Madras High Court
Rajesh vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.501 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.501 of 2018
1.Rajesh
2.Nagaraj ... Appellants
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
R-8 Vadapalani Police Station,
Chennai - 26. ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.327 of 2016, dated 10.08.2018.
For Appellants : Mr.J.William Shakesphere
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
Crl.A.No.501 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.327 of 2016,
dated 10.08.2018, A1 and A2 have filed the present appeal. The
appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as
follows :
Accused Conviction Sentence
Section 307 r/w. Seven years imprisonment each and fine of
34 IPC Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months
A1 & A2 simple imprisonment
Section 294(b) IPC Fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one week
A1 Section 324 IPC One year imprisonment
The sentences shall run concurrently.
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1.P.W.1 (Vijayakumar) is a resident of Vadapalani, Chennai. A1
(Rajesh) is running a chit business. P.W.1 has taken a chit of Rs.1 Lakh
from A1, in respect of which, A1 used to come frequently to the house of
P.W.1, as a result of which, A1 got acquainted with P.W.1's wife Kowsalya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
and this developed into an illegal intimacy between them. On 18.05.2016,
P.W.1's wife went missing and therefore, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before
the Police. The next day, i.e., on 19.05.2016, the Police called upon P.W.1
to come to Police Station and at that time, P.W.1's wife refused to join him
and went along with A1 in his motorcycle. On 08.06.2016, when P.W.1's
younger son (P.W.4) went to a birthday function, A2 (Nagaraj) humiliated
P.W.4. On the same night at 9.30 p.m., A1 (Rajesh), A2 (Nagaraj) and one
Nageswara Rao came to P.W.1's house and abused him in a filthy language.
Thereafter, at 11.30 p.m., when P.W.1 and his younger son (P.W.4) went to a
restaurant near Kumaran Colony to buy food, A1 (Rajesh), A2 (Nagaraj) and
Nageswara Rao were standing near Kalpatha Apartments and asked P.W.1 as
to what business does he have in their area. A1 (Rajesh) was carrying a
knife (M.O.1) in his hand. Saying that P.W.1's wife is still with him, A1
tried to attack P.W.1 with the knife (M.O.1). When P.W.2 (Abishek) tried to
prevent the attack, he received cut injuries on his stomach and shoulder.
Further, A2 (Nagaraj) attacked P.W.1's younger son (P.W.4) with a wooden
log (M.O.2), by which, P.W.4 sustained injuries on head. Thereafter, P.W.2
(Abishek) was taken to hospital by P.W.1's uncle's son Sivakumar and P.W.4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
(Rohith) was taken to hospital by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 visited Vijaya
Hospital, where his elder son (P.W.2) was admitted in ICU. Thereafter, at
4.30 a.m., P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) in this regard, before the
respondent Police.
3.According to P.W.2 (Abishek - younger son of P.W.1), when he tried
to ward off the attack made by A1 on his father (P.W.1), he received injuries
on the left hip. P.W.3 (Mari @ Sivakumar) has also witnessed the
occurrence.
4.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by P.W.1, an FIR (Ex.P11)
came to be registered in Crime No.822 of 2016 at 4.00 a.m. on 09.06.2016
by Mr.Pasupathy, Inspector of Police (P.W.19) as against Rajesh (A1) and
Nagaraj (A2) for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC.
5.After registration of FIR (Ex.P11), P.W.19 took up the investigation
and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar
(Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of witnesses P.W.5 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
P.W.18 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he arrested
the accused A1 (Rajesh) and A2 (Nagaraj) at 16.15 hours on 09.06.2016.
Based on the confession of A1, admitted portion of which is marked as
Ex.P3, the Investigating Officer (P.W.19) seized the knife (M.O.1) and
wooden log (M.O.2) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P4). Thereafter, he sent
the collected material objects to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.P13). After
recording the statements of the witnesses, he handed over the case file to
Mr.Alphin Raj, Inspector of Police (P.W.20) for further investigation.
