapped the
deceased in M.O.5, a silver colour Maruti van which was owned by
P.W.5 and thereafter, A-2 to A-5 killed the deceased in the van and went
to Kamarapalayam Bhavani Cauvery river and A-1 also came there and
gave instruction to all the accused to cut the deceased into pieces and to
throw him in the river and after a thorough investigation, the final report
has been laid.
20.The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances
to prove their case, namely, motive, last seen theory, extra judicial
30/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
confession, conspiracy among the accused, recovery of jewels from A-3
and A-5, recovery of omni van from P.W.5 and the recovery of dead
body of the deceased pursuant to the confession made by the accused
persons.
21.As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is well
settled that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must
have been done by the accused. Once the above condition has been
satisfied, the circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for the
conviction. In the light of the above well settled proposition, this Court
has dealt with all the circumstances one by one.
Motive:
22.Insofar as the motive aspect is concerned, P.W.1, the wife of
the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased, P.W.10
[Selvam] and one Marimuthu have purchased a property from A-1 and
later, A-1 tried to sell the property to a third party, namely Marimuthu.
The deceased and P.W.10 had objected to the same, as a result of which
31/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
A-1 lodged a complaint before P.W.23. In the police station, all of them
have agreed to settle the matter before the civil court. According to the
evidence of P.W.1, a few days prior to the date of occurrence, her
husband, namely deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded back
either the land or money and had also scolded the A-1 in filthy language.
The purchase of land from A-1 by the deceased and P.W.10 has been
spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.10. The suit filed in respect of the same
land by the mother and sisters of A-1 for partition was also spoken to by
them. P.W.10 in his evidence has clearly stated that the purchase was
made in the year 2008 and thereafter, the suit came to be filed. P.W.15,
the sister of A-1 in her evidence has also stated that they filed a civil suit.
The above evidences clearly indicate that after the sale of the property
by A-1 to deceased and P.W.10 and subsequently, when A-1 attempted to
sell the property to one Marimuthu, there arose some quarrel and dispute
between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1 which resulted in a complaint
being lodged by A-1 under Ex.P.30. In fact, A-1 has given the complaint
against the deceased and P.W.10. In the said complaint, A-1 has clearly
stated that in respect of the purchase of the property, there was dispute
between the parties over the sale of the property. To be noted, the sale
32/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
was made in the year 2008 and that the dispute was simmering between
the parties till 2014 which resulted in a complaint and CSR being
registered by P.W.23 in CSR No.197 of 2014. When both the parties
were enquired by the police, they agreed to settle the matter in a civil
court. The above facts and the evidence in this regard clearly indicates
that there was some previous enmity existing between the deceased and
A-1 in respect of the land. However, it is to be noted that the motive is a
double edged weapon and it may either be used by the accused or
deceased's family members to implicate them it cannot also be ruled
out. Be that as it may. Therefore, insofar as the motive aspect as
projected by the prosecution is concerned, from the evidence of the
above witnesses, it has been clearly established that there exist motive
with regard to the dispute between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1.
Last seen theory :
23.The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last
seen theory. According to the prosecution, the deceased left his house as
per the evidence of P.W.1, at about 03.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 as usual
and never returned home. Immediately, P.W.1 called P.W.2 her daughter
and other relatives and they all have made a search in the entire night to
33/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
find out the deceased. Since they could not locate him, the next day, i.e.,
on 18.12.2014, P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 in the police station. In
the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 had never whispered anything about the
accused. In her evidence, though P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had
left the house at 03.00 p.m., in Ex.P.1 complaint, she never stated as to
when the deceased left the house but she had stated that her husband was
wearing 5 sovereign gold chain and 1-1/2 sovereign gold ring. Further
apart from giving details about the mobile phone and two mobile
numbers, no other description whatsoever was given with regard to
jewels worn by the deceased. Be that as it may.
