Madras High Court
Thennilai Police Station vs Nataraj on 20 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A(MD)No.158 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.02.2025
Pronounced on : 20 .03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.158 of 2021
The State rep. by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Maduras – 104.
(Cr.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the
Thennilai Police Station,
K.Paramathi Circle,
Karur District.) ... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
Nataraj ...Respondent/Sole Accused
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment
in S.C.No.66 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
1/46
Crl.A(MD)No.158 of 2021
Judge, Karur, dated 31.01.2018 and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.M.Subash Babu,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Susikumar
JUDGMENT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant,
questioning the judgment dated 31.01.2018 in S.C.No.66 of 2018 by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karur, by which
judgment, the accused therein was acquitted of all charges.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) On 02.05.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant who
is the village administrative officer was informed by the Ex-vice
president of Anjoor Village, Thiru.Saravanakumar, that within their
village limits at Kodumudi to Muthoor road on the western side near
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
NRS channel bridge a white colour nylon gunny bag was found in a tied
condition. He smelt bad odour from the said bag.
(b) Immediately he and his Assistant Tmt.Geetha went to the
place at about 6.00 p.m. and partially opened the bag in the presence of
witnesses Ravi @ Velusamy and Saravanakumar. They found a human
finger in the said bag, upon opening fully they found a decomposed body
of a woman, approximately between 30 to 40 years. She was wearing a
violet colour nighty, light coffee brown colour skirt. Her body had a
black skin infested with maggots. They also found 4 studs in her ear, a
mangal sutra thread around her neck and a toe ring.
(c) They made Enquiries about the identity of the women,
but they could not get any information, suspecting somebody would have
killed her and tied her in a gunny bag, he lodged a complaint before the
Paramathi Police Station, Thennalai at 19.20 hours.
(d) P.W.29 Tmt.Sumathy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramathi
Police Station received the complaint Ex.P.1 and registered FIR in Crime
No.50 of 2017 under Section 302 and 201 IPC under Ex.P.21. She sent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and copy to the Paramathi
Police Station for investigation.
(e) P.W.30 Thiru.Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, on
02.05.2017 after receipt of the FIR went to the place of occurrence
namely, Kodumudi-Muthoor main road, near NRS bridge and prepared
observation mahazar Ex.P.3, rough sketch Ex.P.22 in the presence of
witnesses Murugesan and Muthusamy. Thereafter, he recovered 1) nylon
bag with letters as Joker Riz, Special Joker Sortex Silky Rice – 2 nos.
M.O.11 and M.O.12, saree with saffron colour, violet and yellow colour
rope 3-½ ft. length, yellow and violet colour 7 ft. length nylon rope,
yellow and violet colour nylon rope 9 ft. length, 6ft. length tied together,
4 ft. Length, 3 ft. length rope tied together, with yellow and violet colour
rope - M.O.7 to M.O.10, purge fluid, cement earth, ordinary earth in a
seizure mahazar Ex.P5.
(f) He examined Shanmugam, Geetha, Saravanakumar, Ravi
@ Veluchamy, Murugesan and Muthusamy and recorded their
statements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
(g) On 03.05.2017, he conducted inquest on the dead body
in the presence of panchayathars and witnesses. At about 9.00 hours,
prepared inquest report under Ex.P.23. Since they could not identify the
dead body, in order to collect the skull and femur bone from the dead
body, he sent a requisition letter through Constable Muthukumar under
Ex.P24. He also examined the witnesses and rerecorded their statements.
(h) On 04.05.2017 after post mortem the police Constable
Muthukumar received the dresses worn by the deceased namely, nighty –
M.O.17, inskirt – M.O.18, two covering ear stud big measuring 400 gm.-
M.O.19, a pair of stud small – M.O.20, gold nose ring – M.O.21, silver
mingi (kp”;rp) – M.O.22, covering bangles – M.O.23, mangalsutra rope
without thali – M.O.24 in a special report under Form–91. He also sent
the form – 91 with material objects to the Judicial Magistrate on
05.05.2017 under Ex.P.25.
(i) On 05.05.2017, he sent a requisition letter to the Judicial
Magistrate to conduct chemical analysis on the viscera.
(j) On 09.05.2017, he examined the witnesses Karthik and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
Vinoth and recorded their statements.
