Madras High Court
Raj Bahadur Singh vs State Rep. By on 25 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.1321 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.1321 of 2024
Raj Bahadur Singh ... Appellant/Accused
-vs-
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kelamangalam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.225 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 (2) of The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the conviction and sentence passed
by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur in S.C.No.35 of 2022
dated 30.01.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.O.G.Dhilip Roshan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
Crl.A.No.1321 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)
Challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur in S.C.No.35 of 2022, this
appeal has been preferred.
2.Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
2.1. The deceased (Digamber Baig) and the accused were
migrant workers. They worked under P.W.1, who is the Operator in the
Supreme Company at Bairamangalam, as Helpers. Both the deceased and the
accused resided in the house of P.W.2 for rent. On 25.07.2021, as the
deceased did not come for work, P.W.1 visited the house of the deceased for
enquiry, where he found that both the accused and the deceased were
consuming liquor. On the next day, the accused called P.W.1 at around 14.40
hours and informed that pursuant to a quarrel between himself and the
deceased, he killed the deceased. P.W.1 immediately informed P.W.2 to go
to the room of the deceased and verify as to the genuineness of the phone call
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
made by the accused. P.W.2 went there and opened the door of the house,
where he found the deceased to be dead. P.W.1 immediately lodged a
complaint (Ex.P1) to P.W.11, who registered a case in Crime No.225 of
2021 under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P8 and forwarded the same to the
Court with a copy to the Investigation Officer (P.W.12).
2.2. P.W.12 / Circle Inspector, after receipt of FIR, conducted
investigation, went to the scene of occurrence on 27.07.2021, prepared
observation mahazar (Ex.P4), rough sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of P.W.7,
conducted inquest over the dead body (Ex.P10), sent the body for autopsy
with a requisition for post-mortem. P.Ws.2 and 5 had seen the dead body.
P.Ws.3 and 4, who were erstwhile and the present Supervisors of the
Company identified the accused. P.W.6 / Medical Officer attached to the
Government Hospital, Thenkanikottai, conducted autopsy on the dead body
of the deceased and noted the followings injuries:
“1) Incomplete ligature abrasion mark 23x2 cm over
upper neck, 6cm from right mastoid, 6 cm from chin, 9 cm from
sternum, 3cm from left mastoid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
2) Laceration of 3x2x1 cm on left termporal region.
3) Abrasion 3x2 cm on right chest wall.
4) Abrasion of 2x2 cm left chest wall.
Internal Examination:
Hyoid bone-intact, right rib 2 to 8 ribs fracture, left ribs 3
to 9 ribs fracture. Both lungs contusion noted over middle and
lower lobe. Cross section was congested. Liver laceration of
size 12x3x2 cm on right lobe of liver. Cross section was
congested. Stomach 100 ml of partially digested food particles
noted. Mucosa congested with no specific smell. Kidney right
side 90 gms, left side 110 gms. Cross section was congested.
Spleen laceration of size 3x2x2 cm cross section was congested.
Bladder empty. Skull normal, membrine normal, brain normal.
Base of skull was intact.”
P.W.6 issued Post-mortem certificate (Ex.P2) and opined on the basis of the
Toxicology Report (Ex.P3) that the deceased would appear to have died of
shock and haemorrhage due to vital organ injury.
2.3. P.W.12 / Investigation Officer examined witnesses,
recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and arrested the accused on
27.07.2021 at 12.30 hours in the presence of P.W.8 / VAO. The admissible
portion of the confession of the accused was marked as Ex.P5, on the basis
of which, P.W.12 seized M.O.1 (Iron Pipe) under Ex.P6. P.W.10 / Constable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
recovered M.O.3 (dresses) of the deceased. The material objects were
forwarded to the Court and the accused to the remand. P.W.12 finally laid a
final report against the accused under Section 302 IPC.
2.4. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and
marked 10 exhibits and 3 material objects. On behalf of defence, neither
witness were examined and nor exhibits marked. On appreciation of
evidence, oral and documentary, the Trial Court, under judgment dated
30.01.2023, convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused was ordered
to be set off.
3. Mr.O.G.Dhilip Roshan, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is highly improbable and the
evidence of P.W.1 that he had seen both the accused and the deceased
together having liquor, is found to be falsified in terms of the Toxicology
Report (Ex.P3), wherein it was stated that no alcohol was detected in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
body of the deceased. Further, there is no explanation forthcoming as to the
delay in filing FIR and the same was also dispatched to the Court with
inordinate delay. He further submitted that P.W.2 / owner of the house had
deposed that when he forcibly opened the door of the house, he found the
dead body of the deceased lying to the earth, which creates serious doubt
about the prosecution version. That apart, P.W.6 / Medical Officer clearly
admitted that there is a possibility of sustaining injuries due to the fall of the
deceased. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the entire evidence in
proper perspective and the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is
liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the guilt
of the accused had been duly established by the prosecution through the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, who had seen the deceased and the accused
together alive on 25.07.2021 and on the next day, the deceased was found
dead inside the house, where the accused and the deceased were actually
residing. The accused has not explained the actual circumstances exclusively
within his knowledge. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
rightly convicted the accused to undergo sentence as afore-stated. The
judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the material documents available on record.
