Madras High Court
Ravi @ Ravichandran vs State Represented By on 5 November, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
2025:MHC:2562
Crl.A.No.305 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.305 of 2019
Ravi @ Ravichandran ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kannankuruchi Police Station,
Salem
(Cr.No.510 of 2014) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in S.C.No.210 of 2017
dated 29.11.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Pugalendhi
(Appointed as Legal Aid Counsel)
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
Crl.A.No.305 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C.No.210 of 2017,
dated 29.11.2018, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple
imprisonment, the accused has filed the present appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1. P.W.1 and accused were working in a hotel owned by one
Devadas. PW5 joined the accused in a hotel job for daily wages for Rs.500-
600/- per day. The accused was staying in the hotel itself. PW7 is owning the
print press near the hotel run by PW2's father Devadas. The accused was
working as Parotta Master in the hotel and used to stay in the hotel. On the
date of occurrence, as usual when PW1, Devadass and PW7 went to hotel,
since the shutter could not be opened, they forcibly opened the shutter, at the
time, PW1 and PW7 and Devadass saw the accused with the knife and ran
away from the place of occurrence. When PW1 and PW7 went inside, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
found the deceased with severe cut injuries on the head of the deceased and
her dresses were removed. The deceased is the mother of PW8. The owner
of the hotel, Devadas lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. PW20/Special Sub
Inspector of Police on 25.11.2014, he received a complaint under Ex.P1 and
registered FIR in Cr.No.510/2014 under Section 302 of IPC under Ex.P30
and forwarded the FIR to the Court and copy to the Investigating Officer.
2.2. One Kannaiyyan took up the investigation and PW22 was the
sub-inspector at the relevant point of time and he also assisted the
investigation conducted by Kannaiyyan and he went to the place of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazaar under Ex.P2 in the presence
of PW6 and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P35 and conducted inquest on
the dead body and prepared inquest report under Ex.P36 and sent the dead
body for autopsy with a requisition letter under Ex.P9. He also seized the
blood stained mosaic piece in M.O.4 and ordinary mosaic piece in M.O.5
under Ex.P3 and recorded the statement from other witnesses and thereafter,
arrested the accused on 26.11.2014 in the presence of PW6 and his assistant
and recorded the confession in pursuant to the admission portion of
confession under Ex.P37. He also seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
Seizure Mahazaar and forwarded the seized materials under Form 91 under
Ex.P38 to the Court and remanded the accused to judicial custody. He also
collected special report under Ex.P7/the dresses of the accused in M.O.7 to
M.O.8 and sent them to the Court under Form 91. He also sent a requisition
to the medical officer to examine the accused.
2.3. PW8 is the daughter of the deceased. According to her, her father
died 20 years back, her mother used to stay outside for 10 days. During the
occurrence, for two months, she did not come to her house, thereafter, she
has identified the dead body of her mother. She has also given photos to the
Investigating Officer. PW9 is also the relative of the deceased. He has also
identified the deceased dead body in the hotel. PW10 is the medical officer
attached to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Salem saw the
dead body and issued Accident Register under Ex.P6 and the dead body was
sent to mortuary. PW11 constable handed over the dead body to the autopsy
and also collected dresses of the deceased in M.O.6 to M.O.8 under Ex.P7
and handed over to the Investigating Officer and gave a special report under
Ex.P8 in this regard.
2.4.PW12/Medical Officer attached to the Government Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
College and Hospital, Salem conducted autopsy and found the following
injuries and issued Postmortem certificate under Ex.P10:-
“1. DARK RED SCRATCH ABRASION OVER RIGHT CHEEK
M-2X0.3CMS
2. SCRATCH ABRASION OVER CENTER OF FOREHEAD M-
4X0.2CMS
3. ICM INNER ANOTHER SCRATCH ABRASION M-
4X0.1CMS
4. SCRATCH ABRASION OVER RIGHT SIDE OF NOSE M-
4X0.2CMS
5. 4 CURVI LINEAR DARK ABRASIONS SEEEN AROUND
FRONT OF CENTRE OF NECK M-1-1.5X0.3-0.5CMS
6. MULTIPLE HORIZONTAL SCRATCH ABRASIONS SEEN
OVER CENTER OF RIGHT SIDE OF NECK.
