Madras High Court
Vinoth Kumar vs . on 3 November, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Crl.A.No.234 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
R.T.No.2 of 2025
and
Crl.A.No.234 of 2025
R.T.No.2 of 2025 :
State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mettupalayam, Coimbatore.
(Crime No.270 of 2019) ... Complainant
Vs.
Vinoth Kumar ... Accused
Referred Trial under Section 366 Cr.P.C. on the judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA)
Act, Coimbatore, in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2023, dated 29.01.2025.
Page 1 of 50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Crl.A.No.234 of 2025
For Complainant : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
State Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Mr.S.Santhosh,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
Ms.M.Sumi Arnica &
Ms.T.Harshana
For Accused : Mr.V.Perarasu
Crl.A.No.234 of 2025 :
Vinoth Kumar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Periyanaikan Palayam Sub-Division,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
3.Amudha ... Respondents
Page 2 of 50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Crl.A.No.234 of 2025
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415(2) BNSS r/w. Section 14(A)
of SC/ST Act against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA)
Act, Coimbatore, in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2023, dated 29.01.2025.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Perarasu
For R1 and R2 : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
State Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Mr.S.Santhosh,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
Ms.M.Sumi Arnica &
Ms.T.Harshana
For R3 : Dr.V.Suresh
for Ms.D.Nagasaila
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Referred Trial in R.T.No.2 of 2025 is a reference made by the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Coimbatore, under Section 366 Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death
sentences awarded to A1 in Crime No.270 of 2019 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Mettupalayam Police Station, for the offence under Section 302 IPC (2
counts) in Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2023, by judgment dated 29.01.2025.
2.Crl.A.No.234 of 2025 has been filed by A1 under Section 415(2)
BNSS r/w. Section 14(A) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in the above Sessions Case
as against him.
3.There are four accused in the case. While acquitting A2 to A4 of all
the charges and A1 of the charge under Sections 294(b) and 120(b) r/w. 302
IPC, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced A1 as follows:
Conviction Sentence
Section 448 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month
simple imprisonment
Section 302 IPC Sentenced to Death and he shall be hanged by
(for murder of Kanagaraj) neck till his death, subject to confirmation of
Hon'ble High Court in terms of Section 366
Cr.P.C.
Section 302 IPC Sentenced to Death and he shall be hanged by
(for murder of Varshini neck till his death, subject to confirmation of
Priya) Hon'ble High Court in terms of Section 366
Cr.P.C.
Section 3(2)(v) of Since capital sentence of death is awarded to
SC/ST (PoA) Act the accused, sentence is not given under this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Conviction Sentence
section.
4.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
4.1.The deceased Kanagaraj (hereinafter referred to as “D1” for the
sake of convenience) and A1 are brothers and they belong to Hindu Muthu
Raja Community, which comes under Most Backward Class (MBC)
Category. The deceased lover of D1, namely, Varshini Priya (hereinafter
referred to as “D2” for the sake of convenience) belongs to Hindu
Arunthathiyar Community, which comes under Scheduled Caste (SC)
Category. A2 to A4 are close friends of A1. D1 and D2 were in love affair.
In the year 2018, D1 and D2 voluntarily left their house and they were
staying in Oomapalayam. P.W.1 (mother of D2) and her husband (P.W.2)
went to Oomapalayam and brought back their daughter D2 and advised her
that, since she had not completed the age of 16 years, she had to wait till she
attained majority. On the same day all the four accused (A1 to A4) came to
P.W.1's house and questioned her as to why she had not advised her daughter
not to talk with D1, since she belonged to SC Community. Despite such
warning, D1 and D2 continued their relationship, which infuriated A1, since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
he did not like his younger brother marrying or moving around with a girl
belonging to a marginalized community.
4.2.When the matter stood thus, three days before the occurrence, D1
and D2 again eloped and they were staying in a thatched shed at D1's father
house in Vellipalayam Road. On 25.06.2019, at about 4.30 p.m., when
P.W.1 came to know about their stay in the thatched shed at Vellipalayam
Road, she (P.W.1), along with her husband (P.W.2), and uncle Chinnakannan
(not-examined) went to the thatched shed at about 5.00 p.m. and when they
were talking with their daughter D2, the enraged A1 came with a billhook
(M.O.1) and in a fit of anger, abused his brother (D1) by saying that a girl
belonging to SC Community is not required and by questioning as to how he
(A1), being an elder brother, would get a bride, attacked D1 with M.O.1 on
his head. Again, he attacked D1 on his neck and hand. When D2 tried to
save D1, A1 also attacked D2 on her head with the backside of the billhook
(M.O.1) and again, he attacked her on the right and left side of neck. Due to
the attack, D1 died at the spot and D2 sustained severe injuries. On seeing
this, when P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannan screamed, A1 fled the scene with
M.O.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
4.3.Immediately, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannan took both D1 and
D2 to Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, in an Auto driven by P.W.7.
