Madras High Court
T.Neela vs The State Represented By on 25 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.157 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.157 of 2019
T.Neela ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thirukoyilur Police Station,
Villupuram District
2.Manikandan
3.Ponnarasi
4.Ramesh ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Proviso to Section 372 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal in
S.C.No.125/2013 dated 03.11.2018 on the file of the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villpuram and the respondents/accused 1,
2 & 3 be convicted for committing offences under Section 120B read with
Section 302 of IPC and the offences under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-
B)(a) and Section 29(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
Crl.A.No.157 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.S.Raveekumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem for R1
No appearance for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
The appellant/defacto complainant, who is the wife of the
deceased/Dharani has approached this Court challenging the judgment of
the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villpuram in
S.C.No.125/2013 dated 03.11.2018 vide which the Court had acquitted the
respondents 2 to 4/accused on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for
the benefits of doubt.
2. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
2.a. P.W.1 / defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased Dharani.
PW1 stated that on 17.09.2010 at about 4 pm, A1 had taken her husband to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
fetch pork meat, subsequently he has not turned up. Hence, she called him
via cellphone. But it was switched off. On 18.09.2010 at about 9 am, she
received a call that her husband Dharani was found dead at Sudharamurthy
sugarcane field. She lodged a complaint before Tirukuoilur Police Station.
The police registered a case in Crime No.721 of 2010 for the offences under
Section 302 of IPC in a printed FIR (Ex.P11). PW18, Inspector of Police
took over the investigation and visited the place of occurrence and prepared
Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch (Ex.P2 and Ex.P17) and he seized
ordinary mud (M.O.1), Blood stained mud (M.O.2), Hair (M.O.3), front
teeth (M.O.4) as per seizure mahazar under Ex.P3. PW18 recorded the
statement of witness and conducted inquest in the present of panchayatdar
and prepared inquest report under Ex.P18. PW18 sent the deceased body for
autopsy through PW14 / Head Constable. PW13 conducted autopsy after
identification of deceased body through PW14 and submitted postmortem
report (Ex.P9) and issued final opinion under Ex.P10. PW13 opined that
cause of death due to shock and hemorrhage due to (a)injury to abdominal
organs by fire arm weapon and (b) injury to brain.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
2.b. PW18/Investigating Officer arrested A1 and A2 on 20.09.2010 at
Manampoondi bus stop and recorded the confession statement of A1 in the
presence of PW6. Based on the confession of A1 (admitted portion of
confession statement under Ex.P4), PW18 seized the country gun -M.O.5
under Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar in a well belonged to Mottai Udayar at
Paradapet Village. PW18 also recorded the confession statement of A2 in
the presence of PW6 (admitted portion of confession statement of Ex.P6).
Based on confession of A2, PW18 seized Poonam Saree - M.O.6 under
Seizure Mahazar in Ex.P7. PW18 / Investigating Officer arrested A3 on
20.09.2010 at Anthili Bus Stop. He sent them to judicial custody and case
properties to the Court under Form 95. PW14 – Forensic Scientific Expert
has given report Ex.P14. PW17 – Balastic Expert has given report under
Ex.P16. PW18 also recovered blood stain lungi - M.O.7, Shirt – M.O.8,
Banniyan – M.O.9. After examining several witnesses and obtaining
various reports, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and
filed final report that A1 and A2 committed offence punishable under
Section 120(B) r/w. 302 IPC and Section 3 r/w. 25(1-B)(a) and 29(b) of
Arms Act, 1959. That case was taken in P.R.C.No.21 of 2012 on the file of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirukoilur, for the offences under Sections
120B read with Section 302 of IPC against A1 and A2 and Section 3 read
with Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 29(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 against
A3.
2.c. On the appearance of A1 to A3, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Principal
District Sessions Court. The Principal District Sessions Court had made
over this case to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Villupuram in S.C.No.125 of 2013, for trial. The trial Court framed charges
under Sections 120B read with Section 302 of IPC against A1 and A2 and
Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 29(b) of the Arms Act,
1959 against A3. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.
2.d. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses,
marked 18 exhibits and produced 9 Material Object. When the accused were
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them, they denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no
witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
2.e. The trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary
evidence, found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the
charges, and as a result, the accused were acquitted and set at liberty.
Assailing the said Judgment, the P.W.1 / defacto complainant / wife of the
deceased has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal.