7. MULTIPLE IRREGULAR SMALL ABRASIONS SEEN ON
THE RIGHT SIDE OF CENTER OF NECK.
8. ABRASION SEEN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF LOWER LIP M-
18X0.4CMS
9. MULTIPLE LINEAR SCRATCH ABRASIONS SEEN OVER
THE MONS PUBIS AND OVER EXTERNAL GENITALIA.
10. MULTIPLE LINEAR SCRATCH ABRASIONS EXTEND
FROM RIGHT SIDE OF LOWER ABDOMEN ALONG THE
EXTERNAL GENITALIA AND INNER ASPECT OF THIGH
UPTO FRONT OF RIGHT KNEE
11. TWO LINEAR SCRATCH ABRASIONS OVER INNER
ASPECT OF LEFT THIGH
12. CONTUSION SEEN ON THE LABIAL SURFACE OF
RIGHT SIDE OF LOWER LIP M-3.5X1.5X0.5CMS
13. DARK RED CONTUSION ON THE LOWER 3D OF
RIGHT SIDE LOWER BACK M-4X3X0.2CMS
14. CONTUSION OVER BACK OF RIGHT SIDE OF CHEST
M-4X2X0.2CMS
15. CONTUSION SEEN ON THE UPPER ASPECT CENTER
OF BACK M-100X9X0.5CMS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
16. CONTUSION SEEN IN BETWEEN RIGHT SIDE OF
MAJORA AND MINORA M-2XX0.5CMS. HYMEN NOT
INTACT.
17. DIFFUSED CONTUSION SEEN OVER THE FRONT AND
SIDES OF NECK UPPER ASPECT OF BOTH SHOULDER
AND UPPER ASPECT OF CHEST.
18. CUT INJURY SEEN ON THE OUTER ASPECT OF RIGHT
EYEBROW M-1X05X0.5CMS
19. CUT INJURY VERTICALLY SEEN OVER THE OUTER
ASPECT OF RIGHT EYEBROW M-2.5X1X0.5CMS WITH
TAILING UPWARDS.
20. 0.5CMS INNER TO THE PREVIOUS ANOTHER CUT
INJURY M-2.5X1X0.5CMS
21. 0.5CMS INNER AND ABOVE RIGHT SIDE OF
FOREHEAD A CUT INJURY M-2X0.50.5CMS
22. 2.5CMS INNER TO THE PREVIOUS WOUND ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF FOREHEAD A CUT INJURY M-
2X0.5X0.5CMS
INTERNAL EXAMINATION:
O/D HEAD: SCALP CONTUSION OVER RIGHT TEMPORO
OCCIPITAL REGION M-15X10.5CMS AND OVER LEFT
TEMPORAL REGION M-6X5X0.5CMS WITH BOTH
TEMPORALIS MUSCLE CONTUSION. CRANIAL VAULT-
INTACT. BRAIN-SUB ARACHNOID HAEMORRHAGE SEEN
OVER MID PARIETO TEMPORO OCCIPITAL REGION.
BASE OF SKULL-INTACT.
OD NECK:CONTUSION OVER BOTH SIDES OF NECK
MUSCLES. FRACTURE OF UPPER TRACHEAL RINGS
ALONGWITH BODY OF THYROID CARTILAGE WITH
SURROUNDING SOFT TISSUE CONTUSION. HYOID
BONE-INTACT.
OD THORAX: RIBS-INTACT. HEART-NORMAL IN SIZE.
CHAMBERS-EMPTY VALVES AND CORONARIES-NORMAL.
BOTH LUNGS OEDEMATOUS AND C/S CONGESTED.
OD ABDOMEN: STOMACH CONTAINS 20ML OF BROWN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
COLOUR FLUID WITH NO SPECIFIC ODOUR MUCOSA CS
PALE LIVER SPLEEN, BOTH KIDNEYS, C'S CONGESTED.