Dr.Vijayaraja (P.W.13), attached to the Emergency Unit, Mettupalayam
Government Hospital, examined D1 and declared him “brought dead” and
he noted a laceration of about 7 x 3 x 3 cm on head and a laceration of about
3 x 2 x 1 cm on the back side of head and issued Accident Register (Ex.P23)
in respect of D1. P.W.13 also examined D2 and noted a contusion of about
1 x 1 x 1 cm near the right eye and also a contusion of 1 x 1 x 1 cm on the
left back side of head and gave first aid to D2 and referred her to Coimbatore
Medical College Hospital for further treatment and issued Accident Register
(Ex.P24) in respect of D2. P.W.13 (Medical Officer) has stated in his
evidence that both D1 and D2 were brought by one Chinnakannan and the
said Chinnakannan informed him that both D1 and D2 were attacked by one
known person with a billhook.
4.4.On receiving the information from the Mettupalayam Government
Hospital, P.W.15 (Sub-Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Station)
went to the hospital and on coming to know that one injured (D1) had died
and the other injured (D2) was shifted to Coimbatore Medical College
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Hospital, he went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. There, he found
D2 unconscious and therefore, he recorded the statement of P.W.1 (mother of
D2) which is marked as Ex.P1 and based on Ex.P1, he registered an FIR
(Ex.P30) in Crime No.270 of 2019 on the same day, i.e., 25.06.2019 at 22.00
hours, for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against A1.
5.Based on the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore (Ex.P31), P.W.16 (Deputy Superintendent of Police) took up the
investigation in Crime No.270 of 2019. On 26.06.2019 at 00.15 hours,
P.W.16 (Investigating Officer) went to the Mettupalayam Police Station and
took up the case file and at 03.00 hours, went to the place of occurrence and
prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P6) and Rough Sketch (Ex.32) in the
presence of P.W.5 and one Rahuman. Thereafter, he seized the blood stained
earth (M.O.5) and ordinary earth (M.O.6) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P7)
and sent the collected material objects to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.P33).
At 6.15 a.m., he went to the Mettupalayam Government Hospital and took
photographs of the dead body of D1 through P.W.9 (photographer).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the body of deceased D1 and prepared
inquest report (Ex.P34) and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
Thereafter, he sent the dead body of D1 for post-mortem through one
Ramkumar, Head Constable (not-examined) along with Police Report
(Ex.P35) and Case History (Ex.P36).
6.Dr.S.Lakshmana Kumar (P.W.12) conducted autopsy on the body of
the deceased Kanagaraj (D1) and issued Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P21)
noting down the following injuries :
(1)A Laceration (3 x 1 x 1 cm) over left wrist (medial aspect)
(2)A Laceration (2 x 1 x 1 cm) over the left forearm below left
elbow
(3)Bleeding from left ear
(4)A Laceration (6 x 1 x 1 cm) over the occipital region of
scalp
(5)A Laceration (7 x 2 x 2 cm) over frontal region of the
(middle) scalp
(6)Bleeding from nose (right nostril)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
After receipt of Viscera Report (not-marked), P.W.12 gave his final opinion
(Ex.P22) opining that D1 would appear to have died of head injury with
intracranial subarachnoid haemorrhage and brain death; and no poison was
detected in any viscera.
7.Meanwhile, at 11.30 a.m., the Investigating Officer arrested A1 and
recorded his confession statement in the presence of witnesses P.W.8 and
one Muhamed Ali. Based on the confession of A1, the Investigating Officer
seized the blood stained billhook (M.O.1); blood stained T-Shirt (M.O.7) and
blood stained pant (M.O.8) worn by A1 at the time of occurrence under
Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P10) and sent the collected material objects to the
Court under Form-91 (Ex.P37).
8.After post-mortem of D1, the Investigating Officer recovered the
blood stained baniyan (M.O.2), blood stained dhoti (M.O.3) and inner-wear
(M.O.9) worn by the deceased D1 at the time of occurrence and forwarded
the same to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.P39). Thereafter, he produced A1
before the Court. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
statements of witnesses.
9.P.W.1 and P.W.2 (parents of D2) are eye-witness to the occurrence.
10.P.W.3 has deposed that A1, along with his friends A2 to A4, were
speaking among themselves that, A1's brother D1 is continuing his affair
with D2 despite warnings, and if they allow this continue, they would not
even get water in the Village and therefore, conspired to do away with both
D1 and D2.
11.P.W.4 (vegetable vendor) has stated that he saw A1 moving out the
scene of occurrence with a blood stained billhook (M.O.1) in his hands;
thereafter, he saw P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannu taking D1 and D2 in an
Auto to Hospital.
12.P.W.7 (Auto-Driver) has stated that when he was driving his Auto
near the place of occurrence, few people asked him to stop the Auto and
P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannu brought two persons with cut injuries and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
asked him to take them to hospital. Accordingly, he took them in his Auto
and they reached the Mettupalayam Government Hospital at around 5.45
p.m. and both the injured were admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he left
the place.
13.After recording the statements of the witnesses, at 11.00 p.m., the
Investigating Officer altered the case to one under Sections 302, 307, 109
r/w. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and filed Alteration
Report (Ex.P40).
14.Thereafter, on 27.06.2019, the Investigating Officer requested for
the Community Certificates of the deceased and accused persons from the
Revenue officials. On 28.06.2019, he recorded the statements of other
witnesses and he sent a requisition letter to the Court for sending the
material objects for forensic examination vide Ex.P41.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
15.On 29.06.2019 at 02.30 hours, on receipt of information that D2
had died in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on 28.06.2019 at 11.45
p.m., the Investigating Officer again altered the case to Section 302 IPC (2
counts), Section 109 IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act vide
Alteration Report (Ex.P42).