(k) On 12.05.2017 the accused appeared before the Village
Administrative Officer Tmt.Freeda and confessed about the crime. The
Village Administrative Officer, on the same day at about 13.00 hours
produced the accused before the Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police
Station with confession statement. The extra judicial confession
statement was recorded under Ex.P.2.
(l) Upon enquiry, he learnt that the name of the deceased
was Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi and the accused is the murderer. He
arrested the accused at about 13.15 hours, after explaining the reason for
arrest and recorded his confession statement under Ex.P.2. Based on the
confession, he went to the place of occurrence Kupputhurai Engineer
Thottam, Karvazhi Village and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.26 at
about 15.40 hours, rough sketch Ex.P.9 at about 16.30 hours, the accused
handed over a cash of Rs.1,000/- M.O.1 and the same was recovered in a
seizure mahazar Ex.P.4. He also seized ordinary earth -M.O.3, mud with
ash cement earth – M.O.4 in the presence of witnesses. At about 18.30
hours, he recovered TVS-50 two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
D 5795 -M.O.5 in a seizure mahazar in the presence of the same witness.
(m) Thereafter, he came to the police station with the
accused and the material objects and sent him for remand. He also sent
the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate Court on 12.05.2017 under
form 91.
(n) He then examined the witnesses Freeda, Mani and
recorded their statements. He also examined the witnesses Shanmugam,
Geetha, Saravanakumar, Ravi @ Veluchamy and re-recorded their
statements.
(o) On 13.05.2017, he examined Rajendran, husband of the
deceased, Meena daughter of the deceased, Kuppudurai, Jeyamani,
Periyasamy, Archunan, Saraswathy, Kannammal, Sakthivel, Ganesan and
recorded their statements.
(p) On 14.05.2017, he examined the Police Constable
Elangovan, Tmt.Sumathy, Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered
the FIR and recorded their statements. On 16.05.2017, he examined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
Dr.Thangaraj-P.W.13 and recorded his statement. He received the
postmortem report. Dr.Thangaraj, who had conducted the postmortem
found the following injuries on the deadbody :
“A high decomposed female body lies with back
arm closed to its side, body was bloated, peelings of skin
present all over the body, maggots seen all over the body,
no other external injury. Skul intact and send for
hyperimposition brain-liquefied, Hyoid Bone fracture,
present and sent to examination Thorax and ribs -intact,
lungs decomposed Heart chambers contains 50 grams of
clotted blood, stomach contains 300 grams of partially
digested food particles, intestine distanted with
gas,Bladder empty, uterus- present and sent for
histopathological examination report.
Final opinion:
Cause of death cannot be ascertained, However
neck violence cannot be ruled out due to Hyoid fracture.”
(q) On 24.05.2017, he sent a requisition to the Judicial
Magistrate through Police Constable Muthukumar, to send the skull and
femur bone to the Forensic Officer, Madras, for Scientific analysis under
Ex.P.13.
(r) He also sent a requisition letter to the Judical Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
Court with permission to send the material objects to the Forensic experts
under Ex.P.31. Thereafter, on 27.11.2017 he sent a requisition for DNA
test for the deceased Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi with her daughter
Meena and endorsed the work with Grade-I Police Elangovan under
Ex.P32.
(s) On 12.12.2017, blood samples of Meena was collected
through FTA card and sent for DNA test through Grade-I Police
Ravikannan. He had examined Dr.Prakash and Dr.Shanthi on 20.12.2017
and recorded their statements.
(t) On 04.01.2018 he also examined photographer
Mankrishnan, handwriting expert Thangaraj, Grade I Police Constables
viz., Elangovan, Raghunathan, Ravikannan, Muthukumar, Devanathan
and recorded their statements. On 19.01.2018 he examined
Dr.Pushparani who had conducted superimposition test with the skull of
the deceased Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi by comparing her
photograph. The superimposition report was marked as Ex.P.33. He
examined Dr.Thara, who had furnished DNA report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
(u) On 20.04.2018, he examined Dr.Balakrishnan who had
examined uterus of the deceased Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi. He also
obtained the final opinion from Dr.Thangaraj on 04.05.2018 and on
18.05.2018 he also raised questions with regard to final opinion and
received answers from Dr.Thangaraj for certain questions.
(v) After completion of the investigation, on 02.06.2018 he
filed a final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 302
and 201 IPC.
3. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Karur took up the case in P.R.C.No.12 of 2018 and issued summons to
the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire
records were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur, under Section 209(A)
Cr.P.C. for further action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
5. The Principal District Judge, Karur received the case
records, numbered it as S.C.No.66 of 2018 and made over to the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, for disposal according to law.
6. After receipt of the case records, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Karur framed charges against the accused under Section
302and 201 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
Therefore, the case was posted for trial.
7. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.30 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to
M.O.34 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was
examined.
8. On conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Karur, acquitted the accused of all the charges by judgment dated
31.01.2020, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by
the State/complainant on the following among other grounds :-
(i) That the trial Court had misinterpreted the evidence P.W.13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
postmortem Doctor, giving weightage to the suggestion made by the
defence in the cross-examination.
(ii) That the trial Court had erred in holding that the prosecution
had failed to establish that the deceased was "last seen alive" in the
company of the accused, while the prosecution had established that the
accused and deceased had been living as husband and wife and
subsequent to her missing the accused has not informed anyone about her
missing, but on the contra the accused had given false explanation to
P.W. 7 (daugher of the deceased) and P.W. 8 Kuppudurai, land owner,
that the deceased had gone to her native place.
(iii) That the trial Court failed to appreciate the materials evidence
on record and had acquitted the accused despite proof beyond doubt.
(iv) That the trial Court erroneously come to the conclusion that
the prosecution was not proved the identity of the deceased and acquitted
the accused person
(v) That the trial Court relied upon minor discrepancies in the
evidence and given the benefit of doubts in favour of the accused, which
is totally erroneous.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there
is no direct proof to lead the conclusion that the accused alone committed
the guilt. The motive for the crime was not established. The Village
Administrative Officer before whom the extra Judicial confession made
is totally stranger, and it is not properly established by the prosecution
about the confession, recovery etc. There were discrepancy in the
evidence of witnesses and the FIR belatedly reached the Court. The trial
Court after analysing the evidence acquitted the accused and there is no
error in appreciation of evidence or perversity in the judgment.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
11. Now this court has to decide whether the judgement
rendered by the trial Court is proper or liable to be set aside ?
12. This case, rest on circumstantial evidence, by the
prosecution. A case based on circumstantial evidence, duty of the
prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt by establishing a chain of circumstances that only leads to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
(a) Prosecution must (marshal) a series of facts that
link together for a complete and unbroken chain and
pointing to the accused guilt.
b) evidence must be strong enough that no
reasonable hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused is
possible.
c) The circumstances must be consistent only with
guilt and not explainable in any other innocent way.
13. The dead body of the deceased Ponnammal @
Dhanalakshmi was found on 2.5.2017 at 5.30 a.m. by Ex-Vice President
of Anjur Village. Immediately he had intimated to P.W.1
Thiru.Shanmugam, the Village Administrative Officer about the same.
After receipt of information, P.W.1 went along with his Assistant Geetha
to Kodumudi Muthur Road., Western side of Rangaswamy Temple
village, below the NRS channel Bridge and found a gunny bag with a
foul smell.
14. PW1, and his assistant Geetha opened the bag in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
presence of witnesses Ravi @Veluchami, and Saravana Kumar. They
found a dead body of an unidentified woman aged between 30 to 40 in a
decomposed stage. Therefore he had lodged the complaint Ex.P1 before
the Thennilai Police Station.
15. 10 days later, on 12.05.2017 at 11.00 the accused
surrendered before P.W.3 Freeda, the Village Administrative Officer of
Karvazhi and confessed about the crime. PW3 recorded his statement in
the presence of his assistant Thiru.Mani and handed over the accused and
his extra judicial confession statement under Ex.P2 to the Inspector of
Police, Paramathi Police Station.
16. The Inspector of police, Paramathi station, arrested him,
examined him and recorded his confession statement. Based on his
confession, he recovered, a sum of Rs.1,000/- cash and a covering
(fthp';) chain, the accused burnt the clothes of deceased Dhanalakshmi
and the ashes were collected among other materials objects.
