Madras High Court
Pratheek Krishnamoorthy vs The State Represented By on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
2025:MHC:1326
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 24.04.2025
Pronounced on 10.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
Crl.A.No.1263/2024
Pratheek Krishnamoorthy ...Appellant
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abhiramapuram Police Station,
Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code
and 1973/415(2) of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in S.C.No.108 of
2011 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and
set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court on 03.10.2024 for the offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 302 IPC,
343 r/w 149 IPC, 148 IPC, 302 r/w 149 IPC, 201 r/w 149 IPC.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the II
Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in S.C.No.108 of 2021 dated
03.10.2024 and hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are
referred according to their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. The brief case of the prosecution is that Babu @ Hemakumar
(deceased) was the driver of Ezhil Deepa/P.W.4. Kannan (A3) is the
driver of Krishnamoorthy (A1) and also maintains all the private cars
belonging to A1. A3 was also in close relationship with Pratheek
Krishnamoorthy (A2), who is the son of A1. On an earlier occasion,
when P.W.4 complained about A3 to her father-A1 and brother-A2 about
certain misappropriations committed by him, A3 thought that it was the
deceased who had complained about him to P.W.4 and thereby carried a
grudge against him. In order to take revenge against the deceased, A3
had spread a rumour to A2 and A3 that P.W.4 was having an illegal affair
with her driver (deceased). Enraged on the news of illegal intimacy, A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
to A3 had conspired together to do away with the deceased and
accordingly had engaged henchmen, viz., Vijayakumar (A4), John (A5)
and Senthil (A6), for executing their criminal plan. On 30.06.2010, at
about 10.00 P.M., A1 to A6 had formed an unlawful assembly armed with
deadly weapons and had brutally assaulted the deceased with knives and
thereby murdered him. The complaint on this incident in Crime No.323
of 2010 by the deceased’s father, was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to
Sections 147, 148, 342, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC against A1
to A6. On completion of the investigation, a final report was lodged
against all the accused charging them for the offences registered against
them.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 36
witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.36 and marked 44 documentary evidences, Ex.P1
to Ex.P44, apart from 31 material objects, M.O.1 to M.O.31. On the side
of the defence, no witnesses or documents were marked.
5. On the strength of the oral and documentary evidences before it,
the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of all the accused and sentenced
them to undergo the following imprisonment:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
For the Charge U/s 120(B) r/w. 302 IPC:- The
Accused 1 to 6 are sentenced and convicted U/s.
235(2) Cr.P.C., now 258(2) of BNSS to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of Ten Years and to pay fine
of Rs.25,000/- each.
For the Charge U/s. 342 r/w. 149 IPC:- No
separate punishment was imposed for the wrongful
confinement since major punishment was awarded
U/s.302 of IPC.
For the Charge U/s. 148 of IPC:- No separate
punishment was imposed for the wrongful
confinement since major punishment was awarded
U/s.302 of IPC.
For the Charge U/s.302 r/w. 149 of IPC:- The
Accused 1 to 6 are sentenced and convicted
U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C., now U/s.258(2) of BNSS Act, to
undergo rigorous LIFE IMPRISONMENT. The
Accused 1 and 2 being the prime Accused are
directed to pay fine amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each in
default sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for another period of one year and the Accused 3 to 6
shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each in default
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
another period of six months.
For the Charge U/s.201 r/w. 149 of IPC:- The
Accused 1 to 6 are sentenced and convicted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C., now U/s.258(2) of BNSS Act, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of Five Years and
also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each.
6.1. In order to substantiate their case, the following witnesses
were examined by the prosecution.
6.2. Anbazhagan-P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, was
examined to prove that the deceased had left the house on 30.06.2010
and had not returned thereafter. According to him, he had gone to A1’s
house on 02.07.2010 searching for his son, when he was informed that
the deceased was dismissed from service, after paying him the monthly
salary, since he was in the habit of chewing tobacco. P.W.1 had also
identified the body of the deceased.
6.3. Suguna-P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, corroborates
the evidence of P.W.1 and had also identified the blood stained clothes of
the deceased.
6.4. Similarly, Senthil-P.W.3, who is the brother of P.W.2, also
corroborates the evidence of P.W.1.
6.5. The key witness put forth by the prosecution is Ezhil Deepa-
P.W.4, who is the daughter of A1 and sister of A2, against whom there
was an allegation of illegal intimacy with the deceased. However, P.W.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
did not support the case of the prosecution and hence was treated as a
hostile witness.
6.6. P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.15, P.W.16, P.W.17 and P.W.19 are
other independent witnesses who did not support the case of the
prosecution and hence, they were all treated as hostile witnesses. None of
these witnesses support the case of the prosecution in any manner.