16.On the next day morning, he visited the Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of D2 and
prepared inquest report (Ex.P43). Thereafter, he sent the dead body of D2
for post-mortem through one Renuka, Woman Head Constable (not-
examined) along with requisition letter (Ex.P44), report (Ex.P45) and
Special Report of Head Constable (Ex.P46).
17.Dr.Peranandam (P.W.14) conducted autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased Varshini Priya (D2) and issued Post-mortem Certificate
(Ex.P25), noting down the following injuries :
(1)Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm noted over outer aspect of right
forehead. 0.5 x 0.5 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm noted over back of right
elbow.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
(2)Abrasion 4 x 3 in length, 2 x 1 cm noted over the centre of
back of upper chest. 6 x 2 cm noted over back of right upper
chest. 5 x 3 cm noted over the back of mid chest. 6 x 1 cm
noted over the back of left upper chest.
(3)Laceration of size 3 x 0.5 cm x bone deep noted over left
parietal region.
(4)Migrating contusion of size 5 x 3 cm noted over the right
cheek. 6 x 4 cm noted over the left zygomatic and parotid
region. 7 x 5 cm noted over the back of right ear and right
mastoid region. 10 x 6 cm noted over the back of left ear, left
mastoid and left neck. 5 x 4 cm noted over the right angle of
mandible and right neck.
After receipt of Viscera Report (Ex.P26), P.W.14 gave his final opinion
(Ex.P27) opining that D2 would appear to have died of shock and
haemorrhage due to cranio cerebral injury; time of death 12 to 24 hours prior
to autopsy; viscera does not contain any poison.
18.After post-mortem, the Investigating Officer seized the blood
stained nighty worn by D2 (M.O.4) at the time of occurrence and sent the
same to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.47). Thereafter, the Investigating
Officer arrested the accused A2 to A4 and recorded their confession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
statements in the presence of P.W.6 (turned hostile) and produced the
accused A2 to A4 before the Court. Thereafter, he sent the collected
materials for forensic examination vide requisition letter (Ex.P48).
19.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
Revenue Officials and collected the Community Certificates of the deceased
and the accused persons. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer took steps to
record the statements of the witnesses by the learned Magistrate under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P49. The statements given by the prosecution
witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been marked as Exs.P50 to P59.
Thereafter, the Investigating Officer collected the Biological Report in
respect of D1 (Ex.P60), Serology Report in respect of D1 (Ex.P61),
Serology Report in respect of D2 (Ex.P62), Biological Report in respect of
D2 (Ex.P63) and Serology Report in respect of dress worn by D2 (Ex.P64).
Since the said Chinnakannan died, his Death Certificate was marked as
Ex.P65.
20.The Investigating Officer found from his investigation that D1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
who belonged to Most Backward Class Category was in love affair with D2,
who belonged to Scheduled Caste Category. Since A1 (elder brother of D1)
and his close friends (A2 to A4), who were casteist persons, did not like the
same, they conspired together and A2 to A4 instigated A1 to kill both D1
and D2 and accordingly, A1 committed the murder of D1 and D2.
21.After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting
various reports, the Investigating Officer completed his investigation and
filed a final report for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 (2 counts)
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act as against A1; and for the
offences under Section 302 (2 counts) r/w. 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act r/w. Section 109 IPC as against A2 to A4, before the
Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore, and the case was taken on file in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2019.
22.Thereafter, the case was made over to the Special Court for Trial of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act for trial and renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.56 of
2023.
23.The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections
120(b), 448, 294(b), 302 (2 counts) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA)
Act as against A1; for the offences under Sections 120(b), 448 r/w.109 IPC,
302 r/w. 120(b) (2 counts), 302 r/w. 120(b) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act as against A2 to A4. When questioned, the accused
pleaded “not guilty”.
24.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1
to P.W.16, marked Exs.P1 to P67, and produced M.Os.1 to 9. On the side of
the defence, no witness was examined nor any document marked.
25.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they
denied the charges framed against them.
26.The trial Court, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
evidence on record, by judgment dated 23.01.2025 in Spl.S.C.No.56 of
2023, acquitted A2 to A4 of all the charges framed against them and A1 of
the charges under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 120(b) IPC, however,
convicted A1 for the offences under Section 448 IPC, 302 IPC (2 counts),
302 IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. Thereafter, the trial Court
adjourned the case for pre-sentence questioning under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
27.On 29.01.2025, the trial Court sentenced A1 to one year rigorous
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC; and
sentenced him to DEATH for the offence under Section 302 IPC for
committing murder of Kanagaraj (D1) and also sentenced him to DEATH for
the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Varshini Priya
(D2) and held he shall be hanged by neck till his death and the said death
sentences will be subject to confirmation of High Court of Madras in terms
of Section 366 IPC. Since capital sentence of death was awarded to A1, no
separate sentence was imposed under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
The trial Court also ordered the District Administration to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
compensation as per Annexure 1 to Rule 12(4) of SC/ST (PoA) Rules, 1995.
28.The trial Court has awarded death sentences, since A1 has
murdered two persons in the name of “honour killing”, as A1 did not like his
younger brother (D1) marrying or moving with a girl belonging to
marginalized community and therefore, he decided to do away with both his
brother (D1) and his lover (D2).
