Madras High Court
Muniyappan @ Chinnapillai vs State Represented By on 22 January, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:264
Crl.A.No.554 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 26.09.2024
Pronounced on 22.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.A.No.554 of 2021
Muniyappan @ Chinnapillai ... Appellant/Accused No. 1
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent/Complainant
(Cr.No.510/2017)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code against the judgement of conviction and sentence imposed
upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Mahila Court,
Krishnagiri in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2018 dated 27.09.2021, the
appellant is preferring this appeal to set aside the conviction and sentence.
For Appellant : Mr. R.Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr. A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.554 of 2021
JUDGMENT
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
The instant Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of
conviction passed against the first accused in S.C. No. 14 of 2018, dated
27.09.2021, by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.
2. In the said Sessions Case, there were two accused, viz.,
Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, and Palanisamy. As against the second
accused/Mr.Palanisamy, the Trial Court acquitted him from all charges.
Thus, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/first accused.
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant/first accused, qua
Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, had two wives, viz., Mariammal and Amutha.
The second wife, Amutha was allegedly murdered by the first accused. He
has got three children through the deceased Amutha. Among them PW1
and PW2 are his daughter and son respectively. Besides them, they also
have another daughter by name Manju. The second accused is also the son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the first accused, through his first wife, viz., Mariammal. The
prosecution further states that after the demise of his first wife,
Mariammal, the second accused requested the first accused to support him.
In order to support the second accused, the first accused requested his
second wife, deceased/Amudha, to give certain property to the second
accused, which was strongly objected by her.
3.1. In furtherance thereof, on 31.07.2017 at 8.45 a.m., the first
accused attacked the deceased with a wooden log, and the said occurrence
was witnessed by his daughter PW1/Revathi and PW2/Balaji, and the first
accused's brother-in-law PW4/Thirupathi. According to PW1, immediately
after the assault, the first accused's wife, Amudha, died on the spot.
Thereafter, PW1 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint before the
Sub Inspector of Police, viz., Ganesan (PW14). On the basis of the
complaint given by PW1, PW14, the Sub Inspector of Police registered an
F.I.R. at about 10 a.m. on the same day and forwarded the same to the
jurisdictional Magistrate as well as to the Investigating Officer.
3.2. Immediately after the receipt of the First Information Report, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Investigating Officer (PW15) proceeded to the scene of occurrence and
prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch at about 11.15 a.m. in
the presence of PW6/Govindaraj and PW7/Perumal. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer recovered the wooden log and other material objects
at the scene of occurrence. He also recorded the statements of the
eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, mahazar witnesses PW6 and
PW7, and one Murugan/PW13. After recording their evidences, he
proceeded to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where the deceased's
body was kept for postmortem. In the hospital, the Investigating Officer
conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased and made arrangements
for it's postmortem. Thereafter, PW9/Dr. A. Kalaiarasan conducted a
postmortem and in the postmortem certificate [Ex.P12], he gave his
opinion that the deceased appears to be died of shock and hemorrhage due
to head injury.
3.3. It appears that on 01.08.2017, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused
voluntarily surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer [PW8],
and gave an extra-judicial confession. Immediately after recording the
extra-judicial confession, PW8 made arrangements to surrender the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused before the Police. On his surrender before the Police Station, the
Investigating Officer made arrangements to remand him for judicial
custody.
3.4. It is further case of the prosecution that, the accused once again
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the Investigating Officer, and such
confession statement was recorded in the presence of PW8/Sathish and his
assistant, viz., Viswanathan. In furtherance of such confession statement, a
discovery of fact was effected by recovering the blood-stained shirts and
lungi. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer also seized the blood-stained
dress material of PW1, and the deceased's dress material and made
arrangements for it's forensic examination. The Investigating Officer had
also recorded the statement of the postmortem doctor, PW9, and
Dr.Kailash/PW5, who gave first aid to PW1.