24.According to the evidence of P.W.3 who was running a hotel in
the nearby place, on 17.12.2014at 06.00 p.m., while he was standing in
the Sankari main road, his neighbour Duraisamy was proceeding in
Vadugapatti road in a two wheeler. At that time, a omni car bearing
registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 has followed the two wheeler of the
deceased. The said car was driven by A-1 and the other three accused,
namely A-3 to A-5 were sitting in the back seat of the car. It is relevant
to note that the accused Nos.3 to 5 were not known to P.W.3 prior to the
same. Though it is stated that he had identified them in the Court, no
34/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
identification parade was conducted. After seeing the deceased travelling
in the motor cycle, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house and returned back
to his place the next day morning. According to his evidence, as there
was crowd in front of the house of the deceased, he came to know about
the missing of deceased. It is clear from his evidence that he has not seen
the deceased and accused travelling together. The evidence of P.W.3
would show the fact that TN 30 AT 7192, omni car was driven by A-2 at
the relevant point of time and three of the accused were sitting in the
back. Though his evidence lends some support to show that he has seen
the accused at Vadugapatti road at about 06.00 p.m., it is relevant to note
that P.W.1 in her evidence has categorically stated that she tried calling
her husband in his cellphone but his mobile was switched off and was
not reachable. Though the evidence of P.W.1 is that she tried to contact
her husband till evening, whereas P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in
her cross examination has stated that she had spoken to her father in the
evening. The evidence of Investigating Officer if seen carefully, he has
admitted that at 05.55 p.m., the deceased called her daughter and it
shows the tower location in nearby Shanmuga Complex where the office
of the deceased is located. P.W.25, Investigating Officer, in his cross
35/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
examination has clearly admitted that he has ascertained that the
deceased was around the Shanmuga Complex at 05.55 p.m. The relevant
part of his evidence reads as follows:
'17/12/2014 md;W khiy 05/55 kzpf;F.
filrpahf. m/rh/2 kPdht[ld; Jiurhkp
ngrpa[s;shh;/ r';ffphp. g[J vlg;gho nuhL.
rz;Kf fhk;g;sf;rpy; cs;s lth;
gFjpapypUe;J ngrpa[s;shh;/ nkw;go miHg;g[
gl;oay; go Jiurhkp. filrpahf r';ffphp
g[J vlg;gho nuhL gFjpapy; ,Ue;Js;shh;
vd;W cWjpg; gLj;jpf;bfhz;nlhk; vd;why;
rhpjhd;/'
25.The fact remains that having ascertained that at 05.55 p.m., the
deceased was available in Sankari New Edapadi road, the call details
obtained by the Investigating Officer has not been exhibited for the
reasons best known to him. Be that as it may. The Shanmuga Complex is
situated in Edpadi Road. P.W.3, in his evidence has stated as if he saw
the deceased riding his bike in Vadugpatti road which is in the other
direction. The fact as to how the deceased had reached the other place
within five minutes also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court.
36/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
Even assuming that P.W.3 's evidence lends some support to corroborate
the fact that the deceased was followed by so-called accused, he has also
indicated that the accused 3 to 5 are unknown to P.W.3 and he has seen
them while they were travelling in the car. But, No identification parade
in this regard was conducted thereafter to identify the accused and P.W.3
has not identified them. This aspect of the matter was not explained by
the prosecution.
26.The other key witness is P.W.11, Ganesamoorthy, who was
working with the deceased. According to him, on 17.12.2014, he and his
friend one Srinivasan were proceeding to Kalipatti Murugan temple via
Mavelipalayam. At that time, under the railway bridge, one omni van
came in a rash and negligence manner as if dashing against his two
wheeler and the same was questioned by P.W.11. At that time, he found
that the van was driven by A-2 and the deceased was seated back in the
omni van and both A-3 and A-4 were sitting on either side of the
deceased in the van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192. On a careful
perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.11 indicates that P.W.11, in his
evidence has clearly stated that he was earlier working with the deceased
20 years before and he has stated that immediately after seeing the
37/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
accused and deceased together, he left for Murugan Temple and
thereafter, went to Sabarimala temple and he later reached his place only
on 20.12.2014 and on reaching only he came to know that the deceased
was murdered. Thereafter, on 21.12.2014, as usual when he was going
for his job, he was going in front of the police station and on seeing the
crowd in the police station, he entered the police station and informed the
fact of seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van on
17.12.2014. It is relevant to note that the explanation given by P.W.11
for delayed information to the police that he went to Sabarimala temple
and on return on 20.12.2014, he came to know about the occurrence is
nothing but a clear improvement made during his examination. P.W.25,
Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has clearly stated that P.W.11 has
not stated in his statement that he went to Sabarimala temple on
17.12.2014 and returned back on 20.12.2014.