3. Mr.S.Raveekumar, learned counsel for the defacto complainant /
P.W.1 / appellant would contend that the learned Additional District Judge
has committed material illegality and irregularity in acquitting the
respondents 2 to 4/accused and the impugned judgment is illegal, contrary
to the material evidence in the case. The approach of the Trial Court in
acquitting the accused of the offence alleged against them is erroneous
which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that the
Trial Court, by exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of the
doubt, has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it
is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of
the learned Trial Judge are perverse and that there is no possibility to arrive
at such a conclusion. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
learned Trial Judge and to allow this appeal, thereby finding the accused
guilty of charges under Section 120B read with Section 302 of IPC and the
offences under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a) and Section 29(b) of
the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that though
the learned Judge held that the death of the deceased was homicidal, the
Trial Court ought to have exercised the powers under Section 357A of
Cr.P.C and ordered compensation to the appellant and her children for their
basic sustenance, considering the impoverished state of the appellant's
family. Hence, also sought for appropriate orders. To strengthen his
contention, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [(1976) 4 SCC 233]
(ii) Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 5 SCC 509]
(iii) Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi [(2016) 3 SCC 108]
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would reiterate the
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. According to the prosecution, the deceased Dharani and A2 had
illicit relationship. When Dharani went to abroad, A2 developed illicit
relationship with A1. Since deceased Dharani was obstacle to their affair.
A1 and A2 decided to do away Dharani. Hence, they hatched conspiracy in
the house of A2 two days prior to the death of Dharani. That on 17.09.2010
at about 4 pm, A1 went to Dharani's house at Paradapet and took him to
Samymalai forest to fetch pork meat. He had taken country gun got from A3
and went to Samymalai forest at about 5.30 pm. A2 was already present at
Sundharamurthy Udayar sugarcane filed at Kolaparai village. When the
deceased questioned A2 about her betrayal, A1 shot at him at his stomach
and that he fell down in blood pool. Then A1 and A2 dropped stone on his
head and he died on the spot. According to the prosecution, A1 and A2 had
committed murder and A3 had country gun without license and that he had
given his gun to A1 which was used for committing the crime. This is a
case based upon circumstantial evidence and to establish the case of the
prosecution, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances ;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
(a) Motive, (b) Last Seen Theory and (c) recovery under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and (d) Medical Evidence. The facts of the cases turns
out on their own merits and hence, the authorities relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant do not have relevance to the case at hand.
8. No doubt, it is a well-established legal principle that there is no
distinction between an appeal made against a conviction and an appeal
made against an acquittal, and this Court has got full power to reconsider
and reassess the evidence. Nonetheless, there exists a subtle yet significant
difference between appealing a conviction and appealing an acquittal. When
addressing an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is
reinforced, and typically, the reasonable conclusions drawn by the trial
Court should not be disrupted.
9. With regard to the above settled legal principle, it is to be noted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramanand Yadav Vs.
Prabhunat Jha reported in 2003 (12) SCC 606 and in C.K. Dase Gowda
and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 (13) SCC 119 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
observed that there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence
of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration
of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less
than from the conviction of an innocent.
10. Now, this Court feels apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 has held as follows:-
“42.Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarised as:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive --
inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii)Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds
that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible
view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for
acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court.”
11. 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. The prosecution had to prove the guilt in each and
every genesis of the hypothesis without break in the chain. The prosecution
had relied upon the following circumstantial evidences to prove motive, last
seen theory, extra-judicial confession and recovery under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. In order to establish motive, the prosecution has relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
upon the evidence of PW2 to PW4. Except PW4, none of the witness spoke
about the illicit affair between the deceased and A1 and A2. PW4/father in
law of deceased stated the deceased and A2 had illicit affair, but, he did not
whisper anything that A1 and A2 had illicit affair and in that there was
dispute among the deceased A1 and A2. The best person to speak about the
so-called illicit intimacy between the deceased and A2 is PW1; however, the
PW1 never whispered anything about the illicit intimacy between the
deceased, A1 and A2.
12. Coming to the aspect of last seen theory, in order to prove the last
seen theory, the prosecution has relied upon the evidences of PW1, PW7 to
PW11. PW1/wife of deceased deposed that on 17.09.2010 at about 4 pm, A1
had come to her house and took the deceased along with him. PW1 had not
enquired about her husband with A1 until the next day. The conduct of PW1
creates a serious doubt over the testimony. It is strange that she had not
enquired about her husband with A1 on the same day itself, particularly, A1
house is also situated very close to the house of PW1. PW7 deposed that he
had seen A1 with country gun on 15.09.2010 and he heard from his father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
that Dharani died on 17.09.2010, but he has not deposed that he had seen
the deceased and A1 together in his evidence. Similarly, PW8 stated that
when he was coming towards between Kolaparai and Parapet, he had seen
A1 and A2, therefore, PW8 had not seen the deceased and A1 and A2
together. PW6 deposed that when he came to police station on 17.09.2010 at
about 11.00 am, he found A1 and A2 in the police station. Therefore,
evidence of PW6 to PW11 falsifies the case of PW1 that the A1 had taken
the deceased on 17.09.2010 at about 4 pm. None of the witness have been
examined to establish that the accused was seen alive lastly with the
deceased. None of the witness spoke about A1 accompanying the deceased
together before the death of the deceased except PW1.
13. Coming to the aspect of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, according to the prosecution, PW18/Inspector of Police
arrested A1 and A2 on 20.09.2010 at about 9 am at Manampoondi bus stop.
