Madras High Court
Rajman @ Ramesh vs The State Rep. By on 21 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.235 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.11.2025
C ORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.235 of 2025
& Crl.M.P.No.3800 of 2025
1. Rajman @ Ramesh
2. Samuluram ... Appellants/Accused
-vs-
The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Paramathi Police Station
Namakkal District ... Respondent/Complainant
Crime No.307/2021
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C read with
415(2) BNSS against the judgment of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 08.09.2023 in S.C.No.66 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
Crl.A.No.235 of 2025
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 08.09.2023 in
S.C.No.66 of 2021, the appellants / accused have filed the present criminal
appeal.
2. The Appellants herein, who are Accused in S.C.No.66 of 2021 on
the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, were
convicted and sentenced as follows
Sl.No. Accused Conviction Sentence
st
1. 1 Accused Section 302 of To undergo Life
IPC Imprisonment
and to pay a fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to pay
fine to undergo
Simple
Imprisonment
for a period of 6
Months.
Section 201 IPC To undergo 3
years Rigorous
Imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/-, in
default to pay
fine to undergo
Simple
Imprisonment
for a period of 3
Months.
2 2nd Accused Section 302 To undergo Life
r/w.114 and 34 Imprisonment
of IPC and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to pay
fine to undergo
Simple
Imprisonment
for a period of 6
Months.
Section 201 IPC To undergo 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
years Rigorous
Imprisonment
and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/-, in
default to pay
fine to undergo
Simple
Imprisonment
for a period of 3
Months.
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently
The period of remand already undergone by the accused was directed to be
set off. Aggrieved by the order of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the Appellants have preferred the present
Criminal Appeal before this Court
3. Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
(i) The deceased is a migrant labourer from Assam and the Accused 1
and 2, who are relatives, were brought by the deceased and both Accused 1
and 2 joined the work with PW1 in his poultry farm from 19.05.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
Later, they have given shelter by PW1. According to the prosecution case,
there was a dispute between the deceased and Accused 1 and 2 with regard
to bringing migrant labourers and getting commission by employing them.
While so, on 07.06.2021, when PWs 1 to 3 were working in the field, they
found decomposed body wrapped in plastic mats. Immediately, PW1 gave a
complaint (Ex.P1) and the police came to the spot and recovered plastic
mats (MO1), spade (MO2) and also the note books found in the place of
occurrence (MO3 series). PWs 5 to 8 are all migrant labourers working
along with A1 and A2. On 03.06.2021, PWs 5 to 8, accused and deceased
had a dinner at 06.00pm and thereafter Pws 5 to 8 left the place. PW16,
sold his bike to the deceased and also handed over the RC Book. PW18 has
seen the second accused two days prior to the occurrence going in a hurried
manner.
(ii) PW27-Investigating Officer, after receipt of FIR (Ex.P20),
received the body and went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
sketch (Ex.P23) and Observation Mahazar (Ex.P24) in the presence of
witnesses and seized MO 4 (blood stained earth) and MO5 (ordinary earth)
from the place of occurrence and sent the dead body to the Hospital for
postmortem and also seized blood stained dresses (MOs 9 to 12) under
Ex.P3 and P4 in the presence of PW4. On 08.06.2021, the Investigating
Officer arrested the first accused and recorded his confession, which was
translated by PW9. Based on the admitted portion of the confession, Vivo
Cellphone (MO14) and blue colour T-shirt (MO 15) were seized under
Ex.P5 mahazar and Spade (MO2) under Ex.P7 mahazar. Thereafter, altered
the crime under alteration report (Ex.P25) sent the accused and material
objects to the Court and PW25 prepared Exs. P26 and P27 on 08.06.2021
and again recorded the statement of the witnesses on 13.06.2021.