27.The evidence of P.W.11 is clearly unbelievable. It is clearly
seen from the analysis of the evidence that the explanation given by
P.W.11 is only to strengthen the prosecution case. Even assuming that
the evidence of P.W.11 is true that he went to Sabarimala temple and
38/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
came back on 20.12.2014 to his place, his immediate reaction and
conduct should be that on coming to know about the death of deceased
with whom he was earlier working, he should have informed the fact of
seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van, to the police
or at least to the relatives of the deceased. He has clearly stated in his
evidence that on 20.12.2014, he returned back from the temple and was
aware of the brutal murder of the deceased but he did not inform the fact
of seeing the deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014 to any one.
However, casually on the next day, he left for the job and at that time, on
seeing the crowd in the police station, he went there and informed the
above said fact. This conduct of P.W.11, in our mind, is against the
normal human behaviour and this aspect cannot be ignored altogether. It
is further to be noted that even assuming that he has given the statement
only on 21.12.2014, his statement has reached the Judicial Magistrate
court only on 20.03.2015. This fact creates some doubt about the very
fairness in the investigation. If really the statement of P.W.11 was
recorded on 21.12.2014, that statement should have been reached the
court on the same day or at least the next day but the statement of the
witness was sent to court only on 20.03.2015. The delay in despatching
39/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
section 161 Cr.P.C statement to the Court has also not been explained
properly by the prosecution.
28.It is further to be noted that according to P.W.11, he saw the
deceased alive in the company of A-2 to A-4 under the railway bridge at
Mavelipalayam. On looking at his entire evidence, it is clear that he has
not even whispered anything about when he saw the deceased and
accused together. Even assuming the evidence of P.W.11 to be true and
lends some support to the prosecution case of the last seen theory aspect,
it is to be noted that the time gap between the point of time when the
accused and deceased were seen together and the deceased was alive at
that time and when the deceased was found dead, is too long.
Extra Judicial Confession and other circumstances :
29.The prosecution has mainly relied on Ex.P.3, the so-called extra
judicial confession given by A2 before P.W.4 (Village Administrative
Officer) and the same was recorded by P.W.4. In his evidence, P.W.4 has
never stated as to what is the nature of the statement given by A4 but has
stated that A4 appeared before him and gave the statement, which was
40/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
recorded and thereafter, with the special report, A4 was handed over to
the police. The extra judicial confession, if it is given to a person who is
responsible person and if it does not suffer from any infirmity, no doubt,
can be the sole basis for conviction and the same can also be taken as
substantive evidence.
30.The Hon'ble Supreme Court on various occasions considered
and laid down the principles governing the evidentiary value of an extra
judicial confession and the circumstance under which such extra judicial
confession can be made as a sole basis for conviction. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 565, in paragraphs 24 and 25, has dealt with the aspect of
extra judicial confession and when the evidence regarding the same can
be considered and paragraphs 24 and 25 read as follows:
'24.Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was again
examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of
T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3
SCC (Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was
based on extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a
case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the
prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall
41/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. That apart,
in a case of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution
relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to
examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution.
An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made
in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However,
the confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The
value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence
depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been
made.
25.This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession is a
weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a
conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that
the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other
prosecution evidence. If the extra-judicial confession suffers
from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and
does not appear to be cogent, such evidence should not be
considered. This Court held as follows : (Sahadevan
case [Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2010
SCC OnLine Bom 1839] , SCC p. 410, para 14)
“14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of
evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation
of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a
conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must
ensure that the same inspires confidence and is
corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If,
42/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from
material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and
does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution
version, it may be difficult for the court to base a
conviction on such a confession. In such
circumstances, the court would be fully justified in
ruling such evidence out of consideration.”