29.For confirmation of the death sentences, the trial Court has referred
the matter to this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C., which is numbered as
R.T.No.2 of 2025. Challenging the conviction and sentence, A1 has filed an
independent appeal in Crl.A.No.234 of 2025.
30.It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/A1 that the prosecution has not proved the case of honour killing.
The prosecution story clearly shows that it is an ordinary murder in a fit of
anger. The allegation that the appellant has killed the deceased only due to
caste, has not been established. It is his contention that such a theory has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
been developed later. In the complaint (Ex.P1), absolutely there is no
whisper, whatsoever, with regard to caste bias, etc. Only during the course
of investigation, particularly in order to make the case sensational, such a
theory has been introduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the same cannot
be a ground to bring the case within the ambit of “honour killing” to impose
capital punishment.
31.The learned counsel would further submit that the presence of eye-
witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.2, in the place of occurrence, is highly
doubtful. According to him, if P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannan were really
present at the place of occurrence, they would have atleast made some
attempt to prevent the attack. However, they had remained as mute
spectators and they have not even made any hue and cry to stop the attack.
This itself clearly shows that their conduct is unnatural and makes their
evidence unbelievable. Further, it is his contention that, to believe that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were present at the place of occurrence, the so-called blood
stained dresses of P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not been seized by the Investigating
Officer for the reasons best known to him. Further, P.W.4, though stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
he saw the appellant/A1 moving out with M.O.1, in his statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., has clearly admitted that he has not identified the
appellant. For the first time, in the Court, he has given evidence as if he
knows the appellant. This contradiction is also material and therefore, the
evidence of P.W.4 cannot be believed at all. P.W.7's (Auto Driver) evidence
also will not serve any purpose to the prosecution. The arrest and recoveries
are also highly doubtful. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
32.The learned counsel would further submit that, even if the Court
believes the prosecution story, it is not a fit case to impose the maximum
punishment of death, as the act of the appellant/A1 will not fall within the
ambit of “rarest of the rare cases”. Hence, he would pray that the conviction
and death sentence imposed by the trial Court, has to be set aside.
33.Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
the Referred Trial would submit that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the eye-
witnesses to the occurrence, have clearly spoken about the occurrence and
the injuries inflicted by A1 with M.O.1 (billhook) on the deceased D1 and
D2. P.W.4 has seen the accused carrying M.O.1 with blood stain. P.W.4 has
no axe to grind against the accused and he has seen A1 immediately after the
occurrence with blood stained M.O.1, moving in a panic manner. Similarly,
P.W.7 (Auto Driver), who is an utter stranger, has deposed that he took both
the deceased D1 and D2 along with P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannan and
admitted the injured in the hospital. His evidence is natural. Therefore,
from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, independent witnesses, medical
evidence and other cogent circumstances, the prosecution has clearly
established the case of murder.
34.Further, it is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that
the overall evidence of the prosecution witnesses also clearly indicates that
A1 has done away with both the deceased only on the ground that D2
belongs to a marginalized community. That was the reason why A1
murdered his brother (D1) as well as his lover (D2) in the name of “honour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
killing”. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly imposed the capital
punishment on A1. Thus, the learned State Public Prosecutor would submit
that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court has to be
confirmed.
35.Dr.V.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant (P.W.1)/3rd respondent in Crl.A.No.234 of 2025 would submit
that the act of the appellant cannot be condoned. The learned counsel would
submit that, though the de facto complainant is not pressing for capital
punishment of death, the appellant should be punished for life. It is his
contention that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has clearly
established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
the conviction made by the trial Court warrants no interference.
36.In the light of the submissions made on either side, the points that
arise for consideration are :
i. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt ?
ii. If so, whether the case falls within the ambit of “rarest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
of the rare cases” warranting death sentence ?
37.The case of the prosecution is that, earlier when D1 and D2 eloped
in the year 2018, all the accused A1 to A4 came to the house of P.W.1 and
warned her not to allow her daughter (D2) to move around with D1, as they
are not in favour of D1 marrying D2 who belonged to SC Community. The
prosecution has projected a theory as if, despite such warning, since D1 and
D2 continued their affairs and eloped once again, A1 to A4 conspired
together and decided to do away with both D1 and D2 and instigated A1 to
kill both D1 and D2. On account of which, the enraged A1, on coming to
know about the whereabouts of the deceased, came to the spot with a
billhook (M.O.1) and cut both D1 and D2 and murdered them.
38.However, the theory of conspiracy projected by the prosecution
was totally disbelieved by the trial Court. Accordingly, A2 to A4 were
acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The prosecution has not
challenged the acquittal of A2 to A4. Further, when the entire evidence of
prosecution is carefully perused with regard to the theory of conspiracy, we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
are of the view that the alleged conspiracy theory to eliminate the deceased
only on the ground of caste, has not been established. Be that as it may.
39.Now, coming to Point No.1 with regard to the guilt of the
appellant/A1, the evidence of P.W.1 (mother of D2) and P.W.2 (father of D2)
is vital. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated in their evidence that their daughter
(D2) was in love affair with D1 and on an earlier occasion, they eloped
together in the year 2018 and thereafter, they found them and brought back
their daughter (D2) to their house and advised her to wait till she attains
majority. Thereafter, prior to the occurrence, again, they eloped together.