6.7. Pandyarajan-P.W.6 is the neighbour of A1, who speaks about a
car being parked in his building on 30.06.2011 at about 11.00 P.M.
6.8. Ezhumalai-P.W.8 is another driver known to the deceased,
who speaks about the quarrel between the deceased and P.W.4 on
25.06.2010.
6.9. P.W.10 to P.W.13 and P.W.18 are witnesses to the confession
statements of A1 to A3.
6.10. Thirunavukkarasu-P.W.20 is a petrol bunk supervisor, who
speaks about having filled petrol to a car on 30.06.2010.
6.11. Likewise, Kathirvel-P.W.22 is a petrol bunk clerk, who also
speaks about filling of petrol to a car on the same day.
6.12. Govindaraj-P.W.21 who is the Forest Range Officer, who
reports about the dead body lying in his range. His statement was
reiterated by Paramasivan-P.W.24, who is a Sweeper attached to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
Devadarganapatti Police Station.
6.13. Chandrasekaran-P.W.26, who is a Head Constable, speaks
about identifying and accompanying the corpse for postmortem.
6.14. Wilson-P.W.27 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of
Abhiramapuram Police Station, who had sent the samples for forensic
analysis.
6.15. Dr.Juliya Jayanthi-P.W.28 is a Doctor who conducted the
postmortem. According to her testimony, she had received the partly
decomposed body on 11.07.2010 and commenced the postmortem at
12.30 P.M. In her postmortem certificate (Ex.P20), she had recorded the
following injuries:-
The following ante-mortem injuries were noted over
the body:-
1.An extended stab injury of size 8cms x 4cms x
6cms seen over the front of the left thigh. Margins
were regular.
On dissection:-
The wound passed downwards and inwards,
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves,
with the surrounding bruise.
2.An extended stab injury of size 5cms x 5cms x
6cms seen over the back of the right hip. Margins
were regular.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
On dissection:-
The wound passed downwards and inwards,
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves,
with the surrounding bruise.
3.A stab injury of size 3.5cms x 2.5cms x 3cms seen
over the back of the right side of the neck. Margins
were regular, one end pointed and the other end
rounded.
On dissection:-
The wound passed downwards and inwards,
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves,
with the surrounding bruise.
4.A stab injury of size 4cms x 3cms x 3.5cms seen
below injury No.3. Margins were regular, one end
pointed and the other end rounded.
On dissection:-
The wound passed downwards and inwards,
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves,
with the surrounding bruise.
5.A cut and removed injury of size 6cms x 12cms x
7cms seen over the front of the neck. Margins were
regular, one end pointed and the other end rounded.
On examination:-
Trachea of length 6.5cms and oesophagus of
length 6cms were missing. The upper and lower cut
ends of the trachea and oesophagus were visualized.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
Margins were regular with the surrounding bruise,
injuring the surrounding muscles, vessels and
nerves.
6.A cut and removed injury of size 8cms x 7.5cms x
2.5cms seen over the genital region.
On examination:-
external genitalia including penis and scrotum
were missing. The cut ends of the penis and scrotum
were seen. Margins were regular with the
surrounding bruise, injuring the surrounding
muscles, vessels and nerves.
In her final opinion (Ex.P21), she had recorded that the deceased would
appear to have died of injury Nos.5 and 6 sustained by him one or two
weeks prior to autopsy.
6.16. V.Geethalakshmi-P.W.33 and Balasubramanian-P.W.34 are
the forensic experts who had conducted the superimposition of the skull
and DNA analysis respectively.
6.17. A.Murugesan-P.W.35 is the Inspector of Police who had
conducted the initial investigation. According to him, after he had taken
up the investigation, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses and
based on statements, he had arrested A2 on 08.07.2010. As per the
voluntary confession statement given by A2, he had visited the crime
scene and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P35) and observation mahazar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
(Ex.P36) in the presence of the witnesses. On receiving the information
of locating and identifying the body within the jurisdiction of the
Devadarganapatti Police Station, he made arrangements for P.W.2 to
identify the body. Thereafter, on 11.07.2010 at 6.30 P.M., he had arrested
A1 near Mandaveli bus stand and recorded his voluntary confession,
based on which, he had seized two cars in the presence of the witnesses.
Since P.W.4 expressed her willingness to give a voluntary statement, she
was produced before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.07.2010
and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He thereafter
collected evidences from the General Manager of National Highways
Authority of India, Guindy for tracing the car of the accused. In the
meantime, A3 to A6 had surrendered before the Chengalpattu Court and
on 15.07.2010, he took them into Police custody for interrogation. He
thereafter recorded their voluntary confessions, based on which he had
recovered 14 items under seizure mahazar/Ex.P39. At that place, he had
prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P40 and rough sketch/Ex.P41 in the
presence of the witnesses. Based on the confession statements of these
accused, a knife (M.O.25) and blood stained reaper wood (M.O.24) were
recovered under a seizure mahazar/Ex.P42. He conducted further
investigation by enquiring several witnesses till he was transferred to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
another Station.