17. The deceased was identified as Poonnammal @
Dhanalakshmi by the prosecution, as the prosecution produced Exs.P15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
to Exs.P17 DNA report shows that the blood samples of one Meena,
daughter of the deceased was compared with DNA profile of the femur
bone of the deceased. It concludes as follows:
Conclusion. i) the femur of (ref 2) belongs to a female individual
ii) The person to whom the femur belongs as the biological
mother of Meena
18. Further the superimposition test result issued by the
forensic science department dated 09.11.2017 under Ex.P33 shows the
skull of the deceased Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi was sent
Anthropology Department with the photograph of the said Ponnammal,
after the test, the Deputy Director of the Anthropology Division opine as
follows:
1. The skull belong to an adult female individual.
2. The item to could very well have belong to the female
individual seen in the photograph, in item number one.
The prosecution, therefore clearly proved that the unidentified body
found on 02.07.2017 near Channel Bridge belongs to deceased
Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
19. The illegal intimacy and living together relationship of
both accused and the deceased was spoken by PW2 who is none other
than the nephew of the accused. During chief examination, he stated that
the accused is his paternal uncle. The accused had illegal intimacy with
the deceased and gone to Kerala in search of job. After three months,
deceased approached him and informed him that they could not find a
job in Kerala and requested him to help in securing a job.
20. Therefore, he arranged for him the accused work in a
field belonging to P.W.8 Kuppathurai, an engineer, with whom he was
also working. The accused and the deceased were staying in the field of
the said engineer. There had been one or two tiffs between them. He and
his brother often visited them. The deceased was working in a mill. The
accused used to take the deceased in his TVS 50 vehicle and dropped her
in the mill and bring her back from the mill after her work.
21. One day he went to his uncle's house and found his aunt
Ponammal, the deceased was missing. He enquired with the accused
about her whereabouts, to which the accused stated that she had gone out
of town.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
22. After four or five days once again he and his brother
visited the accused's house, but the deceased was still not there. When
they asked about her whereabouts with accused, he stated that she had
gone to her native.
23. Thereafter, the Police showed him a photograph of a
woman's dead body lying near the channel Bridge. However, he could
not identified it. But he stated to the Police that the violet nighty in the
dead body might have belong to the deceased.
24. His evidence was supported by P.W.11 who was working
with the deceased in Karvembu mill, she deposed that P.W.2 and one
Vinod came to her house and enquired whether any house was available
for rent. She informed them that a house belonging to one Arjun was
vacant. Thereafter, both the deceased and the accused came to that house
for rent. The deceased Dhanalakshmi repeatedly requested to find a job.
During the end of March, she took her and helped her to get a job in
Karvembu mill as sweeper where she was working. The deceaed
Dhanalakshmi used to leave for work at about 8.00 a.m., in the morning
and return at 5 o’ clock. The accused would drop her and bring back on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
TVS 50 Motor cycle.
25. One day, she revealed to P.W.11 that her original name
was Ponammal and that she belonged to Dindigul District. She was
already married, but later developed an illegal intimacy with the accused
Natarajan and they had been living together for the past eight years.
P.W.8 Kuppudurai, Engineer purchased a field and Vinod and Karthi both
took deceased and accused to his field. Thereafter, they shifted to the
field of Kuppudurai. Both were in the habit of consuming alcohol. The
deceased Dhanalakshmi informed her that she spent all her earning to the
accused for consuming alcohol and was unable to give any money to her
husband or her children.
26. On 29.04.2017, deceased Dhanalakshmi went to get her
salary, but did not turned back. P.W.11 thought that Dhanalakshmi might
have gone to her native. On 02.05.2017, police came to the mill,
informed that a woman was murdered and tied in a gunny bag and her
dead body was found below the bridge. The Police showed photographs
of the dead body and conducted enquiry. Since the dead body in the
photograph was blackened she was unable to identify the person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
27. Her evidence was corroborated by P.W.12 Shakthi,
Manager of Karvembu spinning mill where P.W.11, Kannammall was
working in mixing unit, and the deceased was working as sweeper. He
deposed that deceased Dhanalakshmi was brought by P.W.11 and she
joined her at his mill during March. After receiving her weekly salary,
she did not return to work. On 02.05.2017 Thennilai police came and
showed a photograph and made enquiries. But the photo was
unidentifiable. The police enquired whether any of their women workers
found missing from their mill. He said that will verify the register and
inform him, thereafter, he came to know that Dhanalakshmi was
murdered. The police collected the attendance register of Dhanalakshmi.
28. The evidence of the above witness further corroborated
with the evidence of P.W.8, Thiru.Kuppudurai, in whose field the accused
was working and both the accused and deceased were staying together.