3.5. It is also the case of the prosecution that they have made
arrangements to record the statements of PW1, PW2, and PW4 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. After that, the
Investigating Officer has also received the forensic report. Thus, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
completing the investigation, he laid the final report on 14.10.2017 against
both the accused under Sections 302, 323, and 506(ii) of IPC and 302 read
with 109 of IPC.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 15
witnesses as PW1 to PW15, marked 29 documents as Exs. P1 to P29, and
10 material objects as MO1 to MO10. On behalf of the defence, 5
documents were marked as Exs. D1 to D5, and no witnesses or material
objects were marked on behalf of the defence.
5. The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary
evidences, has arrived at a conclusion that the charge against the second
accused has not been proved. However, it found the first accused guilty
under Sections 302, 323, and 506(ii) of IPC and imposed life imprisonment
and other punishments against him. Aggrieved by the same, the first
accused preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.
6. We have heard Mr.R.Selvakumar, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused
would vehemently contend that the alleged eyewitnesses are none other
than the children and relatives of the deceased [Amutha], and that
admittedly there was previous animosity among them. It is also his
contention that the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses is wholly
unreliable and contradictory to each other. He would further contend that
the extra-judicial confession is a concocted one, which could be evidently
proved by comparing the confession statement recorded by the Police as
well as the extra-judicial confession.
7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that,
the presence of the Police at the time of recording the extra-judicial
confession would make such confession become inadmissible. He would
further submit that the earlier complaint was suppressed, and that there was
a delay in registering the First Information Report. Thus, the learned
counsel would urge before this Court that, without discussing the
numerous reasonable doubt, the Trial Court has mechanically accepted the
evidence of the prosecution and erroneously convicted the first accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, he prayed to interfere with the order of conviction.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
vehemently contend that the evidence of PW1/Revathi, PW2/Balaji, and
PW4/Thirupathi would clinchingly establish the involvement of the
accused in the crime, and that their evidence corroborates each other. It is
also his submission that their evidence is further supported by the extra-
judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained dress material from
the first accused. As such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
contend that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial
Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the instant Criminal Appeal.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the either side
submissions.
10. While harmoniously analyzing the entire factual scenario of the
instant case, the prosecution attempted to prove the charge through
eyewitnesses account, as well as through extra-judicial confession. To
substantiate the case through eyewitnesses, the prosecution relies on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence of the accused's daughter [PW1], son [PW2], and his brother-in-
law [PW4]. In respect of the extra-judicial confession, the prosecution
placed much reliance upon the evidence of the Village Administrative
Officer [PW8], who recorded the confession.
11. Let us first consider whether the prosecution has proved the
extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6), beyond reasonable doubt? According to
PW8, on 01.08.2017, when he was in his office, at about 8.00 a.m., the
accused voluntarily gave an extra-judicial confession (Ex.P6). However,
the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused would contend that the
extra-judicial confession is not a voluntary one, since the Police was
present at the time of recording the extra-judicial confession. In this regard,
it is useful to extract the admissions made by PW8, which reads as
follows:-
“////me;j fhtyu; 3-4 thrp vGjpf;bfhz;oUe;jnghJ te;jhu;/ fpuhk
epu;thf mYtyfj;jpw;F te;j nghyP!; fhtyu; bgau; vdf;F bjupahJ/
mtuJ bgau; vdf;F bjupahJ/ fpuhk epu;thf mYtyfj;jpw;F te;jtu; v!;/I
mtu; bgau; vdf;F bjupahJ/////”
12. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the appellant/first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused would further invite the attention of this Court with respect to the
evidence of the Investigating Officer. According to the Investigating
Officer, he fairly conceded that the contents of the extra-judicial confession
(Ex.P6) and the alleged confession given before the Police are identical in
nature. In this regard, it is useful to extract the admissions made by the
Investigating Officer [PW15], during his cross-examination, which reads as
follows:-
“/////vd;dplk; fhz;gpf;fg;gLk; m/rh/M/6 xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;jpy; Kjy;
ghuhit jtpu ,uz;lhtJ ghuhtpy; 2tJ tupapy; ,Ue;J cs;s tptu';fs;
ehd; tprhupj;jnghJ 1tJ vjpup bfhLj;j xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;jpYk; mg;gona
cs;sJ 1tJ vjpup vd;dplk; brhd;d tptu';fis ehd; gjpt[
bra;jpUf;fpd;nwd;/ vd;dplk; 1tJ vjpup bfhLj;j xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;ij
ghu;j;J jhd fpuhk epu;thf mYtyu; vd;dplk; xg;gilj;j m/rh/M/6 xg;g[jy;
thf;FK:yk; vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W brhd;dhy; rupay;y/////”
13. From the similarity of the contents and recitals of the confession
statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, and the Ex.P6, extra
judicial confession, and the presence of the Police while recording of extra
judicial confession [Ex.P6] would make the very extra-judicial confession
doubtful and unsafe to be relied upon. It is a well-settled principle of law
that, during the investigation, any statement given by the accused before
the Police is inadmissible in evidence. But in our case, though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecution has projected a case of voluntary confession before a third
party, the Village Administrative Officer, the presence of the Police while
such confession Ex.P6 was recorded would make such confession
statement inadmissible. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the
prosecution cannot rely upon the extra-judicial confession [Ex.P6] to
support their case.
