Madras High Court
Anbu vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 18 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 24.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 18.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
Criminal Appeal Nos.467 and 540 of 2019
Anbu .. Appellant in Crl.A. No.467/2019 – A1
Karmegam .. Appellant in Crl.A. No.540/2019 – A3
Vs.
State rep by Inspector of Police
M-3, Puzhal Police Station
(Law and Order) Chennai
Crime No.319/2009 .. Respondent in both Criminal Appeals
Prayer : Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 26.06.2019 made in S.C. No.49 of
2014 and set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
in both Appeals For Mr.E.Udayachander
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
________
Page 1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 26.06.2019 made in S.C.
No.49 of 2014, the accused A1 & A3/appellants herein, have preferred these
criminal appeals.
2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in S.C. No.49 of
2014, has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows:-
Accused/Appel- Offence Sentence
lants
A1 & A3/ Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.1,000/ each-, in
Appellant in default to undergo rigorous
Crl.A. Nos.467 & imprisonment for six
540 of 2019 months
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2009 at about 2.30 p.m in
Central Prison, Puzhal, at quarantine block, convict prisoner Kumar @ Welding
Kumar was done to death by A1 to A7. To prove the case of the prosecution
before the trial court, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW26 and marked
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
Exs.P1 to 47 and produced material objects MO1 to MO17. According to the
prosecution, the deceased was a convict detained under the Central Prison at
AB-II block, where A1 – Anbu, A3 – Karmegam and A2 - Raja (died during
pending investigation). All the three accused along with others had inflicted
injury with knife, iron rods. The prosecution has examined PW1, Anwar Basha,
who was serving as prison jailer on 10.06.2009. Based on the complaint given
by PW1, an FIR was registered and the complaint is marked as Ex.P1. PW1 had
stated that while he was away for lunch, he received information from the
control room stating that the accused persons are fighting with each other in the
quarantine block. Upon getting the said information, PW1 rushed to the spot
and visited the scene of occurrence and enquired the witnesses who have seen
the occurrence.
4. According to the prosecution, the evidence of PW2, eyewitness is that,
after completing the Para duty at about 1.00 p.m, he heard some noise from the
prisoners of AB-II quarantine block where A1, A2 and A3 (died) inflicting
injuries on the deceased welding Kumar with knife. When PW2 rushed to the
scene of occurrence, all the three accused threatened PW2 by showing the
knife, therefore, fearing the consequence, PW2 remained silent.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
5. The prosecution witnesses, namely PW3 to PW5 have turned hostile.
PW7, the Ambulance driver was examined who deposed that the deceased was
taken in the said ambulance to the Government hospital for further treatment.
PW8 is the Head Constable who was then working as Grade II constable. He
stated that he was present when the other accused, namely A4 to A6 were
examined by the respondent. PW9 and PW10 who were the under trial
prisoners had turned hostile. PW11 is the son of the deceased who spoke about
how he received the information about the death of his father and the nature of
crime that has taken place. PW12 is the constable who signed as witness to the
observation mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is the seizure
mahazar.
6. PWs.13 to 15, who are convicts, had turned hostile. PW16 is the
retired head warden of the Central Prison, who also turned hostile. PW17 is the
retired Jail Superintendent who witnessed the recovery of material objects
through Ex.P15 to Ex.P20. PW18 is a painter, and a resident of Puzhal at the
time of occurrence. He had also turned hostile. PW19 is an expert who had
conducted examination on the viscera to ascertain the presence of poison or
alcohol in the stomach. The said viscera report was marked as Ex.P23, which
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
states that no alcohol or poison substance detected in any of the parts sent for
examination. PW20 is the Forensic expert whose report was marked as Exs.P24
ad P25.
7. PW21 is the Judicial Magistrate, who had stated that she has recorded
the 164 statement of the witnesses, which were marked as Exs.P27 to P32.