He deposed that he had purchased lands and was searching for a person
to maintain his field. He requested P.W.2, nephew of the accused to find
out a person to look after his farm. The accused was introduced by P.W.2,
and he engaged the accused to maintain his form. The deceased
Dhanalakshmi was also residing with the accused and was working in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
mill. On 30.4.2017, he wanted to install a bore-well on his land. On the
same day, at about 5.00 hours in the morning, he called the accused over
the phone and informed him that he would bring a person from Erode to
erect the bore-well. The accused informed him that he was in Muthoor
and would attend to the work. Then he took that person to the land and
erected the bore. At that time, the accused was available but deceased
Dhanalakshmi found missing. He enquired with the accused about
Dhanalakshmi. In response, the accused stated that she had gone to her
native place and not yet returned. After some time he had gone to his
land to perform Pooja. At that time, the police came and informed that
Dhanalakshmi was killed by someone and her body found near channel
Bridge. P.W.2 Karthi also informed him about the same, but on that day,
the accused was not found in his house.
29. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.12
corroborates each other. All the above witnesses clearly stated that the
accused and the deceased had developed an illegal intimacy and were
living together in the same house till she was missing.
30. All the above witnesses confirmed that the deceased had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
been missing since 30th and did not turned back. Additionally, the milk
supplier, P.W.23, Smt.Jeyamani reported that the deceased used to visit
her house to get milk, but suddenly disappeared.
31. It is therefore, proven that the deceased had been living
with the accused in the field of one Kuppusamy P.W.8, before her
disappearance. The cumulative evidence of the above witness is
established that the deceased was living with the accused before her
death. The accused did not deny their relationship or fact that they lastly
resided in Kuppaswamy‘s field.
32. Her absence was first noticed by P.W.2 and P.W.8. Upon
enquiry, the accused falsely claimed that she had gone to her native. The
dead body was found on 02.05.2017, till 12.5.2017, he has not filed any
complaint to state that she had been to her native and not returned back.
He has not come forward with any explanation about the missing of
deceased Ponnammal who was living with him for the continuous period
of eight years and lastly residing with him in the land belong to P.W.8.
The accused who had personal knowledge about the whereabouts of the
deceased has not come forward to provide any information about her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
whereabouts.
33. In this connection, we invoke section 106 of Indian
Evidence Act, which states when any fact especially within the
knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him.
This section is based on the principle that when a fact is exclusively,
within a person’s knowledge it is easier for them to prove it than for
other party. When an accused is found in this circumstances, he can only
explain how an event happened.
34. But the accused not explained anything about missing of
the deceased. Further the conduct of the accused on the date of
occurrence was crucial, his conduct was spoken by many witnesses, who
found the accused near the place where the dead body of Ponammal was
found.
35. P.W.9, Arjunan deposed that he was working in SR petrol
bunk as Cashier. On 30.4.2017 early morning at 4.30 hours, a person
came and knocked the door, before he came, he left the place. Identified
the accused in the Court by stating that he is the person and further stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
that he used to come to his petrol bunk for filling up petrol.
Subsequently, the Police came and informed that that a dead body of a
woman tied in gunny bag found near Rangaswamy Temple. The Police
requested to give the CCTV footage of the petrol bunk. CCTV camera
was not functioning and therefore, he could not hand over the same to the
police. The defense counsel, put some suggestions that since the person
who knocked the door was wearing turban, he could not have identified
the accused, he is not aware the person, and he is not able to give the
registration number of the vehicle for which he stated that yes. But in
chief examination, he clearly stated that they accused came and knocked
the door at about 4.30 P.M.
36. P.W.10, another witness who is running a tea shop near
Rangaswamy Temple stated that she woke up at 4.00 AM and cleaned the
main entrance, on 30th the accused came in TVS 50 and proceeded to
Western side. She further stated that he used to come with a woman and
have tea in his shop. During cross examination, she admits to the
suggestion that if a person wearing turban could not be identified in
darkn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
37. The learned counsel appearing for the defence argued
that P.W.9 and P.W.10 falsely stated that they saw the accused on 30th day
of April 2017.