On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 25.06.2019, when P.W.1 came to know
that D1 and D2 are staying in a thatched shed, she (P.W.1), her husband
(P.W.2) and her uncle Chinnakannan (not-examined) went to the place. At
about 5.00 p.m., when they were in conversation with D1 and D2, the
accused A1, who is the elder brother of D1, came with a billhook (M.O.1)
and in a fit of anger, abused his younger brother (D1) saying that he already
warned him that a SC Community girl is not required and he (A1) will not
also not get any bride. By saying so, A1 cut the deceased D1 with M.O.1 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
his head and then, on his neck and when D1 tried to ward off the attack, A1
inflicted cut on D1's hand also. When they shouted, D2 tried to save D1 and
at that time, A1 turned back the billhook (M.O.1) and hit D2 with the back
of M.O.1 on her head and then, on her right side neck and left side neck.
ON seeing this, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannan screamed. The appellant
A1 left the scene of occurrence with M.O.1. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2,
D1 succumbed to injuries at the spot itself. D2 was struggling for life.
Thereafter, both D1 and D2 were taken to the Mettupalayam Government
Hospital in an Auto. P.W.7 (Auto Driver) has also supported the version of
P.W.1 and P.W.2. In his evidence, P.W.7 has also clearly stated that, in his
Auto, both the deceased D1 and D2 were taken to Government Hospital.
He has further stated that P.W.1, P.W.2 and Chinnakannu came along with
the deceased to the hospital. Therefore, the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and
Chinnakannan in the scene of occurrence is established by the evidence of
P.W.7 (Auto Driver) who is an utter stranger to the case. Further, P.W.4
(vegetable shop owner), in his evidence, has also clearly stated that he has
also seen the accused at the relevant point of time moving out of the scene of
occurrence with a blood stained billhook (M.O.1) in a panic manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Therefore, the presence of A1 in the scene of occurrence at the relevant point
of time, is also established by an independent witness (P.W.4).
40.Therefore, from the above evidence, it is clear that the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 can be relied upon as eye-witness to the occurrence.
41.P.W.13 (Medical Officer) attached to Mettupalayam Government
Hospital has seen the deceased D1 brought dead and D2 brought with
injuries. On examination, he issued Ex.P23 (Accident Register) in respect of
D1 and Ex.P24 (Accident Register) in respect of D2 and referred D2 to
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. It is to be noted that P.W.13 has
stated in his evidence that both the deceased were brought to the hospital by
one Chinnakannan (another person who witnessed the accident). However,
unfortunately, the prosecution could not examine him, since he died. To
prove his death, the prosecution has marked the Death Certificate of
Chinnakannan as Ex.P65.
42.With this backdrop, now, delving into the evidence of eye-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2), it is clear that the enraged A1, in a fit of anger
against his younger brother (D1) as he is trying to marry before him, cut the
deceased D1 on his head and neck. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated in
their evidence that A1 was not happy with his brother D1 marrying or
moving with D2 belonging to SC Community, we are of the view that such
statements have been introduced for the first time during investigation and
trial. At the earliest point of time, when P.W.1 lodged her complaint
(Ex.P1), she had never whispered anything about the caste-bias which was
the alleged root cause for the murder. Therefore, this Court is of the view
the entire prosecution version that A1 murdered both the deceased on the
ground of caste bias, is highly doubtful and it has been introduced only at
the later point of time to strengthen the case and also to make it sensational.
Therefore, we are not in a position to persuade ourselves to rely upon the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to caste-bias alone. However, their
evidence with regard to witnessing the occurrence cannot be disbelieved.
43.Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
that the blood stained dresses worn by P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of
occurrence, have not been seized by the Police, their evidence cannot be
discarded for the simple reason that P.W.7 (Auto Driver), who is a stranger,
has clearly seen P.W.1 and P.W.2 bringing both the injured to his Auto and
immediately, both D1 and D2 were taken to the Government Hospital,
Mettupalayam and admitted in the hospital. Therefore, we are of the view
that, merely because the Police have not seized the blood stained clothes
from P.W.1 and P.W.2, the same cannot be a ground to disbelieve their
evidence in entirety. It may be a mistake on the part of the Police. Mere
defect in the investigation or mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer
will not render the evidence of the witnesses unbelievable, which is
otherwise believable.
44.Though we have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with
regard to caste bias, their evidence with regard to motive of murder and the
occurrence, cannot be disbelieved. Merely because one portion of the
evidence is disbelieved, it does not mean that their entire evidence has to be
disbelieved. The Doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
strictly applied to Indian conditions. A witness may improve certain aspects
and give an exaggerated version and such version alone may not be believed
by the Court by considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
however, that may not be a sole ground to discard the entire testimony of the
witness which is otherwise proved by other evidence. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non-
recovery of blood stained clothes from P.W.1 and P.W.2, cannot be
countenanced by this Court.