6.18. Rayappan-P.W.36 took up the final portion of the
investigation and sent the case papers for forensic analysis under Form-
95. On completion of the investigation, he had filed the final report
charging all the accused, as mentioned above.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
submitted that there was absolutely no evidence before the Trial Court to
record the guilt of any of the accused. Being a case that rests on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not let in even a single
witness to fix the culpability of the crime on the accused and none of the
circumstances put forth by them have been established. The learned
counsel also drew attention of this Court to the judgment of the Trial
Court, wherein reliance has been placed on the statements of the
witnesses made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as the confession
statement of the accused, which are impermissible. Hence, the learned
counsel submitted that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the
sentences imposed requires to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a
clear motive was established by the prosecution through P.W.4, who had
categorically deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
This apart, he referred to the medical evidences and submitted that this
was a case of gruesome murder, where the accused had caused grievous
stab and cut injuries on the body of the deceased. Since the motive for A1
and A2 was because of the illegal intimacy which the deceased had with
A1’s daughter, all of them had cut his penis and scrotum, which act
indicates their motive clearly. He also placed reliance on the recovery of
the blood stained clothes of the deceased from the lake and submitted
that all the accused had clearly intended to cause disappearance of the
evidence to the crime and are therefore liable to be punished for the
offence under Section 201 read with 149 IPC, apart from the crime of
murder.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective counsels.
10. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidences and the law as to appreciation of evidences in such a case has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
been well settled. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sards Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had summarized five essential conditions that is required to be fulfilled
to establish a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidences.
Following are those five circumstances:-
“(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned “must or should” and
not “may be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:
SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before
a court can convict and the mental distance between
‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) 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.”
11. The aforesaid principles have been time and again reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had been followed in numerous
decisions. With these established principles of law in our minds, we shall
now analyze the evidences let in by the prosecution, touching upon the
various circumstances let in by them, to prove the guilt of the accused.
Motive:-
12. Two motives have been attributed in this case as against the
accused A1 to A3. Incidentally, A4 to A6 are alleged to be the henchmen
of A3. According to the prosecution, A3 carried a grudge over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
deceased, since he felt that the deceased had complained to P.W.4 about
the misappropriation of funds by him, when he was also in-charge of
handling the maintenance of private cars of A1. In order to take revenge
against the deceased, A3 is alleged to have spread a rumour that the
deceased had an illegal intimacy with P.W.4, owing to which, A1 and A2
were enraged and all of them had conspired together to get rid off the
deceased. In order to substantiate their motive, the statement of P.W.4
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Metropolitan
Magistrate. Though P.W.4 has stated about the complaint given by her to
her father/A1 with regard to the misappropriation of funds by A3, she has
categorically denied any relationship with the deceased. However, the
statement does not find corroboration during the course of trial, when she
denied any knowledge about the case in hand and was therefore treated
as an hostile witness by the prosecution.
13. Though several independent witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, none of them had spoken about the motive which A1 to A3
had against the deceased. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the father, brother
and mother of the deceased respectively. Even in their testimonies, they
only speak about their son going to work on 30.06.2010 and thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
not returning back. They also alleged that P.W.4 had informed P.W.1 that
she had a suspicion on A1 to A3 in connection with the missing of the
deceased. Apart from these statements, none of them speak about the
grudge A3 may have had against the deceased, owing to his complaint to
P.W.4 with regard to the misappropriation or of any illegal intimacy
between the deceased and P.W.4. In the absence of the same, we are of
the affirmed view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
motive on these accused.
Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C:-
14. It is the claim of the prosecution that P.W.4 had volunteered to
give a statement before the Metropolitan Magistrate, which was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Though P.W.4 speaks about the suspicion she
had against A1 to A3 when the deceased had gone missing, none of the
other statements made by her would, in any way, help the case of the
prosecution. This apart, unless we find some corroborative piece of
evidence to support this statement of P.W.4, it is highly unsafe to place
reliance on the same and record the guilt of the accused. However, during
the course of trial, P.W.4 had turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution’s case at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
15. It is a settled proposition of law that a statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used only to
corroborate the statement of witness. However, in the instant case, the
author of the statement itself had not subsequently supported the
prosecution’s case and neither do we find any corroboration from the
deposition of the other witnesses. While that being so, the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. loses its significance and thus, we do
not intend to give it any evidentiary value.