BLADDER-EMPTY. PELVIS AND SPINAL COLUMN-INTACT.
2.5. PW12/Medical Officer also collected viscera and gave opinion
under Ex.P12 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of effects
of multiple injuries with evidence of sexual assault. The accused was
examined as to his potency under Ex.P13 requisition letter and sexual
offence case examination certificate was issued under Ex.P14 and age
certificate was issued under Ex.P15. On examination of the skull of the
deceased, she has also given age certificate under Ex.P17 stating that the
deceased should be aged about 55-65 years. PW13 photographer took the
photos in MO.9 and M.O.10 as requested by Investigating Officer.
PW14/Scientific Officer of the Forensic Department examined the viscera
and issued viscera report under Ex.P11 stating that there is no poison
detected. PW15/Scientific Officer has examined the material objects and did
not found any spermotozoa/semen in the cotton gauze cloth and further, also
examined the other material objects and issued Ex.P21/Chemical report.
PW17 is also Scientific Officer in the Forensic Department has conducted
superimposition of the skull of the deceased and issued Ex.P23 report. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
photograph of superimposition of skull is marked under Ex.P25.
PW18/Scientific Officer also issued Ex.P26/Serology Report and found that
the blood group of 'O' group in respect of item nos.2 to 5. PW19/Scientific
Officer conducted DNA test with the blood of PW8 femor of the deceased
and issued DNA report under Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 and opined that the blood
collected from PW8 tallied with the DNA of the dead body and opined that
the deceased is the biological mother of the PW8. PW23, continued
investigation later and finally laid the final report against the accused under
Section 302 of IPC accused in P.R.C.No.25 of 2016 before the Judicial
Magistrate No.IV, Salem.
2.6. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions in S.C.No.210 of 2017 and was made over to the Mahila Court,
Salem, for trial.
2.7. The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
302 IPC as against the accused. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not
guilty”.
2.8. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1
to P.W.23, marked Exs.P1 to P41 and produced M.Os.1 to 10. On the side of
the defence, neither witness was examined nor any document marked.
2.9. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
on record, by judgment dated 29.11.2018, convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months.
3. Challenging the conviction and sentence qua Section 302 IPC, the
accused has preferred the present appeal.
4. Since, the counsel on record has stated that the he has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
instructions, this Court in order to protect the rights of the appellant/accused
vide order dated 03.11.2025 appointed Mr.P.Pugalenthi, Advocate as legal
aid counsel for the appellant to argue the case.
5. Mr.P.Pugalenthi, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant
submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidences and the
circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution to bring home the
guilt of the accused. According to the petitioner, though PW1 and PW7
stated to have seen the accused in the hotel, where, the dead body was found
and ran away with the knife, the evidences of PW1 and PW7 is highly
contradictory with each other. PW1, in his evidence stated as if they opened
the back door at that time, the accused ran away through the back door,
whereas, PW7 in his evidence has stated that they opened in front side, at the
time, the accused ran way. This creates serious doubt about their presence.
Further, it is the contention that the so-called recovery relied upon by the
prosecution is also highly doubtful. PW6 in his evidence stated that the
material objects M.O.1 and blood stained cloth of the accused were taken by
the Investigation Officer from the bushes, whereas, PW22 in his evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
stated that actually the accused has pointed out and these MOs were
recovered, this also creates serious doubt in the case of prosecution.
Therefore, the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused and
the accused is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, seeks for
allowing this appeal.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the accused were working in the hotel along with PW1 as a parotta master.
This fact has been clearly spoken by PW1, PW2 and PW7. PW5 only joined
the accused in the hotel also clearly spoken that the accused was working in
the hotel, the fact that the accused was working in the hotel, where, the dead
body is found is not disputed. Further, the evidence of prosecution that the
accused was in the habit of staying in the hotel itself and he has left his
family, on the date of occurrence, i.e., 25.11.2014 at early morning, the
accused was seen with M.O.1 knife by PW1, PW7 and PW2's father tried to
open the hotel as the shutter was not opened, they forcibly opened the
shutter the accused was seen with knife running away from the place of
occurrence and the dead body was found inside. This fact clearly establishes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
the fact that the only the accused was with the company of the deceased. The
deceased is also wandering outside and she has left the house of PW8. PW8
is none other than the daughter of the deceased. The M.O.1 recovered from
the accused contain the blood group of the deceased, this also proves the
complicity of the accused. Hence, submitted that the prosecution has proved
the case beyond reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has rightly found the
petitioner guilty and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302
of IPC and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court does not require any
interference.
