Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By vs Sampath on 5 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.1713 of 2025
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.1713 of 2025
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Veppur Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.12/2016) ... Appellant/Complainant
-vs-
1. Sampath
2. Vetri @ Vetrivel
3. Sankar ... Respondents/A1 to A3
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. / 419 of
BNSS to set aside the order of acquittal in judgment dated 22.05.2024 made
in S.C.No.104 of 2016 on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore by
allowing this Criminal Appeal and convict the accused (A1 to A3) as
charged.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)
As against the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred the
present appeal, challenging the judgment of the Trial Court.
2.Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
2.1. The 1st accused (Sampath) used to lend money to persons,
who require financial assistance. He also lent money to the deceased
(Sivasakthi) few months prior to the occurrence. In the course of such
transaction, the 1st accused developed intimacy with the deceased, used to
drink together and have physical relationship. In the year 2015 after
Deepavali, the 1st accused requested the deceased for a physical
relationship, which was refused by her. Thereafter, on 11.01.2016 the 1st
accused once again called the deceased for the same, which was not
accepted by her. Therefore, A1 decided to eliminate the deceased and on
12.01.2016 at about 11.00am, he called the deceased to the place of
occurrence, informing that he had brought brandy for her. All the accused
joined together and when the deceased came to the place, A1 hit the
accused on the head and A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
succumbed to injury and death thereafter. The 1st accused has been
prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and A2 & A3 under
Sections 354-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
2.2. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, who had seen the
dead body of the deceased on 12.01.2016 and immediately, lodged the
complaint (Ex.P1) to P.W.19. P.W.2 is the father, who also noticed the dead
body as well as beer bottle, water packets, etc. in the place of occurrence.
P.W.3 had also seen the dead body of the deceased. P.W.19 registered a
case in Crime No.12 of 2016 (Ex.P26) on 12.01.2016 for an offence under
Section 302 IPC and forwarded the same to the Court with a copy to the
Inspector of Police (P.W.20). P.W.20 took up investigation and went to the
place of occurrence and prepared a Observation Mahazar (Ex.P28) and
Rough Sketch (Ex.P29) and conducted inquest over the dead body (Ex.P27)
and thereafter, forwarded the dead body for post-mortem, besides seizure of
material objects 1 to 13 under Ex.Ps.30 & 31. The accused 1 to 3 were
arrested and their confession statements were recorded in the presence of
P.Ws.12 & 14 (Village Administrative Officer & Village Administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
Assistant). The admission portions of the statement of the accused were
marked as Ex.Ps.32, 34 and 36.) persons were handed over by the VAO
with the Special Report and thereafter, P.W.20 altered the FIR under
Ex.P38 for offences under Sections 354-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC. P.W.21 /
Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and finally laid a final
report.
3. In order to bring on the guilt of the accused, 21 witnesses
have been examined on the side of the prosecution, exhibited 40 documents
and 13 Material Objects were marked. On the side of the accused, neither
witnesses were examined nor documents marked. The Trial Court, after
analyzing the entire evidence and materials, came to the conclusion that
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been proved and
acquitted the accused. Challenging the said judgment, State has filed the
instant appeal.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
motive of the accused had been clearly established through the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 and the Trial Court failed to analyze the said evidence in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
its entirety. The death of the deceased was on account of the injury
sustained on her head, which had been duly corroborated by the medical
evidence and the post-mortem Doctor / P.W.15 deposed that the death
would have occurred owing to grievous injuries on the head. He would
further submit that merely because some of the prosecution witnesses 5, 7
to 14, 17 and 18 turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be
thrown out. Hence, he pleaded that circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution have been clearly established and therefore, the judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court requires a re-visit.
5. We have thoroughly gone through the material documents
available on record.
6. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the last seen
theory and other aspects. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that
the accused were in the company of the deceased prior to the alleged
occurrence. Except the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who had
effected seizures on the spot, no other materials have been produced to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
prove the complexity of the accused. Of course, the homicidal violence and
sexual assault had been duly established, but the fact remains that no
material whatsoever is available on record to show that the accused were in
the company of the deceased prior to the occurrence or seen immediately
thereafter.
7. Insofar as the last seen theory is concerned, it comes into
play, where the time gap between the point of time, when the accused and
the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased was found dead is
so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being
perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. Most of the witnesses,
especially P.Ws.5 to 10, 13, 17 and 18 relied upon by the prosecution
turned hostile and they had not supported the circumstance of last seen
theory. Even in the cross examination, nothing has been elicited. To prove a
case of circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that all the circumstances
should be complete and there should not be any missing link.
8. As per Ex.16 (viscera report), the presence of alcohol in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
limbs of the deceased was noticed. Medical examination over the dead body
clearly shows that the deceased consumed alcohol and therefore, there is a
possibility of fall on account of excessive drink and succumbed to death. In
Ex.P17 (Forensic Report on vaginal semen), it has been stated that there
was no semen detected in Item Nos.1 & 2 and therefore, the offence of
sexual assault on the deceased by the accused has been ruled out.
9. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused.
Thus, the judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the present
Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
05.11.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ar
To:
1. The Mahila Court Judge,
Cuddalore.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 09:02:23 pm )