45.Yet another ground urged by the learned counsel for the
appellant/A1 is the contradiction in description of injuries by P.W.1 and
P.W.2 in their evidence and also the conduct of the witnesses at the relevant
point of time. According to the learned counsel, there are more injuries
noted on D1, however, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 describes only few
injuries. We are of the view that, every eye-witness cannot be expected to
describe the minute details of the injuries. The nature of injuries on the body
can be accurately noted only by the Medical Experts. A person witnessing
the occurrence cannot be expected to give all the minute details of every
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
injury sustained by the victim. What one has witnessed and observed may
not be the case of the other. Further, reaction of a person to an incident, will
differ from person to person. Ultimately, what is relevant to be found is as
to who has caused the injuries. It is relevant to note that the Investigating
Officer, based on the confession of A1, has seized the billhook (M.O.1) used
for attacking the deceased D1 and D2, blood-stained shirt (M.O.7) and
blood-stained pant (M.O.8) worn by A1 at the relevant point of time. Those
Material Objects were also subjected to forensic examination. Though
human blood was found in all those Material Objects and the blood grouping
test was inconclusive in respect of billhook (M.O.1) and pant (M.O.8), the T-
Shirt seized from A1 (M.O.7) contained human blood of “B-Group” which is
none other than the blood group of D1. From this incriminating
circumstance, coupled with the eye-witnesses' version and the evidence of
independent witness P.W.4, we are of the view that it is only the accused A1
who caused the murder of the deceased D1 and D2. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel that the witnesses have not given the
minute details of the injuries, cannot be countenanced by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
46.In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the
prosecution has proved the charge of murder of Kanagaraj (D1) and
Varshini Priya (D2) against the appellant/A1 beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, the conviction of the appellant/A1 for the offence under
Section 302 IPC (2 counts) warrants no interference. Accordingly, Point
No.1 is answered.
47.Now, coming to the question of punishment, it is relevant to note
that the injuries inflicted by A1 on D1 and D2 are not similar and in fact, on
D1, the injuries are more severe than D2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly
spoken in their evidence that, in fact, D1 was cut by A1 on his head and neck
with billhook (M.O.1), whereas, when D2 intervened, the accused A1, in
fact, has not inflicted similar attack on D2, but rotated the billhook (M.O.1)
and hit her (D2) with the back side of M.O.1 on her head and neck. This
version of the prosecution witnesses is also supported by medical evidence.
While P.W.12, the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem on D1, has
noted a laceration (7 x 2 x 2 cm) over frontal region of the (middle) scalp
and a laceration (6 x 1 x 1 cm) over the occipital region of scalp on the body
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
of the deceased Kanagaraj (D1), P.W.14, the Medical Officer who conducted
post-mortem on D2, besides a laceration of size 3 x 0.5 cm x bone deep over
left parietal region, has noted down only contusions of size 5 x 3 cm over the
right cheek; 6 x 4 cm over the left zygomatic and parotid region; 7 x 5 cm
over the back of right ear and right mastoid region; 10 x 6 cm over the back
of left ear, left mastoid and left neck; and 5 x 4 cm over the right angle of
mandible and right neck. In fact, A1 has not inflicted any cut injury on D2.
He has attacked D2 only when she intervened to prevent the attack on D1.
The main intention of A1 appears to be to cause severe injuries on his
younger brother (D1) since he (A1) was not happy with his younger brother
(D1) getting married before him. Considering the intention of the accused
and the nature of attack made by A1 on D1 and D2, this Court is of the view
that the murder was not based on caste bias. It was only in a fit of rage that
his younger brother (D1) was trying to get married before him (A1). That
was the main reason. Even the very evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would
clearly indicate that, only in a fit of anger, A1 entered the thatched shed and
hit D1 on his head with M.O.1 and later, when D2 prevented, using the
backside of M.O.1, hit her on the head. Therefore, these facts also clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
indicate that the occurrence took place only in a fit of rage that the accused
A1 was not happy with his younger brother getting married before him. In
such view of the matter, though unfortunately two of them had died, we are
of the firm view that the murder will not fall within the ambit of “honour
killing” as held by the trial Court.
48.The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684, in majority, has
indicated the standards and norms restricting the area of imposition of death
penalty and has broadly indicated the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances to be looked in a particular case while awarding death
sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in order to qualify for
inclusion in the category of “aggravating circumstances” which may form
the basis of “special reasons” in Section 354(3) IPC, the circumstances
found on the facts of a particular case must evidence aggravation of an
abnormal or special degree. At the same time, “mitigating circumstances”
are undoubtedly relevant circumstances and must be given great weight in
the determination of sentence. It has been held that factors like extreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
youth of the accused can be of compelling importance; post-murder remorse,
penitence or repentence by the murderer are also relevant. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the said judgment, has held as follows :
“202.Drawing upon the penal statutes of the States in
U.S.A. framed after Furman v. Georgia [33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408
US 238 (1972)] , in general, and clauses 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d)
of the Penal Code, 1860 (Amendment) Bill passed in 1978 by
the Rajya Sabha, in particular, Dr Chitale has suggested these
“aggravating circumstances”:
“Aggravating circumstances: A court may, however, in the
following cases impose the penalty of death in its discretion:
(a) if the murder has been committed after previous
planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or
(c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed
forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any
public servant and was committed—
(i) while such member or public servant was on
duty; or
(ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted
to be done by such member or public servant in the
lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public
servant whether at the time of murder he was such
member or public servant, as the case may be, or had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
ceased to be such member or public servant; or
(d) if the murder is of a person who had acted in the
lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a
Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring
his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said
Code.”