7. We have perused the entire materials available on record.
8.The case is based on circumstantial evidences. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer vs. State of Kerala
reported in 2024 (10) SCC 813 summarized the basic established principles
which need to be taken as a guide for the Courts in cases of circumstantial
evidence. In Paras 16 to 18 thereof, it was held as follows:-
“16. Thus, these basic established principles can be
summarized in the following terms that the chain of events
needs to be so established that the court has no option but to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the
accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the
sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the
accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is
very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of
circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one
conclusion that is the guilt of the accused.
17. Even in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the
chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts
could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of
the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of
doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning
thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot
be recorded.
18. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce
such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the
only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges
framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish
a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
accused.”
9. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events needs to
be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only
one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps
in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to
the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very
strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must
be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
accused.
10. In the light of the above settled propositions, let us proceed with
the findings rendered by the Trial Court. The instant case is based upon
circumstantial evidence. PW1 though turned hostile in the cross
examination, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that he has resiled
from the chief examination when he was examined between the gap of time.
Be that as it may, the chief examination of the PW1 when carefully perused,
he has clearly stated that PW1 and accused were working in the hotel owned
by Devadas, father of PW2. It is also deposed by PW1 that the accused used
to stay in the hotel in the night. The evidence of PW1 in the cross
examination is not disputed with regard to the accused staying in the hotel.
Even in the cross examination, it is admitted by PW1 that the accused was
staying in the hotel.
11. PW7 is running a printing press near the hotel where the accused
and PW1 were working. In his evidence, he has clearly stated that his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
printing press is very near to the hotel run by one Devadas, father of PW2.
His evidence also clearly indicate that accused was working as parota
master. On the date of occurrence, when the owner Devadas came to hotel at
7 am and tried to open the hotel, as the shutter could not be opened, they
were under the impression that something has happened to the parota master
inside, therefore, PW7, Devadas and PW1 forcibly opened the shutter of the
hotel, at the time, the accused was in possession of knife, on seeing them, he
ran away from the hotel through the backdoor, thereafter, when they entered
the hotel, they found that the deceased was in a nude manner with the cut
injuries on the head and immediately, Devadas gave complaint under Ex.P1.
The evidence of PW1, PW7 along with the evidence of PW5/Loganathan
who only joined the accused in the hotel run by Devadas/PW2's father would
indicate that the accused was in fact working in the hotel run by
Devadas/father of PW2. PW1 and PW7 has seen the accused with
M.O.1/knife inside the hotel and the accused ran away from the hotel when
the hotel was opened in the morning through the back-door and immediately,
dead body was found inside the hotel. The prosecution has also identified the
dead body as one Sarasu/mother of PW8 not only through the photographs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
but also superimposition report under Ex.P25 and also through DNA Reports
under Exs.P28 and 29. The blood samples taken from PW8 is compared with
the femur with the deceased, DNA extracted and the Scientific
Officer/PW19, who conducted DNA test has also given the opinion that the
deceased is the biological mother of the PW8. The identity of the deceased is
also clearly established by the prosecution.