Discovery of the route through which the accused had taken the
deceased:-
16. The prosecution had examined P.W.20, who is a petrol bunk
supervisor and P.W.22, who is a petrol bunk clerk at Tindivanam, as well
as P.W.23, who is a Manager working in National Highways Authority of
India to substantiate that the vehicle bearing No.TN-04-AE-8070 had
passed through the Tollgates and was also filled with fuel. Though
P.W.20 and P.W.22 had deposed that the fuel receipts produced by the
prosecution were issued from their respective petrol bunks, they had
admitted that the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
therein. P.W.23 also states that the certificate issued by him does not refer
to the vehicle number in which the deceased was allegedly taken. In the
absence of the same, we fail to understand as to how the prosecution can
claim to have established that the accused had taken the deceased
through these toll plazas and petrol bunks. In our view, the evidences of
P.W.20, P.W.22 and PW.23 are very weak pieces of evidences to fix the
culpability of the crime on the accused and hence, much reliance cannot
be placed on them.
Identification of the body:-
17. The body of the deceased who had gone missing on 30.06.2010
was discovered only on 10.07.2010, in a partially decomposed state. The
Investigating Officer had collected samples of the skull and DNAs and
through the biological report (Ex.P22) and serological report (Ex.P23),
the body was identified to be that of a male aged about 22 years and the
DNA analysis also confirms the body to have been the son of P.W.1 and
P.W.2.
18. P.W.28, who is the Postmortem Doctor, had recorded several
cut and stab injuries on the body of the deceased and had opined that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
deceased may have died owing to two of the injuries recorded therein.
The recovery of the body and the subsequent postmortem conducted
would, at the most, would establish that this is a case of culpable
homicide. However, nothing further can be inferred with regard to the
culpability of the crime on any of the accused.
Medical Evidence:-
19. From the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.28), when
read along with the postmortem certificate (Ex.P20), we find this case to
be one of a gruesome murder, whereby six stab or cut injuries were found
on the body of the deceased. In one of the injuries, the entire genital area
was found missing and another cut injury measuring 6cms x 12cms x
7cms was seen over the front of the neck. The Doctor’s opinion recording
the death of the deceased was also due to these major injuries.
20. P.W.33, who is the Forensic Expert, had confirmed that the
sample of the skull received by her belong to a male aged about 22 years.
P.W.34, who is a DNA Expert also confirms that the body predominantly
matches the blood samples of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The medical evidence
before us suggests that the police have identified the body and matched it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
of belonging to the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and that he was murdered.
However, when there was absolutely no other evidence to even remotely
indicate the culpability of the crime on any of the accused, the only
evidence of possibility of the commission of murder alone may not
suffice to record the guilt of the accused.
21. This is a classic case where the Investigating Officer had
conducted a shabby investigation and could not prove even a single piece
of evidence to connect the chain of circumstances. However, being
curious as to how the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of the accused,
we had perused the entire judgment. To our utter dismay, we found that
in order to establish one of the main circumstances, namely motive, the
Trial Court had placed reliance on the statement of P.W.4 recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the same
portion of the judgment, the Trial Court had also relied upon the
confession statement of A1 to A3 and observed that these statements
were not disproved by the defence. We fail to understand as to how the
Trial Court could be insensitive to the basic principles in appreciating the
evidences before it and recording the guilt of the accused on the basis of
the confession statements of the accused before the Investigation Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
as well as the statements of P.W.4 made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which
are impermissible.
Last Seen Theory:-
22. The Trial Court had recorded that, from the statement of P.W.1
to P.W.3, the deceased left for his job and had gone to A1’s Company.
This statement has been construed by the Trial Court as a last seen
theory. None of the witnesses before the Trial Court had spoken about the
deceased in the company of any of the accused at any point of time. If
that be so, the Trial Court ought not to have taken into consideration the
circumstance of last seen theory and recorded the confession.
23. All the other portions of the judgment of the Trial Court are
also equally inappreciable and are not backed by any proper evidence. As
such, the entire judgment of the Trial Court requires to be set aside.
24. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the learned II
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 03.10.2024 passed in
S.C.No.108 of 2024, is set aside. Consequently, the appellants/accused
are acquitted of all the charges and are directed to be released forthwith,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. The
fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded and the bail
bonds, if any, executed shall stand discharged.
25. In the result, all the Criminal Appeals stand allowed.
[M.S.R., J] [N.S., J]
10.06.2025
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
Note: Issue order copy on 11.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
To
1.The II Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Abhiramapuram Police Station,
Chennai – 600 018.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
hvk
Pre-delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.Nos.1263, 1264, 1444, 1475 & 1477 of 2024
10.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:52:20 pm )