205.In several countries which have retained death
penalty, pre-planned murder for monetary gain, or by an
assassin hired for monetary reward is, also, considered a
capital offence of the first-degree which, in the absence of any
ameliorating circumstances, is punishable with death. Such
rigid categorisation would dangerously overlap the domain of
legislative policy. It may necessitate, as it were, a redefinition of
‘murder’ or its further classification. Then, in some decisions,
murder by fire-arm, or an automatic projectile or bomb, or like
weapon, the use of which creates a high simultaneous risk of
death or injury to more than one person, has also been treated
as an aggravated type of offence. No exhaustive enumeration of
aggravating circumstances is possible. But this much can be
said that in order to qualify for inclusion in the category of
“aggravating circumstances” which may form the basis of
“special reasons” in Section 354(3), circumstance found on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
facts of a particular case, must evidence aggravation of an
abnormal or special degree.
206.Dr Chitale has suggested these mitigating factors:
“Mitigating circumstances.—In the exercise of its discretion
in the above cases, the court shall take into account the
following circumstances:
(1) That the offence was committed under the influence
of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
(2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or
old, he shall not be sentenced to death.
(3) The probability that the accused would not commit
criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing
threat to society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed
and rehabilitated.
The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not
satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above.
(5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the
accused believed that he was morally justified in committing
the offence.
(6) That the accused acted under the duress or
domination of another person.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his
capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.”
207.We will do no more than to say that these are
undoubtedly relevant circumstances and must be given great
weight in the determination of sentence. Some of these factors
like extreme youth can instead be of compelling importance.
In several States of India, there are in force special enactments,
according to which a “child”, that is, “a person who at the date
of murder was less than 16 years of age”, cannot be tried,
convicted and sentenced to death or imprisonment for life for
murder, nor dealt with according to the same criminal
procedure as an adult. The special Acts provide for a
reformatory procedure for such juvenile offenders or children.
208.According to some Indian decisions, the post-murder
remorse, penitence or repentence by the murderer is not a
factor which may induce the court to pass the lesser penalty
(e.g. Mominuddi Sardar [AIR 1935 Cal 591 : Emperor v.
Mominuddi Sardar, 39 CWN 262 : 36 Cri LJ 1254] ). But those
decisions can no longer be held to be good law in view of the
current penological trends and the sentencing policy outlined in
Sections 235(2) and 354(3). We have already extracted the
views of A.W. Alschuler in Criminal Year-Book by Messinger
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
and Bittner, which are in point.
209.There are numerous other circumstances justifying
the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing
circumstances of aggravation. “We cannot obviously feed into a
judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological
imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society.”
Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and
concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must
receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in
accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3).
Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers
has never been too good for them. Facts and Figures, albeit
incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the
past, courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme
infrequency — a fact which attests to the caution and
compassion which they have always brought to bear on the
exercise of their sentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It
is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided
by the broad illustrative guide-lines indicated by us, will
discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous
care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of
legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for
persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for
the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save
in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed.”
(emphasis supplied)
49.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ramnaresh and others v. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257, has followed Bachan Singh's
case (supra) and has further added the following circumstances under
“mitigating circumstances” in addition to the ones enumerated in Bachan
Singh's case (supra).
“76. … Mitigating Circumstances
… (5) The circumstances which, in normal course of life,
would render such a behaviour possible and could have the
effect of giving rise to mental imbalance in that given situation
like persistent harassment or, in fact, leading to such a peak of
human behaviour that, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in
committing the offence.
(6) Where the court upon proper appreciation of evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
is of the view that the crime was not committed in a preordained
manner and that the death resulted in the course of commission
of another crime and that there was a possibility of it being
construed as consequences to the commission of the primary
crime.”
50.By applying the broad guidelines enumerated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above judgment to the present case on hand, it is
relevant to note that none of the aggravating circumstances as extracted
supra can be attracted in the instant case. On the contrary, the appellant/A1
was at a young age of 24 years at the time of occurrence and he was
unmarried. As already held, A1 has committed murder of his brother (D1)
only in a fit of anger, in an extreme mental and emotional disturbance that
his younger brother (D1) is likely to get married before him and therefore,
he could not get a bride thereafter. Such an act of the accused, in normal
course of life, would render such a behaviour possible in that given situation.
Further, from the overall evidence, it appears that the murder of D2 was not
committed in a preordained manner and the death resulted in the course of
commission of another crime, i.e., attack on D1, when D2 tried to intervene,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
and therefore, it can be construed as a consequence to the commission of the
primary crime. The occurrence is only a result of an extreme rage and anger
of the accused A1 that his younger brother is getting married before him.
Such an act of the accused can never be brought within the ambit of “rarest
of rare cases” at any stretch of imagination. Therefore, when there are more
than one mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant/A1, the trial
Court is not justified in awarding the death penalty as against the
appellant/A1, as per the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bachan Singh's case (supra).