31.In the case on hand, in the extra judicial confession relied on by
the prosecution, it is recorded as if the accused had kidnapped the
deceased near Uppupalayam Mariamman temple. The extra judicial
confession also shows that to reach the Mariamman temple, a railway
bridge has to be crossed, whereas P.W.11 evidence shows as if he saw
the accused under the railway bridge. Therefore, it also creates some
doubt in his evidence. If the entire extra judicial confession as recorded
by P.W.4, is scanned would show that it is handwritten and the signature
of A2 was obtained. The signature obtained in the extra judicial
confession Ex.P.3 would clearly show that all the contents have been
accommodated just above the signature. This clearly indicates that the
contents of the extra judicial confession have been written after the
signature was obtained. As already indicated, if the extra judicial
43/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
confession is free from any infirmity or doubt, the same can be the basis
for conviction but when the extra judicial confession suffers from some
infirmities which have not been explained properly, then it is unsafe to
rely on the same. It is relevant to note the signature of A2 found in the
so-called extra judicial confession and the scanned reproduction of the
same is as follows:
32.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that immediately after the
confession of A2 is recorded, he handed over A2 to the police.
Thereafter, all the other accused have been arrested one by one and the
Investigating Officer has recorded the confession of the accused in the
presence of P.W.4 and the other witness and in pursuance of the same, all
recoveries have been made. The confession of A-2 has also been
recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day in the police
44/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
station, wherein the signature of A2 was also obtained. The signature of
A-2 in the said confession statement is also scanned and reproduced
below:
33.Though this Court cannot assume the role of the expert in
comparing the signatures found in the documents, on bare perusal of both
the signatures of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and the confession
recorded by the Investigating Officer would indicate that there is a lot of
difference in both the signatures. The letter 'r' and the other letters in
Ex.P.3 is totally different from the signature found in the confession of
A2 given by the Investigating Officer which is marked as Ex.P.6. This
fact creates a serious doubt about the alleged extra judicial confession.
Though the prosecution has also relied on the entire recovery said to
have been made pursuant to the confession made by the accused [namely
recovery from A2 under Ex.P.7 seizure mahazar and recovery from A3
45/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
under Ex.P.9 seizure mahazar], they were all recovered in the presence of
P.W.4 and the other witness. The dead body was also recovered at the
instance of the accused from the Cauvery river. It is relevant to note that
the so-called extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.4 has been
handed over to the Investigating Officer and it is only on the basis of the
same, the Investigating Officer P.W.25 recorded further confessions of
accused and effected all the recoveries of Material Objects and also the
dead body in three pieces.
34.On careful perusal of the so-called extra judicial confession of
A2, it is seen that A2 has stated that he was driving the omni van and the
other accused were sitting in the back seat and they kidnapped the
deceased. While proceeding in the car, near Bhavani, A4 Subramani
caught hold both the legs of the deceased and A3 Marimuthu @
Karuvamani strangulated the deceased and when the same was thwarted
by the deceased, A4 Subramani stabbed him on the left chest, shoulder
and left hand and killed him. Thereafter, they removed gold chain and
ring and cell phone of the deceased. Thereafter, when they were going in
the same car along with the dead body and were waiting in the Cauvery
new bridge, at that time, A1 came there and informed them that since the
46/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
deceased insulted him, he should be cut into pieces and be thrown into
the river. Accordingly, the accused took the dead body from the car, got
into the river, kept the body in the Coracle and took the body to the
center of the river and kept the same on the rock and cut the dead body
into three pieces and have thrown into the river. Having come to know
that the deceased was murdered in the car and the dead body was carried
in the car and later, the dead body was cut into pieces after keeping the
body on the rock, no investigation whatsoever was made by the
Investigating Officer to find out any bloodstains or the other traces found
in the car.
35.M.O.5, omni van was allegedly owned by P.W.5 and hired by
A2 and the other accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on
the next day, i.e., on 18.12.2014, the car was left in the place of P.W.5
and the key was handed over to P.W.6 as P.W.5 contacted P.W.6 and
asked him to receive the key of the van. Thereafter, the omni van was
seized by the police. It is relevant to note that in the evidence of P.W.5,
he has stated that he had purchased the same from one agent and
therefore, he has not changed the name of the omni van but he has
suppressed the fact that the omni van has already been registered in the
47/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
name of his wife. The fact that M.O.5, van belonged to the wife of P.W.5
has also been established under Ex.P.47 but the said fact has been
suppressed by P.W.5. Be that as it may. The evidence of P.W.5 would
clearly indicate that his wife has filed a petition for return of the vehicle.