14. In such a view of the matter, now the issue narrows down as to
whether the prosecution has proved the guilt through the eyewitness
account. In respect of the eyewitnesses, it is the case of the prosecution that
the incident was witnessed by PW1, PW2, and PW4. PW1 and PW2 are the
daughter and son, respectively, of the first accused, born through the
deceased. PW4 is the brother-in-law of the first accused and the brother of
the deceased.
15. Besides these three persons, the prosecution would also rely on
another witness, qua one Mr.Nadheem, who was examined as PW3.
However, he turned hostile. According to PW1 [daughter], the occurrence
took place on 31.07.2017 at about 8.45 a.m. It is her further statement that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at the beginning of the occurrence itself her brother PW2 and the first
accused's brother-in-law PW4 reached the scene of occurrence and were
present. PW2 and PW4 also deposed that they were present at the scene of
occurrence when the occurrence took place. It is an admitted fact that PW2
and PW4 were not originally present at the scene of occurrence, but arrived
to the scene of occurrence on knowing about some squabbles between the
deceased [Amudha] and the first accused. It is the statement of PW1 that
the occurrence started at about 8.15 a.m. and was over within 5 to 10
minutes. In order to appreciate her evidence, it is appropriate to extract the
same, which reads as follows:-
“////rk;gtj;jd;W 8/15 kzpastpy; gpur;rid Muk;gpj;J xU 5. 10
epkplj;jpnyna rk;gtk; Koe;Jtpl;lJ////”
16. Therefore, it is the case that the occurrence took place between
8.15 to 8.25 a.m., at the most, by 8.30 a.m. However, we are not on the
exact timing of the occurrence, but on the point as to whether PW2 and
PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence to witnesses the crime of
murder. According to PW1's evidence, the entire occurrence lasted for 15
minutes. In this background, it is relevant to analyse as to whether PW2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence, within a span of 15
minutes? It is an admitted case that PW2 knew the squabbles on the way to
his College, and was returning by taking a lift in a car. PW4, who is the
maternal uncle and brother of the deceased, would state that he received a
phone call at about 8.15 a.m. and was waiting for the arrival of
PW2/Balaji. On his arrival, both of them reached the scene of occurrence
and witnessed the assault. From their statements, it appears, as if the first
accused waited for the arrival of PW2 and PW4 to witness the occurrence.
