Madras High Court
Karthi @ Karthik vs The State Represented By on 24 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.A. No.743 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 01.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 24.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
Criminal Appeal No.743 of 2015
1.Karthi @ Karthik
2.Kumaran .. Appellants/A1 & A2
Vs.
The State represented by
Inspector of Police
Rasipuram Police Station
Namakkal District
(Crime No.592 of 2012) .. Respondent
****
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code against the judgment of Additional Disrict & Sessions Judge, Namakkal
dated 20.11.2015 in S.C. No.21 of 2013 and to set aside the same.
****
For Appellants : Mr.M.R.Thangavel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
________
Page 1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
Crl.A. No.743 of 2015
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 20.11.2015
passed in S.C. No.21 of 2013, accused 1 and 2 have preferred this criminal
appeal.
2. The trial court has acquitted A1 to A4 on the charge under Section 148
IPC and acquitted A1 on the charge under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted A2
to A4 on the charge under Section 294(b) IPC r/w 149 IPC. The accused 3 and
4 were acquitted on charge under Section 307 (2 counts) IPC. A1 and A2 were
convicted and sentenced as follows:
Appellant/Accused Offence Sentence
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
10 years rigorous
Karthi & Karthik (A1)
imprisonment and a fine of
and Section 307 IPC
Rs.1,00/-, in default to undergo
Kumaran (A2)
1 year rigorous imprisonment
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2012 at about 7.00 a.m,
when PW2, Kumaresan called PW1 over cell-phone and informed PW1 that
PW3 was assaulted by A2. PW1 asked PW2 to come to the police station.
When PW1reached the police station, PW2 and PW3 were already there in the
police station. Thereafter, PW1 to PW3 had gone near Suganthi Hospital to
have a cup of tea. According to the prosecution, around 8.00 to 8.30 a.m, when
A1 to A4, along with the deceased Natarajan (father of A3 and A4) came from
Pattanam, a wordy quarrel ensued between the prosecution witnesses and the
accused persons, thereby the accused persons picked up the bullock cart sticks
attached to the bullock cart (Molakuchi, 4 in Nos produced as MO1) and
attacked the prosecution witnesses.
4. According to the prosecution, A1 attacked PW3 on the forehead and
on the right side of the head, A2 attacked the backside of the head of PW3, A4
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
attacked PW1 on the front side of his head, A3 attacked PW1 on the right side
of his head, right shoulder, face and chest and A4 attacked PW1 on the right
side of his head. PW1 to PW3 were taken to the Government Hospital,
Rasipuram, where the doctor had advised PW1 and PW2 to go to Government
Hospital, Salem and PW3 was taken to Manipal Hospital, Salem. Ex.P9 is the
wound certificate issued to PW3 by Manipal Hospital at Salem. Ex.P10 is the
Accident Register entry of PW3 and police intimation. Ex.P11 series is the
medical report of PW2 and wound certificates issued to PW1 to PW3. Based on
the complaint given by PW1, which was marked as Ex.P1, a case was
registered in Crime No.592 of 2012 for offences under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC. The express FIR is Ex.P13.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW3 was originally treated
at Government Hospital, Rasipuram and thereafter, he was treated at Manipal
Hospital. PW1 to PW3 are the injured eye witnesses. A2 died during appeal. It
is to be noted that a counter case was registered, based on the complaint given
by A1 in Crime No.591 of 2012, which was taken on file by the learned trial
Judge in S.C. No.40 of 2013.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that
though the Head Constable had recorded the statement of PW1, which was
marked as Ex.P1-complaint, the said Head Constable was not examined by the
prosecution. Similarly, the prosecution had not examined the doctor, who had
treated PW1 at Government Hospital, Salem on 04.07.2012 and even the
documents were not marked by the prosecution to prove that treatment was
given to PW1 at Government Hospital, Salem. The learned counsel contended
that when the Head Constable's statement was not recorded to establish the
genesis of the complaint, PW1 had admitted in his cross-examination that his
statements were recorded by the Head Constable at the Government Hospital,
which vitiates the origin and the genesis of the complaint preferred by the
complainant. In the absence of any material to establish that PW1 had taken
treatment at Government Hospital, Rasipuram and the statement was recorded
by the Head Constable, the FIR cannot be taken into consideration and the said
FIR is not a reliable and genuine document for the prosecution to establish its
case.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
6. He further contended that the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 3 were
assaulted by the accused, thereafter, PWs.1 to 3 were taken to Government
Hospital, Rasipuram, and the accident registers were marked to establish the
injuries sustained by PWs.1 to 3 as Ex.P11 series. The evidence of PW12, the
doctor who treated PW3 had stated in his chief examination that he treated
PW3 as an outpatient and he has referred the patient to the Government
Hospital, Salem for further treatment. As PW3 did not go to the Government
Hospital, no information was available to show the nature of injuries sustained
by him. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence of PW12 he has categorically
stated regarding two injuries on the head of PW3 and the fact that he was
further referred to the Government Hospital, Salem.