6. The accused and the deceased were migrant workers,
belonging to Uttar Pradesh and Odisha respectively. Similarly, P.W.1, who
hails from Bihar, is the Operator of the Company. Both the accused and the
deceased worked under P.W.1 as Helpers in the very same Company.
According to P.W.1, the deceased and the accused were residing for rent in
the house of P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that originally he let out the
house only to the accused and thereafter, the deceased joined him. The entire
case rests on the circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has relied upon the
following circumstances, namely, i) so-called last seen theory ii) accused and
deceased were residing in the house of P.W.2, wherein the dead body of the
deceased was found and iii) the recovery of material objects M.Os.1 & 2.
7. As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, every
circumstances has to be established and there should be only one hypothesis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
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.”
8. The evidence of P.W.1 indicates that as the deceased did not
come to the job on 25.07.2021, he went to the house of P.W.2, where he saw
the deceased and the accused taking liquor. Immediately, he instructed the
deceased to report for duty and thereafter, P.W.1 left the place. It is relevant
to note that his evidence does not indicate as to when he actually saw the
accused and deceased together. This aspect is very silent. The evidence of
P.W.5 discloses that the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each
other in front of Sampath Shop between 10 to 10.30pm on 25.07.2021. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
further evidence of P.W.1 that the accused himself called him at 2.40pm on
the next day and informed him that pursuant to a quarrel between them, the
deceased died. Therefore, P.W.1 instructed P.W.2 to verify the statement.
Though the evidence of P.W.1 is fortified by the evidence of P.W.2, the fact
remains that P.W.2 had not noted any external injuries on the dead body of
the deceased, except a small injury on the stomach. That apart, he did not see
any blood stain, whereas P.W.5, in his evidence stated as if he had seen
several injuries on the forehead. These contradictions in the statement of
P.Ws.2 and 5 create a cloud of suspicion.
9. Be that as it may, P.W.6 / Medical Officer, who conducted
post-mortem over the dead body noted laceration of 3x2x1 cm on left
termporal region, abrasion 3x2 cm on right chest wall and abrasion of 2x2 cm
left chest wall. P.W.6 also found fractures 2 to 8 in right ribs and 3 to 9 in left
ribs. Though P.W.6 opined that the deceased could have died of shock and
hemorrhage due to vital organ injury, the viscera report did not show that the
deceased was under the influence of alcohol, as the evidence of P.W.6 and
Ex.P3 rules out the consumption of liquor by the deceased, whereas P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
stated as if the deceased and the accused were quarreling with each other and
they were taking liquor. These facts create serious doubt about the
prosecution version, as the Medical evidence and the viscera report clearly
show that the deceased did not take any liquor. Therefore, the evidence of
P.W.1 becomes doubtful to base conviction for life imprisonment.
10. To 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 by P.W.1 on
25.07.2021 along with the accused, it cannot be said that only the accused
would have committed such offence.
11. The evidence of P.W.5 indicates as if he had seen both the
accused and deceased in front of Sampath Shop between 10 to 10.30pm on
25.07.2021, which also creates serious doubt, as the said Sampath has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
been examined. Though P.W.5 categorically stated that there were injuries on
the dead body, the evidence of P.W.2 / owner of the house goes otherwise,
as he did not notice any serious injuries, more particularly blood stain on the
dead body. Be that as it may, even though P.W.6 noted certain injuries on the
dead body, in his cross examination, he had clearly stated that such injuries
are possible due to sudden fall in the steps. Further, the seizure of M.Os.1
and 2 was not proved with any incriminating materials like blood stain, etc.
12. It is relevant to note that it is the case of P.W.1 that the
accused himself confessed about the crime on the very next day at 14.40
hours. But, FIR has been given only at 9.00pm on the same day. No
explanation whatsoever has been forthcoming for the delay in lodging FIR.
That apart, the FIR has been dispatched to the Court on the very next day at
2.25pm on 27.07.2021, which has not been explained on the side of the
prosecution. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that he does not
know Tamil, whereas the complaint has been given in Tamil language and
FIR has also been registered in the very same language. It has not been
established as to who has translated the version of P.W.1. All these lacuna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
leaves suspicion over the entire theory of the prosecution. Since the version
of P.W.1 has been falsified by the evidence of Medical Officer, who had
stated that there is also a possibility of sustaining injuries due to the fall of
the deceased in the steps, it is highly unsafe to convict a person for the grave
offence. When there are two views possible, viz., one is in favour of the
accused and another is in favour of the prosecution, the view in favour of the
accused is normally preferred.
13. Considering the fact that the prosecution has not proved the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and also the fact that the Trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, we are of
the view that the judgment of the Trial Court has no legs to stand and
requires interference by this Court.
14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / sole accused in
S.C.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Hosur dated 30.01.2023 are set aside and the appellant / accused is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
acquitted of all the charges. The appellant/accused is directed to be released
forthwith, unless his custody is required in any other case. Fine amount, if
any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand
cancelled.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
25.11.2025
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
ar
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ar
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hosur
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kelamangalam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras. Crl.A.No.1321 of 2024
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