In the evidence, P.W.5 has clearly admitted that the petition was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate Court to the effect that they have no
knowledge about the crime and only after the police seized their vehicle,
they came to know that their vehicle was used for the crime and
therefore, they filed the petition for return of property and got back the
same. This fact has clearly been admitted by P.W.5 himself during the
cross examination, whereas in the chief examination, he has deposed that
he had never transferred the car into his wife's name since he has
purchased it from the agent. This aspect also creates some doubt in the
evidence of P.W.5. Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.5 is
believable and it also lends some help to the prosecution case, having
come to know the fact of the murder committed in the omni van and the
dead body was carried in the said vehicle and having seized the same
from P.W.5, no attempts whatsoever have been made to find out any
bloodstains in the omni van. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
48/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
vehicle was washed and handed over to P.W.5. As per the version of the
prosecution, the deceased was stabbed in the omni van itself and in such
a case, the blood would have been scattered and bloodstains would have
been found in the seat and even if the van was washed, some bloodstains
in the seat would remain there and would not go. But P.W.25
Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to verify this aspect of the
matter. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 also does not inspire the
confidence of the Court.
36.The prosecution has also relied on the other circumstance,
namely recovery of jewels [M.O.1 and M.O.2] and M.O.3, cellphone.
M.O.1, gold chain recovery from A3 under Ex.P.9 and M.O.2, gold ring
from A5 under Ex.P.13 weighing about 15.700 grams. Though P.W.1
would say that these jewels were worn by her husband, while giving the
complaint, no description has been given. Further, the weight of the gold
ring is also not tallying. P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in her
evidence has stated that she has not identified these jewels in the police
station. Be that as it may. Merely on the basis of some identification of
these jewels by P.W.1, we are of the view that the same cannot be a
ground to hold that the prosecution has proved the entire case beyond all
49/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
reasonable doubt, for the reason that the very edifice of the prosecution
case, namely the extra judicial confession, the two signatures of A2 and
the manner in which P.W.4 was made as a witness in all recoveries create
a strong doubt.
37.It is also pertinent to note that though the knife said to have
been used by one of the accused, namely A4 was also seized under
Ex.P.11 and one knife from A3 under Ex.P.9, no attempt whatsoever was
made by the Investigating Officer to find out if there is any bloodstains
found in the weapon. There is no biology report or serology report
obtained. This also creates some doubt in the prosecution case.
Admittedly, according to the prosecution, the seized items, namely knife
recovered from the house of one of the accused and the jewels said to
have been worn by the deceased also do not contain any bloodstain and
there was no attempt whatsoever made by the prosecution to unearth the
truth. Be that as it may.
38.The main circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the
corpse, as according to the prosecution, pursuant to the confessions of
the accused, the body parts were fished out from the river near
Kumarapalayam in the morning of 20.12.2014. P.W.7 to P.W.9, in their
50/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
evidence, have stated that they retrieved the dead body at the place
pointed out by the accused persons. The photographer [P.W.17] in his
evidence in the cross examination, has stated that the head was floating
at the time when he was taking photograph. Therefore, when the dead
body was thrown into the river near Kumarapalayam, the floating of the
head part could have been noticed by many people. Though P.W.7 to
P.W.9 have stated in one voice that they retrieved the corpse from the
place pointed out by all the five accused, it is relevant to note that A-1
pointing out such a place is highly improbable, as according to the
prosecution case, A-1 gave instructions to the other accused to cut the
dead body into pieces and to throw it into the river. Therefore, the other
accused persons took the body in a Coracle for some distance and kept
the body on the rock and cut the same into three pieces. But, no attempt
whatsoever was made to seize the Coracle which was available near the
river to find out any bloodstains. Further, having known the fact from the
confessions of the accused that the dead body was kept in the rock and
cut into pieces, the Investigating Officer had not even made any attempt
to find out any bloodstains in the particular rock, for the reasons best
known to him.