38. However one more witness P.W.21, who runs a bakery at
Thottipalayam, clearly stated that on 30.4.2017, morning at about 5.00
hours, a person wearing turban came from East to West with turban,
pushing a TVS 50 vehicle. He enquired him about where he could get
petrol. P.W.21 had identified the accused in Court as the person who
enquired him on 30.04.2017. He informed him that he has to go to
Muthur to get petrol. The accused appeared fearful and anxious. He had
a tea, then took his vehicle and left the place. On 2.5.2017, he was
informed that a gunny bag containing the dead body of a woman was
found near Rangaswamy Temple channel was tied. Subsequently, he
came to know that the accused had been arrested in connection with the
murder of a woman. The evidence of P.W.21 is a strong evidence. He
clearly stated that on the date of occurrence he found the accused with
fear and anxiety. The accused presence near the place where the dead
body was found on the date of occurrence a strong suspicious
circumstance against the accused. His employer clearly stated that on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
30th early morning, he called the accused, to erect bore well. The accused
informed that at that time he was in Muthoor, whereas the accused was
found at that time P.W.21 near the location where the dead body was
disposed off. This establishes a proximity between him and the crime.
39. The employer P.W.8 states that on the date of occurrence,
the deceased found missing in the house of the accused. P.W.21 had
deposed that the accused was found near the place where the body of
Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi. When P.W.7 and P.W.8 enquired with the
accused about the deceased, the accused stated that she had gone to her
native, which is proved as false since at that time Dhanalakshmi already
dead and the dead body of the deceased had in a gunny bag thrown in the
same village.
40. All the witnesses who have incriminated the accused are
independent witnesses. They do not have any enmity against the accused
to falsely implicate him with a grave offence of murder.
41. Therefore, it is clearly proved by the prosecution that,
the dead body found near channel Bridge is none other than Ponammal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
@ Dhanalakshmi. The Photographs under Ex.P18 series along with
certificate under Section 65 B of Act establishes the identity of the
deceased persons beyond any doubt.
42. The evidence produced by the prosecution establishes
that only the deceased and the accused were present in the house before
her death. Additionally, there is no evidence that the deceased had left
the house to meet her relative before missing.
43. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem
and Ex.P11 is the postmortem report. P.W.13, Dr.Thangaraj had stated
that due to decomposition of body, the cause of death could not be
ascertained, neck violence could not be ruled out due to hyoid bone
fracture. During cross examination by the defence counsel for the
suggestion that, there was possibility of hyoid bone fracture, viz., due to
postmortem, decomposition and if a body thrown from a height, the
Doctor has clarified that decomposition could not be a cause for hyoid
bone fracture. Also, it could not occur in postmortem. Furthermore, it is
clarified that if the body was thrown from a height not only the hyoid
bone get fracture but other bones could also sustain fracture. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
we are of the view that the cause of death of the deceased was by
strangulation or forcible compression of neck.
44. The deceased dead body was found under suspicious
circumstances, dressed in night dress, away from the shared residence, in
a gunny bag tied with her saree. When questioned about her
whereabouts the deceased falsely claimed that she had gone to her native.
No evidence was presented by the defence to show that she had gone to
her native to meet her relative. Further more the accused failed to report
to the Police about her missing or to anyone else, until he surrendered on
12.07.2017. The prosecution established the foundational fact that both
the deceased and the accused were living together until her death, and
also proved that accused was found in the place of the dead body found
in suspicious manner, for which the accused has not come forward with
any explanation.
45. The accused was arrested and his confession statement
was recorded leading to recovery namely cash of Rs.1000/-, the neck
chain of the deceased, the ashes of burnt clothes of the deceased and
TVS 50 vehicle. The accused not specifically denied these incriminating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
facts. Proximity of crime, refers to the physical and circumstantial
closeness of the accused to the crime scene, the accused and deceased
were lastly resided together and the accused noticed with fear and
anxiety near the place where the dead body was found on the date of
occurrence with his two wheeler, are all the surrounding circumstances
point to the accused’s involvement of the incident. His failure to explain
leads to the conclusion that the accused alone committed the offence.
46. Considering the materials on record in entirety, it is
proven that no one else than the accused committed the offence. Hence,
he is held responsible for the crime of murder and liable to be punished.