(iii) The second accused was arrested from Chattisgarh and his
confession was recorded. Based on confession of the second accused,
PW25 seized cellphone (MO21), Voter ID of the deceased (MO17), Pan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
Card of the deceased (MO16), ID Card of the deceased (MO18), Shirt
(MO19) and blood stained shirt (MO20) under Ex.P8 mahazar and
forwarded the material objects to the Court and remanded the accused to the
judicial custody. PW20 conducted autopsy on the dead body. According to
PW20, the body was in a fully decomposed state and could not be identified.
PW20 found the following injuries:
'Comminuted fracture of left franto temporo parieto occipital
bones, entire base of skull with chips of bone seen covering the
region with adjoining sub Scalpal contusion, brain matter not
present, clumps of maggot seen covering the region”
(iv) PW20 opined that the death occurred 6 to 7 days prior to the autopsy
and the deceased appeared to have died due to crush injuries on the head.
6.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
was complied with and the case was committed to the learned Principal
District and Sessions Court, Namakkal as contemplated under Section 209
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
of Cr.PC in S.C.No.66 of 2021 and was made over to the learned I
Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
7. In order to bring on the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined as many as 27 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents and 22
material objects.
8. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, found the accused
guilty and imposed the punishment as indicted supra. Challenging the same,
the present appeal has been filed.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and absolutely there is
no evidence to connect the circumstances. The accused, who are migrant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
workers, have been falsely implicated in this case. It is his further
contention that absolutely there is no evidence to establish the so called
motive and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused for grave
crime.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PWs
5 to 8, who are also known to the accused, have seen Accused 1 and 2 and
the deceased together on 03.06.2021 and thereafter, they have not seen.
This evidence coupled with the opinion of the Medical Officer clearly show
that death would have occurred on 03.06.2021. The learned Prosecutor
further submitted that second accused has also absconded and therefore, his
contact go against him. Further, the recovery made by the investigating
officer clearly prove the complicity of the accused and hence, it is his
contention that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
11. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence and the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to
prove their case, namely, motive, last seen theory and alleged recovery of
the material objects from the accused.
12. As far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has projected
the motive, as if the deceased alone was bringing the migrant labours from
their State and was getting commission for getting them job and the accused
were also wanted to do the same, which is not liked by the deceased and
therefore, there was a grudge and hence, there was a motive.
13. On a perusal of the entire evidence, we do not find any material to
show that the accused also brought migrant labours from their State and got
commission to substantiate the very charge of the prosecution that there was
a motive. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the motive by clinching
evidence.
14. As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, every
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
circumstances has to be established and there should be only one hypothesis
that only the accused committed the offence and there should not be any
other circumstances to doubt the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 has enunciated the principle of
circumstantial evidence as under:
‘12. ... The normal principle in a case based oncircumstantial
evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those
circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation
on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with his innocence.”
15. As far as the last seen theory is concerned, the prosecution has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
relied upon evidence of PWs 5 to 8. PWs 5 to 8 are also migrant labourers.
According to them, they had a dinner along with deceased and accused on
03.06.2021 at 06.00pm and thereafter, they went to their place and only
Accused 1 and 2 and deceased were in the place where Accused 1 and 2
used to stay. Except that, it is not their evidence that they have seen the
deceased or the accused alive thereafter. The evidence of the Medical
Officer clearly shows that the body was in a decomposed state beyond
recognition and though the death was due to crush injuries, the Medical
Officer opined that the deceased would have died 6 to 7 days prior to
autopsy. Postmortem was conducted on 10.06.2021. Though the exact date
and time of death cannot be given or ascertained, the opinion of the Medical
Officer clearly indicates that death would have occurred even on the
subsequent date also. Though PWs 5 to 8 have seen the accused and
deceased alive on 03.06.2021, that one circumstance alone is not sufficient
to come to a conclusion that the last seen theory has been established. To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
rely on the last seen theory, the time gap between the accused and the
deceased being seen alive and the discovery of the dead body must be
very small, enough to make it impossible for another person to have been
involved. This proximity of time is crucial because a smaller gap
strengthens the link between the accused and the crime, making it more
likely that the accused was the last person with the deceased before the
death occurred. Therefore, merely because the deceased was seen on
03.06. 2021 along with Accused 1 and 2, it cannot be said that only the
accused would have committed such offence. Dead body was found in a
decomposed state by PWs 1 to 3 on 07.06.2021 in the open field and
absolutely, there is no evidence to show that anyone else has seen the
accused and the deceased alive prior to that. Therefore, merely on the
evidence of PWs 5 to 8, we are not in a position to conclude that it is only
these accused have committed the offence since the time gap between the
point of time when they were seen together and the dead body was found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
was long.