7. The sticks marked under MO1 series were recovered pursuant to the
confession of the appellants under Form 95 as Ex.P19. It is relevant to note that
the Village Administrative Officer, was examined as DW1 and Ex.D3, field
survey sketch was marked to establish that there was no burial ground opposite
to the fire station. This factum had become relevant with regard to material
objects which were recovered under Ex.P19, from the appellants herein inside
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
the burial ground. When prosecution had relied upon the material objects
which were identified and lifted from the burial ground, the evidence of DW1
and the field survey sketch makes it clear that the recovery of material objects
under Ex.P19, Form 95 cannot be taken into consideration as a geunine one.
8. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution had
suppressed the counter case where the accused persons had an altercation with
the prosecution witnesses. A case in Crime No.591/2012 was registered against
PW1 to PW3 under Section 302 IPC where the said Natarajan was said to have
died. The case in Crime No.591/2012, which was taken on file by the Sessions
Court in S.C. No.40 of 2013 was not tried as a case in counter case. Though the
trial had taken place before the same court, the procedure contemplated under
the criminal procedure was not followed which vitiates the trial.
9. The learned counsel pointed out that the prosecution has not projected
the correct version of the occurrence and the motive. He contended that non-
explanation of the accused injuries and the recovery of material objects at the
burial ground, would only show that the prosecution has not proved the case as
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
against the appellants herein.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that
PWs.1 to 3 are the injured eye witnesses and to establish the prosecution case,
PW11 and PW12, the doctors of Manipal Hospital and Government Hospital,
Salem were examined. Ex.P9 - wound certificate of PW3, Ex.P10, Accident
Register of PW3 and police intimation were produced in support of the
prosecution case. The evidence of PW12, who had treated PW1 to PW3 and
Ex.P11, wound certificate of PW2 and AR copies of PW1 to PW3 coupled
with the fact that the Village Administrative officer, who is an independent
witness had attested the confession of A1 to A3 marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P5
along with recovery of material objects under Ex.P6 to P8, seizure mahazar,
would show that the case had been established by the prosecution and hence
prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused.
11. Admittedly, PW1 to PW3 are the injured eye witnesses and there
cannot be a dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by them and their
evidence cannot be discredited. By analysing the entire case of the prosecution,
the evidence of PW1 to PW3 would clearly show that there was a free fight
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons. It has to be taken
note that the prosecution witnesses have been arrayed as accused in the case in
Crime No.591 of 2012 and the materials to establish injuries sustained by the
prosecution witnesses are marked as Ex.D1, D6 and D7 in S.C. No.40 of 2013.
12. It is not in dispute that PW1 to PW3 were the injured eye witnesses
but, the origin and genesis of the complaint, motive and the discrepancies with
regard to the overt act of PW1 to PW3 as against accused/appellants are not
explained in the evidence of PW1 to PW3. It is to be noted that PW4 to PW7
are common people, who have witnessed the free fight between the prosecution
witnesses and the accused persons. PW9 was examined to establish the case of
the prosecution, who was the bullock cart owner from whom the material
objects were taken and assaulted PW1 to PW3. PW10, Village Administrative
Officer attested as a witness in A1 to A3's confession statement, which were
marked as Exs.P3 to P5. Exs.P6 to P8 are seizure mahazars by which the
material objects were recovered from the accused.
13. Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW3 had admitted in
the cross examination that there was a free fight between the parties arising out
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
of a simmering longstanding dispute with regard to a car festival in a temple.