12. The evidence of PW1 and PW7 clearly proved the fact that on
25.11.2014, the accused ran away from the hotel, immediately, the dead
body was found inside the hotel. The fact that the accused was staying in the
hotel at night is also spoken by PW1 and PW7 and the dead body was found
immediately on seeing the accused inside the hotel. The accused has not
offered any explanation in this regard. It is for the accused to explain as to
what has transpired inside the hotel; how the deceased came inside the hotel
when the accused alone was staying inside the hotel. When incriminating
materials are put against the accused and the accused do not throw any light
upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge during
the questioning under Section 313 of CrPC, such failure on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
accused may be used against the accused under Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act as it may provide an additional link in the chain of
circumstances required to be proved against the accused. Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act,1872, provides that when a fact is especially within the
knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. It is
worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 5 SCC
543, wherein, it is held as follows:
'6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen
together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was
expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what
circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased. It is
true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always
on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course,
Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution
of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is
also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not
throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his
special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the
accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of
circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case
based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing
of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact,
when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the
prosecution was proved against him.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2548, wherein, it has
held as follows:-
“No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the
company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what
happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The
silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he
is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an
adverse inference against the accused.”
14. On the same day, the investigation has been commenced and the
accused was arrested on the very next day on 26.11.2016 in the presence of
VAO/PW13. His evidence also clearly proves that the accused has given
confession in pursuant to the admission portion of confession under Ex.P4.
M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.3 were seized from the accused under Ex.P5. These
material objects were also examined by the forensic experts.
PW18/Scientific Officer has issued Serological report under Ex.P27 in this
regard. Whereas, she has clearly found that knife and shirt seized from the
accused contained O group same with the sari, inskirt of the deceased, these
has been clearly established by the prosecution by examining the
expert/PW18 in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
15. Therefore, when the accused was seen in the premises with knife
where the dead body was found, the knife also contains the blood group of
the deceased and the accused ran away immediately, the conduct of the
accused running away from the place of occurrence on seeing PW1 and
PW7 and Devadas assumes significance. Such conduct of the accused
running away from the place of occurrence is also go against the accused.
Such conduct is also relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
These facts also clearly establish the case of prosecution.
16. PW8 and expert evidence as discussed above clearly proves the
identity of the deceased. The medical officer who conducted the autopsy has
seen 22 external injuries. These facts clearly indicate that there were
multiple injuries on the deceased and in fact there was a struggle by the
deceased also. Homicidal death has been clearly established by the
prosecution by examining the medical officer/PW12 in this regard. When the
accused was seen in the premises where the dead body was found and he ran
away immediately and when there is no explanation from the deceased in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
this regard, circumstances are clearly established against the accused that the
accused alone has caused such injuries. The deceased is also wandering
outside and she is not staying in her house at the relevant point of time, this
is also clearly spoken by her own daughter/PW8.
17. The very conduct of the accused running away from the place of
occurrence with the knife and the knife containing the blood group of the
deceased clinchingly establishes the complicity of the accused with time.
Further, in the absence of any explanations under 313 questioning with
regard to his presence and immediately running from the place of
occurrence, this also gives additional link to the circumstances relied upon
by the prosecution. PW1 in chief and cross examination clearly stated that
the accused used to stay in the hotel where the dead body was found and
PW7 has also seen the accused inside the premises where dead body was
found. There was no motive whatsoever attributed to implicate the accused
unnecessarily, the FIR is filed on the very same day and the investigation
also commenced. Though the FIR is lodged by Devadas, owner of the hotel,
he could not be examined, since, he already died, but the fact remains that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
pursuant to the complaint given by Devadas, the accused was arrested and
the material objects were seized. Therefore, these facts clearly establishes
the complicity of the accused with the offence, particularly, in the absence of
any explanations from the accused. Though the medical officer opined that
there is mark of sexual violence, the same could not be established
scientifically as there was no spermotozoa/semen found as per the expert
report/PW14 under Ex.P21/Chemical Report. Therefore, circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution clearly point towards the accused in respect
of the charge. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case.
The Criminal Appeal has no merit, and hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment
of the trial Court dated 29.11.2018 in S.C.No.210 of 2017 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem is confirmed. The order dated
25.07.2019 made in Crl.M.P.No.8680 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.305 of 2019
suspending the sentence of the appellant stands vacated. We direct the Trial
Court to secure his presence immediately to serve out the rest of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
sentence.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
05.11.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Salem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kannankuruchi Police Station,
Salem
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dhk
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2025 05:22:41 pm )
