Madras High Court
The State vs Pandi @ Poolapandi on 23 April, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRL.A(MD)No.517 of 2021
The Inspector of Police,
Thalayuthu Police Station,
Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.96 of 2013)
The State, represented by
The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai. ...Appellant/Complainant
.Vs.
1.Pandi @ Poolapandi
2.Sundar @ Shunmugasundaram
3.Mayandi
4.Chinnadurai
5.Lakshmi ... Respondents/Accused(A1 to A5)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(a)(b) of Criminal
Procedure Code praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the
order of acquittal rendered in the Judgment made in Sessions Case No.298/2014,
dated 29.01.2021, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
1 to 4 Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent-5 : Died
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J
AND
R.POORNIMA.,J
The Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal is preferred by the
State, being aggrieved by the judgment of the III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli, acquitting all the five accused in S.C.NO.298 of 2021, dated
29.12.2021.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enemity, the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
Senthilvel was done to death by A1 to A4 on the instigation of A5. On completion
of investigation conducted on the complaint given by P.W.1, prosecution has
filed the final report against four persons out of 9 accused.The trial Court framed
the charge sheet under Section 147 IPC against A3 and A4, Section 148 IPC as
against A2 and A2, Section 341 IPC against accused No.1 to 4, Section 342 IPC
as against A3 and A4, Section 302 IPC against A5, Section 302 IPC against A1
and A2, Section 302 r/w 149 IPC against A3 and A4, Section 506(ii) IPC as
against A1 and A2.
3.To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and
marked 16 exhibits and 7 material objects. After analyzing the evidence, the trial
Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the occurrence
was witnessed by P.W.1 to P.W.3.Their evidence is inconsistent, destructive to
each other and not cogent. The trial Court has also observed that the
Investigating Officer P.W.12 has lost his way in the investiation and failed to fix
the right witness and right accused.The complaint marked as Ex.P1 by P.W.1
Murugan itself found to be of facts with concocted allegations. Even during the
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that except Lakshmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
A5, her name in the FIR not involved in the crime. Even as far as A5 Lakshmi is
concerned, there was not enough material to show that she has instigated the
other accused to commit the said crime. That apart, the trial Clourt has also found
that the body of the deceased was not at the scene of crime when the
investigating Officer went to the spot to conduct the investigation on 28.4.2013.
The manner in which the body of the deceased person removed from the scene of
crime was not explained by the prosecution. P.W.9 Constable who speak about
the handing over of the body to the mortuary, had not stated anything about the
time of receiving the body from the Investigating Officer along with requisition
letter and the time he has handed over the body to the hospital authority.So
taking note of the inconsistent case of the prosecution, verdict of not guilty was
rendered by the Court below.Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Appeal is
filed by the State on the ground that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 categorically
identified the assailants.The post moretem report clearly show that the deceased
would appear to have died of multiple injuries 6 to 24 hours prior to the post-
mortem examination and the Doctor has observed as many as 27 injuries on the
body of the deceased.The trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence
of P.W.1 to P.W.3 citing minor contradictions elicited during cross-examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
which was conducted one year after the examination-in-chief.
4.The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that
it is a case of false implication of two family in the village, who are minority.The
motive attributed for committing the murder on Senthilvel has not been
established by the prosecution. The complaint Ex.P1 lodged at 21.00 hours
reiterating that the alleged incident occurred at 18.45 hours itself tamper with
false acquisition and made after sufficient delibeation to include all the family
members of A1. He would further submit that on receipt of the complaint at
21.00 hours on 28.4.2013, the Investigating Officer has deposed that he went to
the spot at about 9.30 p.m and at that time, the body was not in the scene of crime
and that is the reason why he has not marked the cite of body lying in the rogh
sketch.While so, there is no evidence to show that on whose instruction the
body was removed and when it had reached the mortuary of the Government
Hospital, Tirunelveli.The scene of occurrence is highly doubtful, since there is
contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 vis-a-vis, the rough sketch. The fact that
the scene of crime not ascertained, the body was not found in the scene of crime,
even according to the Investigating Officer, person who removed the body from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
the scene of crime to the hospital not explained.The apparent exaggeration of the
event by P.W.1 to P.W.3 who were not a witness to the occurrence but been
planted by the prosecution cumulatively had lead to acquittal by the trial Court.
5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4
and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6.The case of the prosecution as spoken through the witnesses P.W.1 to
P.W.12 clearly indicate that Senthilvel, the deceased was brutally attacked and
done to death and he had sustained 25 injuries as per the post mortem report.P.W.
1 had deposed that A1 and A2 caused injury with aruval while A2 and A3 and
juvenile accused were present and restrained the deceased from moving.Almost
on the similar line, P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed. However, in the cross examination,
the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 has been substantially contradicted and found the
occurrence could not have happened in the manner in which these three
witnesses had narrated. That apart, this Court has also concur with the view of
the tril Court in respect of the removal of the body of the deceased from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
scene of crime. We call for the records from the Public Prosecutor and found that
the CD file does not show any material how the body was removed, on whose
instruction it was removed, when it was removed. The only explanation of
Additional Public Prosecutor is that due to tension prevailing in the village, the
body was removed from the scene of crime immediately. Even to justify the said
explanation, there must be some records placed before this Court or at least in the
CD file to take note of by this Court. Unfortunately, We find that earliest record
regarding the removal of the body from the scene of occurrence is the
requisition letter (not marked) prepared by the Investigating Officer ie., on
29.4.2013. P.W.9, the Constsable, who deposed about the handing over of the
body for post-mortem, in his evidence, is conspicuously silent about time and the
passport he received to take the body from the scene of crime to the hospital.
Since the body was not found in the scene of crime even at 9.30 p.m. at
26.4.2013 and the rough sketch, observation Mahawar in the light of evidence of
P.W.1 and 2 does not tally with each other.There is strong doubt about the scene
of crime itself .
7.In the light of the above fact, the trial Court has found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the
finding given in the order of acquittal by the trial Court for want of adequate
evidence, double benefit is now enure on the respondents 1 to 4, since this Court
does not find any perversity or omission in appreciating the evidence and the
reason given by the trial Court is also a possible view and it is to be confirmed.
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the order of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court stands confirmed.
[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]
23.04.2025
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
23.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:14:57 pm )