51.It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2016) 9 SCC 541, which
also discusses about sentencing in a case of honour killing, has held as
follows :
“74A.Thus analyzed, we find that the imposition of fixed
term sentence on the Appellants by the High Court cannot be
found fault with. In this regard a reference may be made to a
passage from Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka (2013) 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
SCC 545, wherein while discussing about the concept of
appropriate sentence, the Court has expressed thus:
“18.Just punishment is the collective cry of the
society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost
in the mind, simultaneously the principle of
proportionality between the crime and punishment
cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just
punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a
criminal offence. A punishment should not be
disproportionately excessive. The concept of
proportionality allows a significant discretion to the
Judge but the same has to be guided by certain
principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability,
the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the
potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in
future, capability of his reformation and to lead an
acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect-
propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and
sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime
and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the
nature of the offence, the relationship between the
parties and attract ability of the doctrine of bringing the
convict to the value-based social mainstream may be
the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are
certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed
manner. We may hasten to add that there can neither be a
straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in
mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the
facts of the case and rationalized judicial discretion.
Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-
adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical
apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For
every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.
Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated
with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances
in which the crime incarcination meaning has been
committed and other concomitant factors which we
have indicated herein before and also have been stated
in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such
touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The
discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should
be embedded in conceptual essence of just
punishment.”
(emphasis supplied)
52.One more relevant circumstance to be noted in this case is that the
trial Court has not followed the proper procedure as contemplated while
questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that
every incriminating material staring as against the accused, has to be
separately put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for his explanation.
However, on a perusal of records, it is seen that the evidence of each witness
has been put as one question and explanation has been sought, which is
totally against the very provision under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Judge
has, in fact, has not adhered to the procedure contemplated under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and has allowed the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to be
mechanically typed by a Typist and instead of participating in the actual
trial, he has remained as a mute spectator. The very purpose of questioning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to put each and every incriminating material
appearing in evidence, to the accused for him to offer his explanation.
However, in the given case, the trial Judge has simply abdicated his
responsibility and it appears that the evidence of each witness has been just
copied and pasted and the formality of questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C. has been completed. Instead of giving too much appreciation to the
Advocates who conducted the case, the trial Judge ought to have followed
the proper procedure while conducting the case. No doubt, the accused has
also offered his reply separately and he has taken defence that he was not in
the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, whereas, the same has
not been proved by him and in the contrary, the prosecution has also proved
the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence. In this circumstance,
having not followed the proper procedure of questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in a criminal trial, the trial Judge is not justified in awarding
maximum penalty of death to the accused.
53.Though the act of the trial Judge invites proceedings against him,
we restrain ourselves from passing any adverse orders against him and we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
only record that the trial Court shall be careful and shall not repeat the same
in future in any Sessions Case and shall follow the proper procedure as
contemplated under law, while conducting the case.
54.In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that it is not a
fit case warranting death penalty and therefore, this Court is inclined to
reduce the death sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 for the offence
under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. Point No.2 is answered
accordingly.
55.Since the prosecution has clearly established through the evidence
of eye-witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) that the appellant/A1 trespassed into the
house of D1 when they were having a conversation with D1 and D2, the
conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court qua Section 448 IPC
warrants no interference.
56.Insofar as the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act is
concerned, though the prosecution has alleged that the murder was due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
caste bias, since D1 was trying to marry a girl of marginalized community,
this Court, on a careful scanning of the entire evidence, has already held
supra that the caste bias theory was, in fact, developed only later. In fact,
while abusing his younger brother (D1) in the fit of anger that he is trying to
get married before him, the appellant/A1 had attacked D1. At that time,
when D2 intervened, in a fit of anger, she was also attacked by A1.
Therefore, it cannot be construed that she (D2), who belonged to SC
Community, was attacked only because of her caste or on the ground that
she belonged to SC Community, to maintain a charge under Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (PoA) Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the charge
under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act is not made out as against the
accused and the accused is entitled to be acquitted of that charge. It is
relevant to note that the trial Court has not awarded any separate penalty
under this Section.
57.In view of the narrative supra, the judgment of the trial Court is
modified to the following extent :
Accused Charge Result Sentence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
Section 448 IPC Confirmed Confirmed
Section 302 IPC Confirmed Imprisonment for life
(for murder of
Appellant/ Kanagaraj)
A1
Section 302 IPC Confirmed Imprisonment for life
(for murder of
Varshini Priya)
Section 3(2)(v) of Not proved. Acquitted.
SC/ST (PoA) Act
The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of
remand/incarceration already undergone by the appellant/A1 from
26.06.2019 till date is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Since
the appellant/A1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(PoA) Act, the direction of the trial Court ordering the District
Administration to pay the compensation as per Annexure 1 to Rule 12(4) of
SC/ST (PoA) Rules, 1995, is set aside. However, the de facto complainant
(P.W.1), who is the mother of the deceased Varshini Priya (D2), is entitled to
compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013.
The District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, shall pursue the matter
for recommending appropriate compensation to the victim as per the
Scheme. Rest of the judgment of the trial Court stands confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
58.In fine, the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.234 of 2025 is partly
allowed and the reference in R.T.No.2 of 2025 is answered in terms of Para
No.57, supra.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
03.11.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Coimbatore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mettupalayam,
Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
4.The Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
R.T.No.2 of 2025 &
District Legal Services Authority,
Coimbatore.
5.The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
6.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
Coimbatore.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
03.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:03 pm )