51/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
39.In the normal circumstances, the recovery of corpse pursuant to
the confession statements of the accused persons itself is sufficient to
base the conviction but the prosecution story as projected was based on
the extra judicial confession. A perusal of the extra judicial confession
Ex.P.3 indicates that the murder was committed in the omni van and the
dead body was carried in the same, but no attempt whatsoever was made
to examine the said omni van to find out any bloodstains and equally, no
attempt was made to find out any bloodstains in the rock where the dead
body was allegedly cut into pieces. No doubt, the evidence of
Postmortem doctor would clearly indicate that the dead body was cut into
pieces and such thing could have been done after the dead of the person
and that the murder is a ghastly and gruesome one and admittedly, there
is no dispute about the same. But the fact remains that merely on the
basis of some evidence which creates some doubt in the mind of the
court and merely on the basis of the alleged recoveries, we are unable to
accept the entire prosecution case.
40.Yet another important reason is that it is the specific case of the
prosecution that the deceased was done away in the night of 17.12.2014
52/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
and the body was cut into pieces. In the evidence of P.W.25,
Investigating Officer, he has clearly admitted as follows:
'18/12/2014 Mk; njjp. Jiurhkp filrpahf
bra;j ,uz;L miHg;g[fs; ahUf;F bra;Js;shh;
vd;w tptuj;ij ehd; tprhhpj;J
bjhpe;Jbfhz;nldh vd;why;. tprhuiz
bra;njd;/ mth; ahh; vd;W jw;nghJ "hgfk;
,y;iy/ ehd; egh;fis tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;.
mthplk; thf;FK:yKk; bgw;nwd; vd;Wk;.
miyg;ngrp miHg;g[ tptu';fis tprhhpj;jjhf
brhd;dhy;. mJ tHf;fpw;F ghjfkhfptpLk;
vd;gjhy;. jw;nghJ khw;wp rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd;
vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ filrp ,uz;L
vz;fSf;Fz;lhd chpikahsh;fis ehd;
tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;. mg;nghJ gy cz;ikfs;
bjhpa te;jJ vd;Wk;. mtw;iw ehd;
kiwj;Jtpl;nld; vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/
mjdhy;jhd; eP/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; 2Mtz';fis.
muR jug;gpy; Mtz';fshf FwpaPL
bra;atpy;iybad;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/
nkw;go filrp ,uz;L vz;fSk;. m/rh/2
kPdhtpd; bry;nghd; vz;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy;.
mij jw;nghJ Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;y KoahJ/'
53/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
41.From the above evidence, it is clear that the cellphone of the
deceased was used on 18.12.2014. Though the Investigating Officer was
aware of the said fact and examined some of the witnesses, he has not
cited them as witnesses for the reasons best known to him. Further, no
investigation has been done in this regard. It is further to be noted that
though the call details for the period upto 17.12.2014 were obtained, the
same has not been filed as prosecution documents, whereas his evidence
would clearly indicate that the Investigating Officer was also aware of
the fact that on 18.12.2014 also, there were two calls made in the
cellphone of the deceased. Despite knowing the said fact, he has not
obtained the call details for 18.12.2014 and that the call details obtained
till 17.12.2014 also has not been filed as prosecution documents. A
perusal of the call details obtained upto 17.12.2014 would indicate that
the deceased was very much alive at 05.55 p.m on 17.12.2014 and he had
spoken through his phone near Shanmuga Complex which is situated in
the other direction. Therefore, the prosecution story that he was
kidnapped near Mavelipalayam is also highly doubtful.
42.With regard to the circumstance relating to conspiracy theory, it
is to be noted that except the evidence of one witness saying that all the
54/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
accused were talking together, there is no other evidence in this regard to
prove that all the accused have conspired and as a result of which they
have committed the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the
conspiracy aspect by producing a valid evidence. There is no evidence at
all in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a circumstance
pointing out the guilt of the accused.
43.The case laws relied on by the prosecution if analysed on case
to case basis, it is not applicable to the case on hand. Each of the case
laws turned on their own peculiar facts and circumstances and if
analysed in proper perspective, it is evident that the ratio therein does not
advance the prosecution case in the present factual matrix of the case and
each decision must be appreciated in the light of its own factual context.
