Madras High Court
Duraisamy vs The State Represented By on 24 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
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 Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
Duraisamy .. Appellant in Crl.A. No.358 of 2022/
A5
1.Kumaresan
2.Subramani .. Appellants in Crl.A. No.348 of 2022/
A2 & A3
Vs.
The State represented by
Inspector of Police
Rasipuram Police Station
Namakkal District
(Crime No.591 of 2012) .. Respondent in both the Crl. Appeals
Prayer : Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code against the judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Namakkal dated 23.02.2022 in S.C. No.40 of 2013 and to set aside the same.
For Appellants in : Mr.C.Prabakaran
both Crl.Appeals
For Respondent in : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
both Crl.Appeals Additional Public Prosecutor
________
Page 1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 23.02.2022
passed in S.C. No.40 of 2013, the appellants herein/accused 5, 2 and 3 have
preferred these criminal appeals. The appellants/accused 5, 2 and 3 were
convicted and sentenced as follows:
Appellant/Accused Offence Sentence
7 years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.500/-, in
Duraisamy/A5 Section 307 IPC
default to undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment
7 years rigorous imprisonment
Section 307 IPC for each count and a fine of
(2 counts) Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
3 months simple imprisonment
Kumaresan/A2
Life imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default, to
Section 302 IPC
undergo six months simple
imprisonment
Section 307 IPC 7 years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment
Subramani/A3
Life imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default, to
Section 302 IPC
undergo six months simple
imprisonment
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
The trial court ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. These appeals are filed by Kumaresan, A2 and Duraisamy, A5.
Subramani (2nd appellant in Crl.A. No.348 of 2022), namely A3, died pending
trial. A4 was acquitted by the trial court. A1 died during trial.
3. The brief facts of the case are that there was enmity between PW1,
Karthi @ Karthik and the family of the accused with regard to conducting car
festival. On 04.07.2012, at about 8.00 a.m, a wordy quarrel arose between A5,
Duraisamy and PW2, Kumaran, when they went to attend nature’s call. Around
8.15 a.m, when PW1 and others were proceeding to police station, they were
waylaid by the accused/appellants and assaulted PW1/complainant with an
intention to commit murder by using sticks (Molakuchi MOs.1 to 3) which
were kept in the bullock cart. A1 and A2 had caused injury on PW1 and the
third accused Subramani (died pending trial) had assaulted PW2 on his head by
using the said material objects and A4 assaulted PW2 on his legs with stones
and A5 had assaulted PW3, Murugan on the head with stick and A5 also
attacked PW4 on his head. A1 assaulted the deceased on his head, A2 assaulted
the deceased on his head and chest and A3 assaulted the deceased on his face.
The deceased was taken to M.R. Hospital at Rasipuram and thereafter he was
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
taken to Vinayaka Mission Hospital where the deceased succumbed to death at
11.45 p.m in the said hospital.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 24
witnesses as PW1 to PW24 and had marked 37 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P37
and had produced MO1 to MO3. On the side of defence, A1 was examined as
DW1, A2 was examined as DW2 and A5 was examined as DW3. In support of
their case, they have marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D11, as documentary evidence.
5. PW1 is the injured eye witness and son-in-law of the deceased, who
had preferred the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. The said complaint
was given on 04.07.2012. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in
Crime No.591/2012 which was marked as Ex.P25. PW24, the Inspector of
Police, had commenced investigation based on the above complaint. PW2 is the
father of PW1 and he is an injured eye witness and PW3 and PW4 are the sons
of the deceased and injured eye witnesses. The prosecution has examined PW5
to PW8 to establish the scene of occurrence and the participation of the
prosecution witnesses, namely PW1 to PW4 and the presence of the accused in
the scene of occurrence. However, PW5 to PW8 have turned hostile. PW9 is
the owner of the bullock cart from where MOs.1 to 3 were taken and used by
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
the accused persons to cause injury on PW1 to PW4 and on the deceased.
PW11, VAO was examined to establish the recovery of materials objects, but
PW11 had turned hostile. PW12, was examined as attesting witness for the
confession and for the recovery.