16. The other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that on
the basis of the admitted portion of confession, MO2 (spade) was recovered
by PW25 in the presence of PW4. It is the admitted case of the prosecution
that the witnesses and the accused are not conversant in Tamil. The
Investigating Officer sought the help of PW9 to translate the so called
confession. Even assuming that the investigating officer followed the
proper procedure, the fact remains that the alleged recovery spoken to by the
Investigating Officer is highly doubtful for the reason that the Investigating
officer has stated that only pursuant to the confession of the first accused,
MO2 spade was recovered but on a perusal of evidence of PW1 indicates
that MO2 was very much available in the place of occurrence where the
dead body was found and the same was taken by the police on the same day
when they visited the spot. It is the further evidence of PW1 that other
dresses lying in the place of occurrence have also been seized by the police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
on 07.06.2021. Therefore, there is a contradiction regarding alleged
recovery. It is further to be noted that Ex.P5-seizer mahazar does not
disclose MO2 said to have been seized by the Investigating Officer. These
facts creates serious doubt about the very seizure.
17. Further, the very charge against the accused is that accused used
crow bar to cause head injury whereas it is the evidence of investigating
officer that only spade (MO2) was used. These facts create serious doubt in
the prosecution theory. That apart, the investigating officer has stated that
since spade was washed out by the accused, no blood stain was found but
that evidence is also contrary to the forensic report (Ex.P31) wherein it is
stated that blood was detected in the spade, which was sent for examination.
18. Of course the grouping has not been established. The fact
remains that the blood was very much on the metal spade but the evidence
of Investigating Officer shows that as if there was no blood stain. This
aspect also creates serious doubt. Further, the very mahazar (Ex.P5) do not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
show seizure of MO2 whereas the evidence of PW1 show that the spade was
very much there in the field and the same was seized by the police on the
same day. Though it is also submitted that the second accused was
absconding and left to his native, the evidence of PW15, if carefully seen,
the same will show that he had left the place two days prior to the
occurrence. Though PWs 5 to 8 would state that the second accused was
also present during dinner on 03.06.2021, PW18 in his evidence has stated
that he saw the second accused going in a hurried manner two days prior to
the occurrence. This creates doubt about the prosecution projecting the case
as if the accused has left the place after the occurrence. Therefore, merely
because the accused was arrested in Chattisgarh, it cannot be said that he
left the place and his conduct goes against him. A person visiting his own
place, cannot be used against him particularly in the absence of other
materials or evidence established in the prosecution theory and though the
investigating officer has spoken about seizure of Pan Card and phones of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
deceased under Ex.P8, a careful perusal of the evidence of investigating
officer and Ex.P5, the cellphone of deceased said to have been seized from
A1 on 08.06.2021. Therefore, again seizing the phone of the deceased from
A2 is also highly doubtful and further, the so called seizure is also effected
from the open place of the land belonging to PW1. Therefore, the recovery
is also highly doubtful. The prosecution has not clinchingly established the
circumstances. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly
and imposed the conviction mechanically.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the judgment
of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 08.09.2023
in S.C.No.66 of 2021, is set aside, and the accused are acquitted of all the
charges framed against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the
appellants/accused 1 & 2 shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by
the appellants shall stand discharged. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
21.11.2025
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
gpa
To:
1. I Additional District and Sessions Judge
Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police,
D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station
Kuniyamuthur, Coimbatore
Coimbatore District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:08:41 pm )