17. It is pertinent to look at the evidence of PW4, according to him
after he knew about the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the first
accused, he waited for the arrival of PW2 from his College for a period of
30 minutes, and only after 30 minutes, he proceed to the scene of
occurrence. Therefore, if we analyze the evidence of PW1 on one hand,
and the evidence of PW2 and PW4 on the other hand, the possibility of the
presence of PW2 and PW4 at the scene of occurrence is very much
doubtful and impracticable. Such reasoning of this Court could be
evidently justified by relying upon the previous statement of PW2/Balaji
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and marked as Ex.P17. In this regard, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is useful to extract his statement, which reads as follows:-
“////ehd; vd; ez;gzpd; tz;oapy; v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;j nghJ vd;
mg;gh v';fs; tPl;oy; ,Ue;J ntfkhf nuhow;F ele;J brd;whu;/ vd; tPlo; y;
khkh j';if nutjp kw;Wk; gf;fj;J tPl;il nru;ejtu;fs; ,Ue;jhu;fs;/ v';fs;
tPl;oy; nghl;L ,Ue;j khl;Lbfhl;lifapy; vd; mk;khtpw;F jiyapy; fhak;
vw;gl;Lk; bew;wpapy; Fj;jpa[k; mjpypUe;J ,uj;jk; te;J vd; mk;kh
,we;Jfple;jhu;/ vd; mk;khtpd; mUfpy; frfrh kuf;fl;il ,Ue;jJ/ me;j
fl;ilapy; jhd; vd; mg;gh vd; mk;khit moj;J bfhd;wjhf mij ghu;j;j
vd; j';if nutjpa[k; gf;fj;JtPl;il nru;e;jtu;fSk; vd;dplk;
brhd;dhu;fs;////”
18. Though PW2 says during trial that, he reached the scene of
occurrence in the midst of the assault. On the contrary, his previous
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C establishes that he came to
the scene of occurrence after the occurrence was over. Therefore, it is very
much clear from his previous statement, Ex.P17, that PW2 could not have
been an occurrence witness. In such view of the matter, the presence of
PW4 would also become highly doubtful.
19. While further analyzing the evidence of PW4, he states that he
proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with PW2. However, PW2 did
not refer about PW4. According to PW2, he reached the scene of
occurrence in his friend's vehicle, which is contrary to PW4's theory that
he waited for the arrival of PW2, and took him to scene of occurrence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which is a inherent material contradiction from PW2's evidence. Therefore,
it is apparent that the presence of PW2 and PW4 are highly doubtful.
20. As already stated, the other eyewitness, PW3/Nadheem, had
turned hostile, and the only witness available was PW1. In view of her
statements that PW2 and PW4 were present at the scene of occurrence,
which we found as highly doubtful, it becomes unsafe to rely on her
evidence. Further, the statement of PW1 is shrouded with many reasonable
doubts, which goes to the root of the matter. If we go by the accident
register of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P10, the deceased was
taken to the hospital by the Police, wherein the doctor had recorded as
follows:-
“Alleged H/o unconsciously lying person in her
khl;L bfhl;lha; attached to her residence at about 9/00 a.m
on 31.07.2017”
21. As per Ex.P10, the deceased was taken to the hospital at about
11.45 a.m., by the Police. If the Police had really reached the scene of
occurrence at about 11.15 a.m. and the First Information Report had been
registered at about 10.00 clock on 31.07.2017, there would not have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such a blunt reference in Ex.P10, accident report. It might have been
reported as an assault by a know person. Therefore, the entry made by the
doctor would also support the case of the accused and add doubt over the
veracity of the evidence of PW1. Here to corroborate PW1's evidence,
there are no independent witnesses.
22. Besides the above reasonable doubt, yet another reasonable
doubt was also projected by the appellant. According to PW1, after the
occurrence and after knowing of her mother's death, PW1, her brother, and
her uncle went to the Police Station and gave a complaint before the
Investigating Officer/PW15. But during cross-examination, PW1 had
categorically admitted that when the Police reached the scene of
occurrence along with the Ambulance, they had given a complaint to the
Police. In order to strengthen the above statement, PW2/Balaji, who is the
brother of PW1, had also admitted during cross-examination that, at the
scene of occurrence, they had also given a complaint to the Police. In order
to appreciate the above factum, it is appropriate to extract the admissions
made by PW1 and PW2. According to PW1, she would admit as follows:-
“////nghyPrhu; Mk;gy[ d;!py; tPl;ow;F te;jnghJ xU g[fhu; bfhLj;njhk;////”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Similarly PW2 admits as follows:-
“////rk;gtaplj;jpw;F Mk;gy[ d;!; te;jnghJ nghyPrhUk; te;jhu;fs;/
mg;nghJ eh';fs; xU complaint vGjpf;bfhLj;njhk;/////”
23. Therefore, it is apparent that there was an earlier complaint prior
to Ex.P1, complaint, which was suppressed by the Police. Though it was
projected as if the occurrence took place at 8.45 a.m., the First Information
Report was registered at 10.00 clock, and the First Information Report
reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 1.00 clock on 31.07.2017, in
view of the above unequivocal admission of PW1 and PW2 about the
earlier complaint, it's non production would definitely make a dent in the
prosecution case.