47. After the murder, in order to conceal the crime and
destroy evidence regarding the commission of an offence, he wrapped the
dead body in her saree, placed it in a gunny bag and threw it near bridge
channel. On 30.05.2017 during the early hours his presence near the
location where the dead body found, confirmed by number of witnesses
for which he has not offered any explanation. Therefore, he is liable for
causing disappearance of evidence with an intention to screen the
offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
48. Section 201 IPC reads as follows :
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that
an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of
the commission of that offence to disappear, with the
intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any infor-
mation respecting the offence which he knows or
believes to be false;
if a capital offence.— shall, if the offence which he
knows or believes to have been committed is punishable
with death, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.— and if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for
any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished
with imprisonment of the description provided for the
offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part
of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
offence, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the
body with the intention of screening B from punishment.
A is liable to imprisonment of either description for
seven years, and also to fine.
49. As per the charge, on the date of occurrence, both the
deceased and the accused together consumed alcohol, and the deceased
shouted at him that the accused spent her hard earned money to the
accused alone, but she has not paid any money to her children or her
husband. Therefore both had wordy quarrel, as a result he killed her by
strangulation.
50. Now we have to decide whether the act committed by the
accused would amount to murder under section 300 or culpable
homicide, not amount to murder. The distinguishing factors between
culpable homicide and murder are as follows:
“What distinguish these two offences is the
presence of a special mens-rea which consists of
four mental attitudes in the presence of any of
which the lesser offence becomes greater. These
four mental attitudes are stated in Section 300
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
IPC as distinguishing murder from culpable
homicide. Unless the offence can be said to
involve at least one such mental attitude it
cannot be murder.”
51. For better appreciation, it is relevant to extract Section
300 IPC along with its comments from the Indian Penal Code, by
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (32nd enlarged edition):-
“300.Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or—
Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or—
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse
for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”
52. P.W.2 nephew of the accused, who often visited the
accused categorically deposed that they used to have only minor quarrel.
He has not stated that the accused had previous enmity or grievances to
kill her.
53. P.W.11 in her evidence deposed that the deceased
Dhanalakshmi old her that the accused spending the entire money for
consuming alcohol, but she could not spend anything for her husband or
her child, which is only a grievance against the accused by the deceased.
54. Confession made to police evidence is not admissible in
evidence except to the extend facts leading to discovery in this or the
accused had given confession to the Village Administrative Officer P.W.3
before his arrest. The extra Judicial confession if voluntarily can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
relied upon by the Court along with other evidence for testing the guilts.
55. There is no bar to rely on the statement of the accused,
the portion which is in his favour. In this connection, it is profitable to
refer the judgment in Ganesan : In re. reported in 1973 LW (Crl.) 42, in
which it is held that :-
“Confessional statement made by the accused to
the police – Admissibility, to the extent that it is
favourable to him -
The above decision has been followed in Khatri
Hemraj Amulkah v. State of Gujarat : 1972CriLJ626.
According to these decisions, the only portion of the
statement which could be admitted is the initial
portion that he was making the statement, which
would not be of any use to the prosecution. But there
is no bar to the appellant using the statement in his
favour. See also Mottai Thevar in re : AIR 1952 Mad
586. We are referring to this at this stage itself,
because Ex. P-6 contains statements favourable to the
appellant.”
56. Ex.P2 is the extra judicial confession before the Village
Administrative Officer. The extra Judicial confession, was allegedly
made by the accused. PW3, Freeda Village, Administrative Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
spoken about the confession. PW3 stated that on 12.5.2017, the accused
came to her office and confessed about the crime. She recorded his
statement and took the accused to the Thennilai Police Station and
handed over the confession statement along with the letter to the
inspector of police. Thereafter the Inspector of Police arrested the
accused, enquired and recorded his confession and recovered
incriminating objects.
57. In the confession, the accused had stated that he and the
deceased consumed alcohol together. The deceased quarreled with him
by stating that she spent all her money for him to consume alcohol, he
tried to pacify her but she continuously quarreled with him, thereafter at
about 3 o’clock again, the deceased without allowing him to sleep,
started fighting and she tried to press his neck which provoked him he
exclaim, how dare she try to kill him and pressed his neck, he inturn,
pressed her neck, in the result, she died. This shows that he had no
intention to kill her, but due to the sudden fight the occurrence had taken
place. The death not caused in a cruel or unusual manner. We hold that
as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder fall under 4th Exception
of Section 300 of IPC which reads as below :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
“Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it
is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
or unusual manner.”