PW22 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased and the said
autopsy report was marked as Ex.P33. According to the doctor, the deceased
would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries
sustained by him. PW23 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted an
inquest and submitted a report which was marked as Ex.P35. It was recorded in
his letter that as the crime had happened inside the prison, a special report was
obtained. PW24 is the then Inspector of Police who registered the FIR which
was marked as Ex.P36 and he prepared the sketch marked as Ex.P37. He
deposed that the confession statements of the accused recorded. Pursuant to the
confession of the accused, material objects were recovered. PW25, the
Assistant Commissioner of Police and PW26, the Inspector of Police who
continued the investigation, submitted a final report. Upon completion of the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
trial, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, has convicted and
sentenced the appellants/accused, as stated supra.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that
(a) As PW1 was only a hearsay witness such witness can neither
be treated as a eye witness nor a substantial evidence;
(b) As the mahazar witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the
recovery from A1 to A4 had turned hostile, the evidenciary
value of such recovery is questionable. The recovery of materi-
al objects cannot be taken into consideration as all the wit-
nesses have turned hostile expect PWs.1 and 2 and other offi-
cial witnesses;
(c) As there were several under trial prisoners and convicts who
were examined, all the witnesses have turned hostile. It only
demonstrates that there was no independent witness to the oc-
currence. Therefore, it creates substantial doubt in the case of
the prosecution and the theory projected by the prosecution is
highly dramatic and improbable.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
(d) The only available evidence is PW2, who happens to be an eye
witness. The said PW2 is also an official witness and therefore,
relying upon the evidence of such official eye witness cannot
be taken into consideration, as PW2 is an interested witness
and a police man attached to the prison and therefore, the con-
viction cannot be based on the evidence of PW2.
9. Admittedly, the occurrence has taken place inside the prison. There
will be three sets of people present inside the prison, namely the police officials
who are guarding and managing the Central Prison, Puzhal and the convicts and
the under trial prisoners. When the deceased was admitted in the quarantine
block which is highly secured and moderate prison, the accused persons with a
motive to commit murder had been watching the movements of the deceased
through A3 to A7. It is clear from the record that PW2 had rushed to the scene
of occurrence upon hearing the noise. He witnessed the accused inflicting
injuries on the deceased. A1 to A3 had inflicted injuries on the deceased with
knife. Upon seeing PW2, the accused threatened him by showing the knife
therefore, PW2 has paved way for the accused to move away from the scene of
occurrence.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
10. According to the prosecution, the deceased welding Kumar happened
to be a notorious criminal, involved in several criminal cases and the accused
persons were also involved in several criminal cases. It has been a longstanding
enmity between one of the friends of the accused and the deceased. The trial
court had acquitted A3 to A7 for want of evidence as the case of the
prosecution itself is that the overt act of A3 to A7 is that they have aided A1
and A2 in committing the murder by watching the activities of the deceased and
passed on the information about the movements of the deceased. When the
accused and the deceased persons are notorious criminals, it is natural that the
convicts who stood as witnesses and the witnesses turning hostile cannot be
treated as a defence to disprove the prosecution case.
11. As the occurrence has taken place in the quarantine block which is
secured for most wanted criminals who had committed crime on other most
wanted criminals, there is no possibility for an independent witnesses apart
from the official witnesses. Considering the nature of the case, there is no
infirmity in the findings of the trial court.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
12. It is clear from the records that two blood stained knives were
recovered from A1 and A2 as MO4 and MO5 respectively and the cause of
death as per the post-mortem certificate is multiple injuries sustained by the
deceased. Therefore, prosecution has proved the case by producing the material
objects which were recovered from the accused and through oral evidence.
13. The evidence of PW2 is natural and cogent in explaining the crime
perpetrated by the accused persons. As per the evidence of PW2, when he saw
the accused persons attacking the deceased, he moved closer to the scene of
occurrence, the accused persons threatened PW2 by showing knife, therefore,
he allowed the accused to move away from the place of occurrence. The
statement of PW2 reveals the natural conduct of a person, even a police officer
who is unarmed. A reading of deposition of PW2 clarified that he is the eye
witness to the said occurrence and that with an intention to save his life from
the hardcore criminals, PW2 remained silent after witnessing the crime and
informed the control room. In view of the same, there is nothing to discredit the
credibility and the evidentiary value of PW2. Though the witnesses to recovery
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, had turned hostile, the same will
not weaken the case of the prosecution when the said recovery mahazars were
marked through the Inspector of Police and it is corroborated in his statement.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
14 In view of the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/A1 and A3
by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur dated 26.06.2019 made in
S.C. No.49 of 2014 and the same deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, the
criminal appeals filed by A1 and A3 fail.
15. In fine, both the criminal appeals are dismissed.
[M.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
18.06.2025
Asr
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur
2. Inspector of Police
M-3, Puzhal Police Station
(Law and Order) Chennai
Crime No.319/2009.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison, Puzhal
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.467 & 540/2019
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
Crl. A. Nos.467 & 540 of 2019
Dated : 18.06.2025
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