6. PW13, the doctor, attached to M.R. Hospital had given initial
treatment and had referred the deceased to Vinayaka Mission Hospital. PW14,
who attested as witness to obervation mahazar has turned hostile. PW15 is the
doctor who treated the deceased and had given accident register, which was
marked as Ex.P6. PW16 is the doctor attached to Rasipuram Government
Hospital who treated PW1 to PW4 and also had treated A1, A2 and A5. The
accident register issued to PW1 to PW4 are marked as Exs.P10, P13, P16 and
P17. The accident register issued to A1, A2 and A5 are marked as Exs.D2, D3
and D1 respectively. PW18 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the
deceased and has given post-mortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P19
on 05.07.2012. PW21 was the forensic expert and she had given toxicology
report, which was marked as Ex.P20.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though
prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4, who are the injured eye witnesses, the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
sketch attached in the prosecution case would demonstrate that it is a common
place where the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses had happened to
meet each other, when they wanted to prefer a complaint against each other.
Ex.P26, the sketch would reveal that it is a common place and the occurrence
had taken place in a fit of anger without any pre-determination. The learned
counsel further contended that there are discrepancies with regard to the
evidence of eye witnesses, namely PW1 to PW4 that though they were injured
eye witnesses, their evidence has to be ignored on the ground that the overt act
attributed by the prosecution witnesses who are injured eye witnesses as against
the appellant are self-contradictory with regard to the injuries caused on the
accused and the injuries caused on the deceased. Though PW1 had stated that
MOs.1 to 3 were used at the time of occurrence, PW2 had stated that MOs.1 to
3 were used for the commission of crime and has failed to note what are the
injuries caused as against which accused. PW1 has stated in his evidence that
with MO1, he has attacked A2 and with MO2, A1 was attacked. MO.1 is a long
stick which had been used by A2, who had caused injury on PW1's head and
with MO2, A2 had caused injury on PW3, whereas the evidence of PW4 had
not stated anything about the usage of MOs.1 to 3 and the evidence of PW3 had
stated that MO1 was used by A5 to cause injury on the centre of PW3's head
and with MO2, A2 had caused injury on PW1 on the centre of his head. The
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that though
prosecution claims that PWs.1 to 4 are the injured eye witnesses and close
relatives of the deceased, the prosecution had not given the true version before
the court and had contradicted with regard to usage of MOs and the overt acts.
8. The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution had
miserably failed to put-forth the case of the defence with regard to the injuries
sustained by the accused persons. PW16, the doctor, who has treated PWs.1 to
PW4 has also treated A1, A2 and A5. The post-mortem report which was
marked as Ex.P19 recorded the internal examination as follows:
O/D HEAD: SCALP - CONTUSION SEEN ON THE
RIGHT FRONTO PARIETO TEMPERO OCCIPITAL
REGION M.22CMSX12CMSX0.5CM, WITH UNDERLYING
TEMPERALIS MUSCLE CONTUSION. CRANIAL VAULT -
COMMUNITED FRACTURE OF RIGHT TEMPERAL
BONE, DURAMATER INTACT, BRAIN-DIFFUSE
SUBDURAL & SUB ARACH NOID HAEMORHAGE SEEN
ALLOVER THE BRAIN SURFACE, WITH LACERATION
SEEN OVER RIGHT TEMPERAL LOBE
M.6CMSX5CMSX0.5CMS. BASE OF SKULL - LINEAR
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
FISSURE FRACTURE SEEN OVER RIGHT SIDE OF
MIDLE CRANIAL FOSSAM, 9CMS.
O/D NECK:- NECK STRUCTURES NORMAL, HYOID
BONE - INTACT
O/D THORAX-RIB CAGE - INTACT, FRACTURE
DISLOCATION OF OUTER END OF LEFT CLAVICLE
WITH SURROUNDING SOFT TISSUE CONTUSION,
LUNG-BOTH LUNGS NORMAL IN SIZE ON C/S
CONGESTED. HEART - NORMAL IN SIZE, ON C/S
CHAMBERS-CONTAIN FLUID BLOOD., VALVES AND
CORONARIES PATENT.
O/D ABDOMEN:- STOMACH CONTAIN 50 ML OF
BROWN COLOUR FLUID WITH NO SPECIFIC SMELL,
LIVER, SPLEEN AND KIDNEYS - NORMAL IN SIZE ON
C/S-CONGESTED. BLADDER - EMPTY"
In the final opinion, which was marked as Ex.P21, the doctor had opined that
the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of head injuries.
9. Even according to the prosecution, the death of the deceased had
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
happened only because of the head injury and the said injury was caused by A1
to A3 on the head of the deceased. The learned counsel pointed out that
pending trial and appeal, A1 and A3 had died. A2/appellant in Crl.A. No.348 of
2022 is one of the persons, who caused injury on the deceased.
10. When the statements of PWs.1 to 4 regarding the overt acts of A2 are
self-contradictory, it is not safe to rely upon such contradictory statements
when the accused had also sustained injuries especially, when injuries were not
explained by the prosecution and had not spoken to by the prosecution which
only infers that the prosecution had not projected the true version of the
occurrence.