44.In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the
considered view that though the motive aspect of the matter, i.e., there
was previous dispute between the parties, has been established, the other
circumstance relied on by the prosecution is not so complete and suffers
from serious infirmities as discussed above. No doubt, the nature of the
crime is so ghastly and gruesome. However, when the circumstances
relied on by the prosecution is not complete and the evidence relied on
55/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and is doubtful, it is
unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of the above circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution case being based solely on circumstantial
evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a complete and
unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of the
guilt of the accused. However, the circumstances relied on are not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and do not form a complete chain pointing
towards the guilt of the accused. In the absence of such a complete chain,
the court cannot sustain the conviction based on the above circumstantial
evidence. The evidence of the Investigating Officer would clearly
indicate that there were two calls in the cellphone of the deceased on
18.12.2024 but this aspect of the matter has not even been investigated
by the Investigating Officer and the investigation in this regard is
missing. If the investigation has been carried out in the direction of
tracing the place of the phone calls and the location from which the calls
were made and whether such calls have been made by the accused after
the alleged murder, it would have thrown some light on the investigation.
But this aspect has not been investigated at all. All the above points
would clearly create serious doubts in the entire prosecution case. As the
56/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
circumstances brought by the prosecution have not been established and
the chain of circumstances is not so complete, merely on the basis of
some dispute between the deceased and A1 and the motive in this regard,
we are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial court.
45.With regard to the motive aspect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vijay Singh alias Vijay Kr. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2623 has held in paragraph 35 as follows:
'35. As regards motive, we may suffice to say that motive has a
bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove
the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without
the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution
cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. Moreover, the
motive in the present matter could operate both ways. The
accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same
family and the presence of a property related dispute is
evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit
from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing
reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword.
We say no more. '
57/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
46.In a recent decision in Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2025) 8 SCC 440, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
the consequences relating to the motive and the relevant paragraph in
this regard is paragraph 29 and the same reads as follows:
'29.The declaration in the cited decisions and the
decisions relied on therein, is to the effect that if the case is
built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive
will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a
strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the
absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an
acquittal. When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong
motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the
circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken
chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and
not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will
be of no consequence. ' (Emphasis supplied)
47.In the present case, the cumulative analysis of the evidence of
witnesses would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is complete missing of link in
the chain to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no corroborative
material to prove the last seen theory. It is to be noted that no
58/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
identification parade was conducted. Further, in order to prove the
evidence of witnesses and the recovery of material objects, particularly
the weapon used for the crime by the accused, no scientific analysis or
examination was carried out. Bloodstains from the place of occurrences,
i.e., any bloodstains either from the vehicle where the deceased was said
to have been killed or from the rock where the deceased was alleged to
have been cut into three pieces, have not been recovered in order to send
the same to forensic examination. When the case rests on circumstantial
evidence, the forensic evidence can strength the chain of circumstances,
it will connect the accused with the crime and it will be a corroborative
piece of evidence but no such thing has happened in the case on hand. It
is also pertinent to note that when the prosecution relies on the last seen
evidence, the identification of the accused by the witnesses through test
identification parade adds great weight to the evidence. Therefore, it is
clear that without identification parade, the last seen theory may become
weak.
48.The other piece of evidence, the prosecution has failed to
produce is the call details in the cell phone of the deceased relating to
59/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
18.12.2014. From the evidence of witnesses, namely the witnesses
relating to the last seen theory, the accused and deceased were seen
together in the evening of 17.12.2014 and thereafter, the deceased went
missing and not found. But it is also to be noted that there were two calls
in the mobile of the deceased on 18.12.201. This aspect of the matter has
not even been investigated by the prosecution and the call details
pertaining to 18.12.2014 have not been collected by the prosecution.
49.In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the
prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of
doubt to all the accused.
50.In the light of the above, these three Criminal Appeals are
allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 23.08.2018 made in
S.C.No.101 of 2015 is set aside and all the accused are acquitted of all
the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the
appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the
appellants shall stand discharged. In the light of criminal appeals being
60/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
allowed, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise and
consequently, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
27.10.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
vvk
To
1.II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sankari Police Station,
Salem District-637 301.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
61/62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018
and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
vvk Criminal Appeal Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018 and Criminal R.C.No.831 of 2023 27.10.2025 62/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )