Madras High Court

Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy vs The State Rep By Its on 15 May, 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On : 30.01.2025
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.434 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.1804 of 2024

1.Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy

2.Valividumurugan ... Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2

Vs.
The State rep by its,
Inspector of Police,
Mangalamedu Police Station,
Perambalur.
(In Crime No.203 of 2019) ... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in connection with the
judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, in C.C.No.138 of
2019, dated 21.09.2021, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Balasubramanian for A1
Mr.K.Pragadesh Kumar for A2

For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
JUDGMENT

The appellants/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.138 of 2019, on the file of

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for EC and

NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, have filed this appeal, challenging the

conviction and sentence imposed against them on 21.09.2021, wherein, they

were convicted for the offence under Sections 307 of IPC, 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)

ganja without having any valid licence.

2. The brief facts of the case as follows:

2.1. P.W.1 was the Special Officer appointed by the Commissioner,

Madurai City, to nab one Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali who was absconding in

Crime No.419 of 2019 on the file of the Keeraidurai Police Station, Madurai

City. P.W.1 received a secret information about the movement of

Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali through his informer and he and his team assembled

near Samayapuram toll gate to nab the said Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali along

with the first appellant. At that time, he received further information about

the arrival of the Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali and the first appellant near

Thirumanthdurai toll gate area in Perambalur District. The said information

was received by him on 13.07.2019 at 10.00 a.m. Therefore, they reached

Thirumanthdurai toll gate at 12.00 pm and watched for the arrival of Honda
Page No.2/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
City red colour car bearing Reg.No.TN-06-C-0033. The said car reached the

Thirumanthdurai toll gate and they intercepted the said car. At that time, the

first appellant attempted to murder him by hitting over the car and thereafter,

P.W.1 used his service pistol and shot in the air. Thereafter, the first appellant

broke the glasses of the car and tried to escape from the scene of occurrence

and he was nabbed by the team of P.W.1. Thereafter, he disclosed about the

purchase of ganja and kepeeing the same in the car. Hence, they recovered

the car along with ganja. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and entrusted the

custody of the accused with Mangalamedu Police Station. The Mangalamedu

Police officers registered a case in Crime No.203 of 2019 for the offence

under Sections 307 of IPC, 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act.

They conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for EC and NDPS

Act Cases, Pudukottai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.138 of

2019.

2.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on

their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the

necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not

guilty and stood for trial.

Page No.3/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
2.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and

exhibited 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P19 and produced 2 material objects

as M.O.1 & M.O.2. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence

available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The

accused denied the same as false stating that false case was registered against

them. Thereafter, the case was posted for examinationof the witnesses on the

side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as

witness and no document was marked.

2.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary

evidence, convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 307 of IPC,

8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo

7 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in

default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under

Section 307of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous

Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lake

only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment each for the

offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced

them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lake only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months

Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
Page No.4/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the

learned trial Judge, present appeal has been filed.

4. Thiru.N.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the first

appellant/A1 and Thiru.K.Pragadesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the

second appellant/A2 jointly made the following submissions:-

4.1. It is a classic case where the police officers foisted a false case

without collecting material evidence and also material documents to prove

the occurrence. According to the prosecution, this is a horrible incident,

shocking the society at large that happened at the toll gate. In the said

circumstances, the best evidence is CCTV Camera at the toll gate. The same

was not produced and hence, it crates suspicion over the alleged occurrence

that took place as projected by the police officers. The said suspicion further

gets support from hostility of all witnesses of the toll gate. P.W.2 to P.W.4 and

P.W.6 to P.W.10 were examined to prove the occurrence. All the independent

witnesses turned hostile. They not only deposed about the absence of the

accused but also deposed about the absence of P.W.1. In view of that, the

said evidence was not clarified by the prosecution.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable. In the said circumstance,

they seek acquittal.

Page No.5/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
4.2. To prove the presence of P.W.1, who is a Special Team Member,

no record was produced that he was appointed as Special Team member and

he was allowed to accompany the other witness P.W.5. More particularly,

P.W.1 in his cross-examination, admitted indirectly that in order to wreak

vengeance, a false case was registered. The said answer was neither clarified

nor cross-examined as per law. So, admission of P.W.1 proves the motive for

the case, which was registered against the accused with a false story. The

evidence of P.W.1 itself is not corroborated by the other team members and

P.W.5.

4.3. The material fact is concerned, according to the prosecution, the

first appellant broke the right side front door glass of the car and tried to

escape from the scene of occurrence. In the said circumstances, no pieces of

broken glass were found either in the mahazar and in the sketch or inside the

car. Therefore, the story put forth by P.W.1 is false one and hence, they seek

acquittal for the appellants.

4.4. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused broke the

glass with his hands. If it is true, there should have been injuries on the hands

of the first appellant and pieces of broken glass should have been found

littered over the scene of occurrence. But, it was not found in the mahazar

and also in the sketch and in other materials.
Page No.6/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
4.5. It is the case of the prosecution that CCTV evidence is available

and that the said occurrence would have got recorded in CCTV camera. For

the reason known to them, they have not produced the said document.