A1 and A2 voluntarily had given confession statement in the presence of
PW6/VAO of Thirupalapandai. PW6 deposed that the country gun M.O.5
was recovered from the well belonged to Mottai Udayar and it was taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
away by A1. Whereas, PW7 deposed that he had taken M.O.5 country gun
from the well, whereas, PW18/Inspector of Police deposed that A1 had
taken country gun M.O.5 from the well by himself and further deposed that
it is false that if PW7 had deposed that he had taken from the well. These
facts also creates serious doubt over the prosecution case. Further, PW6 had
stated that A2 had given confession statement in his presence and that in
pursuance, they had recovered saree near well. Whereas, PW18 deposed that
saree, blouse were recovered from the bathroom belonged to Thagavel
Udayar, father of A1 as per the seizure mahazar/Ex.P7. The evidence of
PW6 and PW18 with regard to the confession and recovery is inconsistent
and self contradictory which creates doubt over the prosecution case.
14. Though homicide was established by way of gun shot by the
prosecution through evidence of medical officer/PW13, the ballistic
expert/PW17 examined by the prosecution clearly deposed that the black
powder though found in the barrel, skin and hole of the injury, that black
powder has not been thrown. Admittedly, it is a country made gun and the
black powder has been used, whenever the gun powder is used and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
has resulted in injury to the human being, the traces of the gun powder
should also be found in the existing injury. Admittedly, skin collected from
the body of the deceased was also subjected to examination by the expert, in
that regard, the ballistic expert deposed that he never found any such gun
powder traces around the existing injury. Further, PW17 also opined that
powder patten due to gun shot was not observed around two holes in the
skin. This is a lapse on the part of the investigation.
15. It is also to be noted that the prosecution has not obtained
sanction from the District Magistrate under Section 39 of the Arms Act,
1959 and filed the same before the Trial Court to prosecute a person under
Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. Though the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that sanction was obtained, however, the same has not
been filed before this Court. Even assuming that sanction was obtained
under Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959, that will not help the case of the
prosecution. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that there is a nexus
between the accused A1 to A3 and the commission offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
16. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and
therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly given the benefit
of doubt to the accused and when a plausible view is taken by the Trial
Court, this Court in Appeal cannot take a different possible view by re-
appreciating the evidence, ergo, this Court does not find any merits in this
appeal.
17. Accordingly, the appeal has to be dismissed confirming the
judgement of acquittal of the trial Court. In the instant case on hand, the
Trial Court has not passed any order under Section 357A of the Code
relating to compensation payable to the victim.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Section 357A of the Code is
which is extracted hereunder:
“357A. Victim compensation Scheme
(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the
Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing
funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his
dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the
crime and who require rehabilitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court
for compensation, the District Legal Services Authority or the
State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, shall decide
the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme
referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is
satisfied, that the compensation awarded under Section 357 is
not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in
acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it
may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the
victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim
or his dependents may make application to the State or the
District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the
application under sub-section(4), the State or the District
Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award
adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two
months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as
the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may
order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be
made available free of cost on the certificate of the police
officer not below the rank of the officer-in-charge of the police
station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other
interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.
19. In terms of the mandate under sub-section(2) of Section 357A of
the Code, the Court may recommend the District Legal Services Authority
or the State Legal Services Authority for compensation to be paid to the
victim. On receipt of such recommendation by the Court, the State or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
District Legal Services Authority acting under sub-section(5) of Section
357A of the Code has to hold an enquiry to determine the compensation
payable to the victim. The State of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 357-A CrPC 1973 Act No.2 of 1974), prepared a
Scheme for providing compensation for the purpose of fixation of
compensation to the victim who have suffered loss or injury as a result of
the Crime, by way of rehabilitation scheme, namely ‘The Tamil Nadu Victim
Compensation Scheme, 2013’ (‘Scheme 2013’, for short).
20. In the instant case no application has been filed on behalf of the
victim seeking compensation. Clause 10 of the Scheme 2013 provides that
an application seeking compensation shall not be entertained after six
months from the date of the crime. However, the power is conferred on the
State or District Legal Services Authority to condone the delay for sufficient
reasons, if the claim is made beyond the prescribed period of six months.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that PW.1-T.Neela, who has
lost her husband at the age of 29, should be compensated appropriately as
per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming
the judgement of acquittal dated 03.11.2018 in SC.No.125 of 2023 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram.
22. The appellant /victim / PW1 is required to make an application for
award of compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation
Scheme, 2013, as expeditiously as possible. Upon receipt of such an
application, the District Legal Services Authority, Villupuram, after due
enquiry, shall award adequate compensation as per the said Scheme. A copy
of this order shall also be sent to the District Legal Services Authority,
Villupuram, and the action taken report shall be submitted to the Tamil
Nadu State Legal Services Authority for reference.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
25.10.2025
dhk/jvm
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villpuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirukoyilur Police Station,
Villupuram District
3.The District Legal Services Authority, Villupuram
4.The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dhk/jvm
25.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2025 09:36:58 pm )
