Madras High Court
Balaiyan vs State Represented By The on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.10 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.10 of 2023
1.Balaiyan
2.Karthick ... Appellants
Vs.
State represented by the
The Inspector of Police,
Perambur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District
(crime No.58 of 2014) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the order made in SC.No.80
of 2016 dated 19.10.2022 on the file of the learned Additional District
and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai and set aside the same by allowing
above appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment
dated 19.10.2022 passed in SC.No.80 of 2016 on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
Additional District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai, thereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 452, 379, 436 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL
Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons are
relatives. A murder case had been registered against one, Vijay @
Krishna Kumar, who is the brother-in-law of one, Vimal Raj as they
committed murder of the sisters husband of the first accused and burned
the body. After registration of FIR, they are under judicial custody. Due
to the same, the accused were having enmity with the family of one,
Natarajan and his family members. Therefore all the accused persons
joined together in an unlawful assembly on 20.02.2014 at about 2.45 p.m.
and broke open the lock of the house that belongs to the said Natarajan
and trespassed the house. They had stolen articles including two wheeler,
gas cylinder and stove and set fire to the house. After registration of FIR
in crime No.58 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 147,
452, 379, 436 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, the respondent
completed investigation and filed final report and the same was taken
cognizance by the trial court in SC.No.80 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had
examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to 12 The prosecution had
produced material objects in MO.1 to MO.13. On the side of the accused,
no one was examined and no exhibits were produced before the trial
court. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court
found all the accused persons guilty under Sections 147, 452, 379, 436 of
IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced them with fine.
Aggrieved by the same, A2 and A3 have preferred this criminal appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
though the occurrence allegedly happened on 20.02.2014, there was a
delay of 15 days in sending the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate court
i.e. Judicial Magistrate-II, Mayiladuthurai. No accused was named in the
FIR. Complainant was examined as PW1, who is Village Administrative
Officer and he did not identify the accused. Further, the owner of the
house i.e. Natarajan was not examined as a witness. He further submitted
that PW2 categorically deposed that in the scene of crime, there was 25
persons. However, the prosecution failed to examine anyone of them as
an independent witness. PW4, 5 & 7 are hear-say witnesses and those
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
witnesses cannot be considered for conviction. He further submitted that
the first appellant is aged about 70 years.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in
order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to
PW10. The owner of the house i.e. one, Natarajan was examined as PW4.
His wife and other family members were examined as prosecution
witnesses. They deposed that the accused had stolen household articles
and set fire to the house. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case
beyond any doubt. He further submitted that the accused had committed
the crime due to previous enmity. The first accused's sister's husband was
murdered by the son of PW4. Therefore, they had previous enmity and
had ransacked the entire house by stealing the household articles and they
also set fire to the house of PW4. As such, the trial court rightly
convicted the accused and the conviction does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused, all the materials placed before this Court.
7. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that there are totally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
seven accused, in which the appellants have been arrayed as A2 and A3.
They were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 452,
379, 436 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. On the complaint
lodged by PW1, the respondent registered FIR. On perusal of the
complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1 dated 20.02.2014, it is revealed
that PW1 received information as the house of PW4 was set fire.
Immediately, PW1 rushed to scene of crime and preferred the complaint.
On the said complaint, the first respondent started investigation and
recovered material objects in MO.1 to MO.13 from the custody of the
accused. The accused also set fire to the house of PW4 and caused
damage worth Rs.50,000/-. PW2 deposed that he has given all
information to PW1 to lodge complaint. He also spoke about the recovery
of motorcycle and other household articles under Ex.P4 Mahasar from the
accused. PW4, the owner of the house, deposed that due to the murder of
one, Vimal Raj, they had stayed far away from the village on 29.01.2014.
Thereafter, they were informed that their house was burnt by the accused
and immediately they rushed to the house. They heard that the accused
had stolen the household articles and completely ransacked the entire
house by setting fire to the house. All the household articles including
motorcycle were recovered from the accused. All the household articles
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
were identified by PW4 in the police station. However, he was not
examined by the accused. In fact. no witness was cross examined by the
accused. Though there was no witness to the occurrence, by way of
recovery, all the witnesses corroborated the motive and intention of the
accused person to commit the crime. The circumstances in which the
crime was committed, had been clearly proved by the prosecution and the
trial court rightly convicted the accused.
8. That apart, on perusal of the records, it is revealed that
though there was a delay in sending the FIR to the court. There is no
discrepancy in the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution to prove the
case beyond any doubt. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the
accused by sending the FIR belatedly. Further, there is no question of
putting up a false case against the appellants by sending the FIR belatedly
to the jurisdictional magistrate Court. Vital witnesses were not even cross
examined by the defence. There are enough material evidence and
trustworthy testimonies which clearly support the case of the prosecution
since the prosecution version is cogent and supported by the recovery of
the household articles from the accused. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive assumes greater importance than in the case of direct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
evidence. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the accused and this
Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. As such,
this criminal appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
05.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai
2.The Inspector of Police,
Perambur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 11:25:42 am )