Therefore, the entire prosecution case is bristled with infirmity and the

improbable events. Therefore, they prayed to allow this appeal by setting

aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.

5.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

non-seizure of CCTV camera and the independent witnesses turning hostile

are not grounds to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of

Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120 reiterated the principle that the non-

examination of the independent witnesses is not a circumstance to disbelieve

the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 when their evidence is cogent and

trustworthy. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed on the basis of the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is in accordance with law.

5.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit

that the incident took place in the toll gate, where there would have been

tense situation. Hence, P.W.1 with his pistol shot in the air as a warning shot.

Thereafter, he and his team nabbed the accused, who has previous bad
Page No.7/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
antecedents. Hence, the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is cogent and

trustworthy. The socalled admission made by P.W.1 is not an admission. It is

a typographical error committed by the Typist and hence, the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is in accordance with law. Hence,

he prayed to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial

Judge by dismissing the appeal.

5.3. The investigation lapse is not a ground to acquit the appellants

when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 are cogent and trustworthy. The lapse

on the part of the Investigating Agency in collecting the materials and not

noting down the presence of broken glass pieces is not a ground to disbelieve

the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. Since the accused are notorious persons,

the independent witness will not come forward to depose against them.

Therefore, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the

learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the records

and also the precedents relied upon by them.

7. The judgment of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench in the case of

Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in (2020) 10
Page No.8/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
SCC 120 reiterated the principle that in the grave nature of the offence, the

greatest responsibility upon the prosecution is to prove the foundational

facts.

7.1. The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Suspicion, however strong, is not a ground to convict the accused and the

same is fortified by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2019) 4 SCC 522

and Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.

(2019) 4 SCC 522 (2018) 7 SCC 581
“14. There can be no “28. Law is well settled with
conviction on the basis of regard to the fact that however
surmises and conjectures or strong the suspicion may be, it
suspicion howsoever grave it may cannot take the place of proof.
be. Strong suspicion, strong Strong suspicion, coincidence,
coincidences and grave doubt grave doubt cannot take the place
cannot take the place of legal of proof. Always a duty is cast upon
proof. The onus of the prosecution the courts to ensure that suspicion
cannot be discharged by referring does not take place of the legal
to very strong suspicion and proof.”
existence of highly suspicious
factors to inculpate the
accused........”

Page No.9/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
7.2. The Investigating Agency in all fairness should have conducted

the investigation in a fair manner by collecting all the material particulars and

the same is fortified by the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in (2018) 18 SCC 654.

7.2.1. Suresh v. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 18 SCC 654

“56..... Although courts cannot give benefit of doubt
to the accused for small errors committed during the
investigation, we cannot however, turn a blind eye towards
the investigative deficiencies which goes to the root of the
matter.”

7.3. In this case, this incident shocked the judicial conscience. But, the

Investigating Agency, has committed many lapses without collecting valuable

evidence. The prosecution also was not properly conducted.

8.1. It is the specific case that one Kali @ Vellaikali was accused in

Crime No.412 of 2019 on the file of the Keeraithurai Police Station and he is

absconding. Therefore, P.W.1 was appointed as Special Officer to nab him.

He received the secret information about his movement with the first

appellant in Thirumanthdurai and Perambalur Area. Therefore, they initially

reached Samayapuram toll gate. Thereafter, they received information about

Page No.10/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
their movement that they were likely to cross the Thirumanthdurai toll gate at

Perambalur. Hence, they proceeded to Thirumanthdurai toll gate at 12.00

p.m on 13.07.2019 and watched over the movement. At around 12.30 p.m,

red colour Honda City car bearing Reg.No.TN-06-C-0033 came in 8th lane of

the toll gate. On seeing the same, P.W.1, P.W.5 and other members

surrounded the car and attempted to stop the car. At that time, the first

appellant without stopping the car with an intention to murder them took the

car backward and moved (mth; fhiu Kd;Dk; gpd;Dk; efh;j;jp jdpg;gilapdh;

fhiu ,oj;J js;s Kw;gl;lhh;). Therefore, to save his life, and to scare the

accused P.W.1 used his service pistol and shot in the air. Thereafter, the first

appellant broke the right side door glass of the car and attempted to escape

from the scene of occurrence. At that time, they were nabbed by P.W.1 and

his team. Thereafter, they disclosed about the presence of 170 kg of

contraband in the car boot. To prove the said incident, the persons from the

toll gate namely, P.W.2 to P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7 were examined and they

clearly deposed that they had never seen the accused and P.W.1. They are the

competent witnesses to speak about the occurrence. More particularly, P.W.7

is the Security Officer of the said Thirumanthdurai toll gate. He specifically

deposed as follows:-

ehd; nguk;gYhh; khtl;lk; Fd;dk; tl;lk; jpUkhe;jpiu
mz;zh efhpy; FbapUf;fpNwd;. ehd; flYhh; nyl;Rkp nrf;a+hpl;b
rh;tP]; %yk; jpUkhe;jpiu Rq;f rhtbapy; 8 tUlkhf nrf;fp
Page No.11/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
a+hpl;bahf Ntiy nra;fpNwd;. M[h; vjphpfis vdf;F
njhpahJ. mth;fis ehd; ghh;j;jNj ,y;iy. Ehd; ,t;tof;F
rk;gtj;ij ghh;f;ftpy;iy. Vjw;fhf vd;id rhl;rpahf
Ngl;Ls;shh;fs; vd;W njhpahJ. Rkhh; 2tUlj;jpw;F Kd;G jpUr;rp
– nrd;id nry;Yk; 6tJ ek;gh; g+j;jpy; nrf;fpa+hpl;bahf
epd;Wf;nfhz;bUe;Njd;. Nrd;id yadpy; lk; vd;w rj;jk;
Nfl;lJ. mJ vd;d rj;jk; vd;W njhpahJ. ehd; Nfl;Lj;
njhpe;Jnfhs;stpy;iy. mg;NghJ kJiu khtl;l jdpg;gil
NghyPrhh; mq;F ,Ue;jhh;fsh vd;W njhpahJ. mq;F vd;d
ele;jJ vd;W njhpahJ. ,e;j tof;F rk;ge;jkhf kq;fsNkL
bv];gp vd;id tprhhpf;ftpy;iy.

8.2. From the evidence, there is a doubt over the prosecution case. The

evidence of P.W.1 is that he reached the Samayapuram toll gate on that day

and he was appointed as a Special Officer to nab the accused. But, no

document was produced to prove that he was appointed as a Special Officer

in this regard. Apart from that, no record was produced to show that he has

reached the said place. Further, he specifically admitted as follows:-

ehd; brhy;tJ nghy rk;gtk; ,y;iy vd;Wk;
vjphpaplkpUe;J fQ;rh vJt[k; ifg;gw;wtpy;iy vd;Wk; vjphp
Kdparhkp fPiuj;Jiu tHf;fpy; $hkPdpy; brd;wgoahy; mtiu
kPz;Lk; rpiwapy; milf;f ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhf ,t;tHf;F
bgha;ahf n$hof;fg;gl;L g[fhh; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vd;why;
rhpjhd;.

8.3. The said admission of P.W.1 was not clarified through

reexamination. Therefore, the same is taken as an admission. They nabbed

the accused with an ulterior motive. According to them, the accused broke..
Page No.12/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
the right side glass of the door of the car and tried to escape from the car. In

those circumstances, three material facts are significant that is, if the glass

was broken with the hands, then there is a possibility of injuries on the hands

of the accused and damage caused to the vehicle and also the presence of the

glass pieces in the scene of occurrence. The above material facts in ordinary

case is not necessary. But, in the present case, the material circumstances are

to be established by the prosecution. In this case, no material was adduced by

the prosecution to satisfy the above three material circumstances. Moreover,

not even they recovered either the toll gate receipt or CCTV footages.

According to this Court, the same is material one. It is not the evidence of

any of the toll gate officials that they broke the toll gate barricade. If it is the

case of P.W.1 that the appellant drove the vehicle in order to escape from

them and attempted to murder them by hitting the the car, then in all

probablities damage should have been caused to the barricade of the toll gate.

It is specific case of evidence of P.W.5 that the vehicles were found parked

front and back side of the appellant's vehicle and only if the barricade is

opened by the counter operator of the toll gate, the vehicle can pass through.

In the said circumstance, the same was admitted by P.W.5 and the same is as

follows:-

fz;zho cile;jjhy; vjphpapd; ifapy;
fhakhftpy;iy. Kd;Dk; gpd;Dk; vLj;jhy; Kd; gpd; epw;Fk;
thfdq;fSf;F nrjkhFk; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;. gpd;dhy;
Page No.13/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
epd;w lhlh Vrp thfdj;jpw;F nrjkhdJ. mt;thW
nrjkhdjhf vd; tprhuizapy; brhy;ytpy;iy. fhhpd; gpd;
rPl;oy; fQ;rh ,Ue;jjhf nghyP]; tprhuizapy;
brhy;ytpy;iy.

8.4. In view of the above, material discrepancies and the improbability

between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5, more particularly, non-production

of CCTV Camera, this Court is unable to accept the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.5 to convict the appellants under the grave charge of possession of

175 kg of ganja and also the further allegation that they attempted to murder

P.W.1 and the officers by hitting over the car is unbelievable story and the

indirect admission by P.W.1 that it is a false case to take revenge against the

appellants is probable one. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed on the folowing

terms:-

20.1.The judgment passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, in
C.C.No.138 of 2019, dated 21.09.2021, is set aside.
20.2.The appellants are acquitted from all the
charges in C.C.No.138 of 2019 on the file of the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai.

Page No.14/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
20.3.Fine amount if any paid by the appellants
shall be refunded to them forthwith.
20.4. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall
stand cancelled.

- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.05.2025.

NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
dss

Note : Issue order copy on 19.05.2025

Page No.15/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

dss To:

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai.

2.Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

and

15.05.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:53 pm )