11. Admittedly, PWs.1 to 4 are the injured eye witnesses and close
relatives of the deceased and it is not in dispute that there existed enmity
between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons. With regard to the
wordy quarrel that ensued on 04.07.2012, in the early hours and when both the
parties proceeded to prefer a complaint incidentally and what happened at the
scene of occurrence was a free fight between the prosecution witnesses and the
accused persons. When the prosecution witnesses have projected specific overt
act which is contradictory to each other and the material objects recovered and
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
the usage of the material objects by the accused persons cannot be relied upon,
as the witnesses who have witnessed the occurrence, namely PW5 to PW8 have
turned hostile. The evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be taken into
consideration but to some extent could be relied upon. On examining the
evidence of hostile witnesses, it was true that it was a free fight between the
injured prosecution witnesses and the accused and none of the witnesses had
spoken about the overt acts of the prosecution witnesses and the injuries
sustained by the accused. The trial court, while analysing the evidentiary value
of statements of PW1 to PW4 along with the overt act against PW1 to PW4 on
the deceased, had miserably failed to take note of the injuries sustained by the
accused persons in the free fight. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to
establish the prosecution case, which includes the injuries sustained by the
accused persons.
12. During trial, A1, A2 and A5 were examined as DW1 to DW3. Their
evidentiary value cannot be neglected or rejected outright as the accused
persons had also sustained injuries and their complaint, which was marked as
Ex.D4 is against the prosecution witnesses, namely PW1 to PW4. Ex.D4 is the
complaint given by A1. In the complaint, A1 has implicated PW1, PW2 and
PW3 for causing injuries on the accused. PW3 has attacked A1 by using the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
material objects on the front right side head and A2 was beaten by PW3 on the
back side and PW1 had caused injuries on A3 and A4 on the front head and
right shoulder, apart from causing injury on the face, chest and PW2 had caused
injury on A4 on the right head and the deceased had beaten A2. The overt acts
had been totally suppressed by the prosecution in the narration of the
prosecution case.
13. The accident registers, which were marked as Exs.P10, P13, P16 and
P17 which were given for PW1 to PW4 and the post mortem certificate of the
deceased and the final opinion which was marked as Ex.P19 and Ex.P21 would
clearly show that the deceased died because of the head injury.
14. When the prosecution had not explained the injuries sustained by the
accused who were also treated by the very same doctor/PW16, the non-
explanation of injuries caused on the accused by the prosecution to bring out
the truth is fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution had miserably failed
to project the true happenings in a free fight, which has erupted between the
prosecution witnesses and the accused persons. The prosecution has projected a
case based on the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by PW1 to
PW4 and projected as if the entire occurrence has taken place only at the
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
instance of accused persons herein.
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-
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
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
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
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
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
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 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
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
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 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. It is true that the prosecution had also registered a case based on the
complaint given by A1/DW1 and a case was registered in Crime No.592 of
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
2012 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307
IPC against the prosecution witnesses. The said FIR was marked as Ex.D5.
Though the trial court had conducted the case to establish the crime, it is to be
noted that the trial court has not conducted the trial on a case in counter case
basis.
17. It is pertinent to note that against the judgment of the counter case,
Criminal Appeal No.743 of 2015 was filed before this Court. The learned single
Judge of this court, on 14.03.2016, has passed the following order in M.P. No.1
of 2015 in Crl.A. No.743 of 2015, which is extracted hereunder:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. It is submitted that this appeal arose out of S.C. No.21
of 2013. S.C. No.40 of 2013 pending on the file of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rasipuram, Namakkal is counter
case.
3. Now, it has been pointed out that S.C. No.40 of 2013
for offence under Section 302 IPC is posted for delivery of
judgment on 15.03.2016.
4. In such circumstances, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge Rasipuram, Namakkal district shall defer the
pronouncement of the judgment on 15.03.2016.
5. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send this order
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
by fax to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rasipuram,
Namakkal District through the Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal District."