24. On appreciation of Ex.P10, accident register, the deceased was
first found unconscious at the Cow Shed at about 9.00 a.m., and until
11.45 a.m., qua the time of recording of accident register, it was not a case
of murder. Whereas, contrary to Ex.P10, the First Information Report and
the complaint project as if the murder took place at about 8.45 a.m. by the
first accused. It is obvious that any delay in registering the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Information Report ushers craftsmanship, manipulation and embellishment
to the actual occurrence. It is in this background, the non-production of the
earliest complaint would create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
25. Apart from that, there is also another angle of reasonable doubt.
According to PW1, she had categorically stated that she had given a
complaint to the Investigating Officer, Anbumani [PW15]. In this regard, it
is useful to extract her admission, which reads as follows:-
“/////gpd;g[ fpUcw;zfpup jhYfh nghyP!; !;nlrdpy; ngha; ehd; md;gk[ zp
rhuplk; g[fhu; bfhLj;njd;/ ehd; brhy;y brhy;y me;j g[fhiu nghyP!hu;
vGjpdhu;fs;//////”
26. Though PW1 would state that the complaint was written by the
Police on her instructions, during cross-examination, she stated that it was
written by the Investigating Officer/PW15. In this regard, it is useful to
extract her admission, which reads as follows:-
“/////g[fhu; kDtpy; cs;s tptu';fis ehd; brhy;y brhy;y md;g[kzp
rhu; vGjpdhu;/ g[fhu; kDtpy; cs;s tptu';fis nfhu;itahf brhy;tjw;F
vdf;F ahUk; brhy;ypj;jutpy;iy/ ehd; jhd; brhd;ndd;//////”
27. It is in this background, we are of the firm view that a complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was given before the Investigating Officer, Anbumani, at the scene of
occurrence, and such complaint was suppressed before this Court. Though
there were discrepancies about the time of occurrence, we are not on the
point of the exact time of the occurrence, but on the point whether PW2
and PW4 could have reached the scene of occurrence, which we had found
to be impossible. In view of the above discrepancies, the standard of
evidence of PW1 becomes neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
There are no corroboration to PW1's evidence to act on it.
28. In such a view of the matter, we are of the firm view that there
are numerous reasonable doubts in the prosecution case. However, the Trial
Court, without going into those reasonable doubts, has mechanically
accepted the statements of the witnesses and has erroneously found against
the accused. Accordingly, there are ground to interfere with the order of the
Trial Court.
29. Before we record our final conclusion, we deem it appropriate to
recapitulate our findings:
(i) The voluntariness of extra judicial confession becomes doubtful
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
since Police were present during it's recording.
(ii) Further, the presence of the Police while recording Ex.P6, extra-
judicial confession would make such statement become inadmissible in
view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(iii) Though PW1 states that PW2 and PW4 arrived to the scene of
occurrence jointly and were eyewitnesses, PW2 categorically admits in his
previous statement [Ex.P17] that he never witnessed the occurrence.
Therefore, PW4's evidence also becomes unreliable.
(iv) Even for a moment, if we construe PW1 as neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable, there are no corroborations to her evidence.
(v) Though PW1 and PW2 admit about the complaint given before
the Investigating Officer/Anbumani at the scene of occurrence, such
complaint was suppressed by the prosecution before this Court.
(vi) According to Ex.P10, accident register copy, it projects a case of
suspicious death until 11.45 hours. Therefore, the time of registration of the
First Information Report also becomes doubtful.
30. In view of the above reasonable doubts, all of which goes to the
root of the matter, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
miserably failed to prove the charges against the first accused beyond
reasonable doubts. As such, the first accused is entitled to have the benefit
of those doubts.
31. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed, and the
judgement dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
Tract Mahila Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.14 of 2018 is set aside and the
appellant is acquitted from all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be
refunded to him. Bail bond, if any executed, shall stand cancelled.
[M.S.R., J.] [C.K., J.]
22.01.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order /Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kv
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Sessions Judge,
Fast Tract Mahila Court,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
judgment made in
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