When there was a wordy quarrel between the witnesses and the accused, both
the parties have gone to police station to prefer a complaint and the prosecution
witnesses were waiting near Suganthi Hospital and in a fit of anger, the
occurrence had taken place, in which the prosecution witnesses as well as the
accused got injured. The prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained
by the accused, which is fatal to the prosecution case. Interestingly, the Village
Administrative Officer, Rasipuram was examined as DW1, through whom
Ex.D3, field map was marked to establish that there was no burial ground from
where the materials objects (molakuchi) were recovered pursuant to the
confession given by A1 to A3 and marked as MO1 as per the prosecution.
Exs.P6 to P8 cannot be taken into consideration as the recovery mahazar, refers
to the place of recovery of material objects as burial ground and the said
recovery is highly discredited by Ex.D3, which cannot be denied. The first
accused was examined as DW2, through whom, the death certificate of
Natarajan (father in law of A1), was marked as Ex.D4, issued by the Revenue
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, which states the place of death as
Vinayaka Mission Hightech Hospital, Veerapandi, Salem.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
14. According to the appellants, the prosecution had miserably failed to
establish the place of death of the deceased Natarajan, who was originally
arrayed as A5 in Crime No.592 of 2012. In the absence of explanation of
injuries sustained by the deceased and the factum of recovery of material
objects under Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 from the burial ground which was disproved by
production of Ex.D3, survey sketch demonstrates that the prosecution had not
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be noted that when two views
are possible with regard to the guilt as against the accused, then the view which
will benefit the accused has to be taken. The case of the prosecution has
literally failed with regard to the recovery and due to non-explanation of the
injuries sustained by the accused.
15. In this regard, it is useful to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Nandlal and others vs. State of Chhattishgarh reported in (2023) 10
SCC 470, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the importance of
non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. The relevant paragraphs
are extracted hereunder:
25. We will first consider the issue with regard to non-
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
explanation of injuries sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar.
In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar [Lakshmi Singh v. State of
Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671] , which case
also arose out of a conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 149IPC, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue
of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. This
Court, after referring to the earlier judgments on the issue,
observed thus : (SCC pp. 401-402, para 12)
“12. … It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation
of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the
occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance from which the court can draw the following
inferences:
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the
origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true
version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most
material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the
injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so
as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical
witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in
probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case,
when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh
received serious injuries which have not been explained by the
prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of
these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any
injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions
Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due
consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in
the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this
Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [State of Gujarat v. Bai
Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be
cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle
would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by
the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is
so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so
probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the
effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and
the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this
serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing
premises.”
26. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
has been taken by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Madho
[State of Rajasthan v. Madho, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396 : 1991
SCC (Cri) 1048] , State of M.P. v. Mishrilal [State of M.P. v.
Mishrilal, (2003) 9 SCC 426 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1829] and
Nagarathinam v. State [Nagarathinam v. State, (2006) 9 SCC 57
: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 212] .
27. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries sustained
by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be considered to be minor
or superficial. The witnesses are also interested witnesses,
inasmuch as they are close relatives of the deceased. That there
was previous enmity between the two families, on account of
election of sarpanch, has come on record. As observed by this
Court in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh [Ramashish Rai v.
Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611] ,
previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can
provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false
implication cannot be ruled out.
28. We have already seen hereinabove the injuries sustained
by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to lodging of the FIR
at 3.15 a.m. on 4-11-2006 by Khomlal, the police had taken
Accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination. The memo
forwarding Accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination
to medical officer mentions that Accused 11 had informed the
police that at around 8.30 p.m., he was assaulted by Atmaram
(PW 1). Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed
information with regard to the said incident. The prosecution has
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
also suppressed the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW 1). It is thus
clear that the prosecution has attempted to suppress the real
genesis of the incident. Taking into consideration this aspect of
the matter, coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar, we are of the
considered view that Accused 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled to
benefit of doubt.
16. In view of the settled legal position, we are inclined to allow this
appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Disrict & Sessions
Judge, Namakkal dated 20.11.2015 in S.C. No.21 of 2013 is set aside. The
appellants are directed to be set at liberty, in case their presence is not required
in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the
appellants, shall be returned to the appellants forthwith and the material objects
shall be destroyed.
[M.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
Issue on 26/6/25 24.06.2025
Asr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
1.The Additional Disrict & Sessions Judge, Namakkal
2.The Inspector of Police
Rasipuram Police Station
Namakkal District
(Crime No.592 of 2012)
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
Copy to:
The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison, Salem
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
Dated : 24.06.2025
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 06:37:10 pm )