18. Based on the above direction given by this Court in Crl.A. No.743 of
2015, the trial court has stalled the pronouncement of judgment in S.C. No.40
of 2013 i.e the counter case. On 18.11.2021, the learned single Judge of this
court by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldip
Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 324 has
elaborated the procedure to be adopted in respect of cross-cases and passed the
following order:
“ 3. The above said judgement was challenged by the A1
and A2 by way of preferring this appeal. Had there been an
opportunity to remand the case to the file of the trial Court itself in
order to complete the trial of the other case in SC.No.40 of 2013
and pass a separate judgement in one and the same time, it would
have helped to rectify the procedural flaw committed by the
Sessions Court. In cross cases, it is obligatory for the courts to
follow the procedure laid down under sec.223(d) Cr.P.C. In the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 5 SCC
324 ( Kuldip Yadav and Others Vs State of Bihar ), the importance
for adopting such a procedure has been elaborated and it is
extracted as under:
Procedure in respect of cross-cases
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
12.In order to understand the above issue, it is useful to
refer to Section 223(d) of the Code which reads as under:
“223.What persons may be charged jointly.—The following
persons may be
charged and tried together, namely:
(a)-(c) * * *
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of
the same transaction;
(e)-(g) * * *”
13.The above provision has been interpreted by this Court
in the following decisions. InHarjinder Singhv.State of
Punjab[(1985) 1 SCC 422 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 93] the question
before the Court was whether under Section 223 of the Code it is
permissible for the Court to club and consolidate the case on a
police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution
versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are
materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The
question was whether the Court should in the facts and
circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried
together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded
separately in both cases and they may be disposed of
simultaneously except to the extent that the witnesses for the
prosecution which are common to both may be examined in one
case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other.
14.After analysing the factual details, this Court has
concluded: (Harjinder Singh case[(1985) 1 SCC 422 : 1985 SCC
(Cri) 93] , SCC p. 426, para 8)
“8. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case we
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
feel that the proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases
should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
but not consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded
separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent
that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the
cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as
evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
should after recording the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in one case, withhold his judgment and
then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other
case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the
cases by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in
one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case.”
(underlining supplied)
15.In Balbir v. State of Haryana[(2000) 1 SCC 285 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 160] this Court considered clauses (a) and (d) of
Section 223 of the Code and held that: (SCC pp. 286h287a)
“… the primary condition is that persons should have been
accused either of the same offence or of different offences
‘committed in the course of the same transaction’. The expression
advisedly used is ‘in the course of the same transaction’. That
expression is not akin to saying ‘in respect of the same subject-
matter’. For several offences to be part of the same transaction, the
test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one
another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal
and subsidiary, so as to
result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a
commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same
or different offences ‘committed in the course of the same
transaction’.”
4. Since A3 & A4 were acquitted and no appeal has been
filed either by the defacto complainant or by the prosecution for
challenging their acquittal, they are not before this Court. Without
hearing A3 & A4, the case cannot be remanded to the trial court to
be tried afresh along with the other case in SC.No.40 of 2013. Any
judgement that might be passed in this appeal may also have an
impact on the merits of the other case and that has to be avoided
for now.
5. Under such circumstances, I feel it is appropriate to
allow the trial court to pronounce the judgment in S.C. No.40 of
2013. Depending on the result of the judgment in S.C. No.40 of
2013, if any appeal is preferred, then at least it would be possible
for this court to hear this along with other appeal if any, that might
arise out of the judgment to be passed in S.C. No.40 of 2013.
Hence, I feel that the trial court should be directed to pronounce
the judgment and send a report about its disposal to this court
within a period of two weeks from pronouncing the judgment.
6. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Namakkal is directed to pronounce the judgment in S.C. No.40 of
2013 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order and send a report to this court. However, the trial Judge
should consider the merits of the case in S.C. No.40 of 2013
without being influenced by the judgment of the Sessions court
passed in S.C. No.21 of 2013.”
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
After pronouncement of judgment in S.C. No.40 of 2013, which culminated
into the above appeals, a learned single Judge of this court has directed the
Registry to list Crl.A. No.743 of 2015 along with the above criminal appeals,
namely Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022, after obtaining necessary orders from
the Hon’ble The Chief Justice.
19. In the light of the settled legal position, by considering the material
contradictions with regard to the overt act attributed against the injured persons
as against the deceased and the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the
accused persons and the procedural contradictions, we are inclined to allow this
appeal.
20. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed. The judgment of
conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Namakkal dated 23.02.2022 in S.C. No.40 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.]
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
24.06.2025
Asr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Issue on 26/6/25
To
1.The Additional Disrict & Sessions Judge, Namakkal
2. The Inspector of Police
Rasipuram Police Station
Namakkal District
(Crime No.591 of 2012)
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
Copy to:
The Superintendent of Prisons
Central Prison, Salem
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
Crl.A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
Crl. A. Nos.358 & 348 of 2022
Dated : 24.06.2025
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 08:34:28 pm )