58. The witnesses for prosecution stated that the accused and
the deceased had petty quarrel and there was no serious dispute between
them. It is not established by the prosecution that the accused had
intention or motive to kill the deceased. Evidence discloses that on the
date of occurrence, the deceased quarrelled with him accusing him for
spending her money for consuming alcohol. The quarrel continued till
midnight; the deceased tried to attack him, provoked by her words, the
accused pressed her neck. He had no intention to kill, but knowledge that
the act is likely to cause death. Therefore, we hold that the crime
committed by the accused not punishable under section 302 of IPC, but
fall under 4th Exception to Section 300 IPC and come within the purview
of 304(ii) IPC
59. Though the accused had committed the offence under
provocation, he soon after the occurrence in order to conceal the crime
and disappear the evidence, the accused tied the body of the deceased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
Ponnammal @ Dhanalakshmi in her saree and kept in a gunny bag and
disposed the dead body near channel. Thereafter he surrendered before
the Village Administrative Officer after 12 days from the date of murder.
Therefore, he is held guilty of offence under section 201 of IPC.
60. Thus on reappreciating the evidence, we find the trial
Court judgment suffers patent perversity.
61. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v.
State of Karnataka reported in [2024] 5 S.C.R. 174 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows :
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of
the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the
following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
62. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupatbhai Bachubhai
Chavda & another vs. State of Gujatat reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R 322,
has held as follows :
6. It is true that while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to
reappreciate the evidence. After re-appreciating the
evidence, the first question that needs to be answered
by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by
the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have
been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of
the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that
this question has not been adverted to. Appellate
Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it
is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the
only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the
accused had been established beyond a reasonable
doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of
acquittal only on the ground that another view is
possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal
must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate
Court records such a finding, no interference can be
made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has
ignored the well-settled principle that an order of
acquittal further strengthens the presumption of
innocence of the accused. After having perused the
judgment, we find that the High Court has not
addressed itself on the main question.
63. Following the above discussion of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, we hold the trial Court judgment needs interference. In this case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
the trial court totally ignored the fact that the deceased was last seen
alive in the company of the accused and she suddenly disappeared.
When the nephew of the accused and the employer enquired the accused
about her whereabouts, the accused falsely stated she had gone to her
native. Soon after the occurrence, the accused was found near the
location where the dead body was discovered in a suspicious manner.
Though the link in the chain of circumstances is complete and unbroken,
the trial Court failed to give due weightage to the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.21, the conclusion of the trial Court is not a
possible conclusion
64. Therefore, the judgement of the trial Court is held as
perverse and warrants reversal. We hold that the charges of offences
under Sections 304(ii) IPC and 201 IPC is made out and therefore,
accused is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section
304(ii) and 201 IPC.
65. The judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.66 of 2018
dated 31.01.2018 is set aside. The Criminal Appeal Stands allowed.
Since that the accused found guilty of the offence under sections 304(ii)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
and 201 IPC, appearance of accused is necessary to questioning him
about the sentence, hence, the appellant police is directed to secure the
accused and produce him for questioning of sentence on 24.03.2025.
66. List again on 24.03.2025.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
20.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
(Cr.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the
Thennilai Police Station,
K.Paramathi Circle,
Karur District.)
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
20.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
24.03.2025
67. Accused produced. He was questioned on the sentence
to be imposed. He stated as follows :
vdf;F jw;NghJ 61 tajhfpwJ.
Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid toq;Fk;gb
Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwd;. vdJ FLk;gk; Nfhak;Gj;J}hpy;
,Ug;gjhy; vd;id Nfhak;Gj;J}H rpiwapy;
itf;Fk;gb Ntz;LfpNwd;.
His statement has been recorded.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
68 After holding guilty for the offence punishable under
Sections 304(ii) and 201 of IPC, he was directed to be produced before
this Court for questioning of sentence, accordingly, he was produced
today. He pleads for lessor sentence.
69. Taking into consideration his age and on balancing the
aggrevated and mitigating circumstances, this Court sentence him (i) to
undergo Five years (5) rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default to undergo six
months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC
and (ii) sentence to undergo Two years (2) rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 201 IPC.
ii) The period of sentence already undergone as undertrial
prisoner shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
iii) He has also been explained about his right to appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iv) He has to be remanded to custody to undergo the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
remaining period of sentence.
v) The accused to be confined at Coimbatore Central Prison,
since his relatives are in Coimbatore District.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
24.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
VSN
Copy to
The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
VSN/RM
Judgment in
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 03:37:44 pm )