6.P.W.20, in continuation of investigation, recorded the statements of
the Medical Officers who treated the injured. Dr.Senthil (P.W.16) who gave
treatment to P.W.4 (Rohith) has noted laceration of 3 x 2 cm on the head and
issued Accident Register (Ex.P5). Dr.Senthil Kumar (P.W.17) has opined
that it is a simple injury and issued Wound Certificate (Ex.P6) and
Discharge Summary (Ex.P7). Dr.Krishnamurthy (P.W.18) who admitted
Abishek (P.W.2) in Vijaya Hospital, issued Accident Register (Ex.P8) and
Wound Certificate (Ex.P9) noting down lacerated wound on left side of
thorax (around 18 cm) and lacerated wound on left shoulder around 5 cm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
Thereafter, P.W.2 (Abishek) was discharged vide Discharge Summary
(Ex.P10).
7.After completing the investigation, P.W.20 laid a final report as
against the accused A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323,
324 and 307 r/w. 34 IPC in P.R.C.No.87 of 2016 before the XVII
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
8.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 Session in
S.C.No.327 of 2016 and was made over to the VII Additional Sessions
Court, Chennai, for trial.
9.The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections
294(b) IPC and 307 r/w. 34 IPC as against A1 and A2; for the offence under
Section 324 IPC as against A1; and for the offence under Section 323 IPC as
against A2. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
10.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1
to P.W.20, marked Exs.P1 to P13, and produced M.Os.1 and 2. On the side
of the defence, no witness was examined nor any document marked.
11.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 10.08.2018 in
S.C.No.327 of 2016, while acquitting A2 of the charge under Section 323
IPC, found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307
r/w. 34 IPC and also found A1 guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC
and thereby, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.
12.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has
been filed by both the accused.
13.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would
submit that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 cannot be relied upon, since they
have been charged for the offence of murder of Nageswara Rao in another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
case in Crime No.821 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. It is his further
contention that the Investigating Officer ought to have closed this case,
since the injuries are simple in nature. Without finding the real aggressor,
these accused have been implicated falsely. Therefore, it is his contention
that the Police Standing Order (PSO 566) has not been followed. Further, it
is his contention that the witnesses have totally suppressed the other version
as well as the very genesis of the occurrence. The witnesses have clearly
stated only their version and the other version is totally suppressed and they
have not come out with truth. Therefore, the evidence of the witnesses
cannot be relied upon. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the
judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court by relying upon such
evidence of the witnesses, has to be set aside.
14.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that the witnesses have clearly spoken about the occurrence and the overt
acts of both the accused. It is his contention that the witnesses have clearly
narrated that when A1 tried to attack P.W.1 with knife (M.O.1), P.W.2
(Abishek) warded off the attack, due to which, he sustained injuries. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
Wound Certificate (Ex.P9) also clearly shows that P.W.2 (Abhishek) has
been severely injured on his chest and shoulder. Further, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that both the groups have
committed acts of aggression and therefore, two separate final reports have
been filed as against each group. Since the prosecution has clearly
established the guilt of the accused through prosecution witnesses and
medical evidence, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and convicted the accused and therefore, the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court, warrants no interference.
15.We have perused the entire materials available on record.
16.On a perusal of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the
very FIR itself is an afterthought. The evidence of P.W.2 would indicate
that, immediately after the occurrence, the Police visited the spot and
informed the witnesses to go to the hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 has given a
different story that he went to the Police Station at 4.00 a.m. and lodged a
complaint, which clearly indicates that it is only an afterthought.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
17.Admittedly, these accused were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 in
the other Sessions Case in S.C.No.273 of 2016 in respect of the charge
under Section 302 IPC. The other version is totally suppressed by both the
groups. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place near
an Apartment. However, the Investigating Officer has not even made an
attempt to find out the truth by seizing the CCTV Footages normally
available before every apartment in the city. Further, it is not the case of the
witnesses that there was source of light and they witnessed the occurrence
clearly in light.
18.P.W.4 (Rohith) has informed the Doctor that the occurrence took
place at 11.45 p.m. as seen from Ex.P5, whereas, the other injured Abishek
(P.W.2) has stated before the Medical Officer that the occurrence took place
at 10.00 p.m, as seen from Ex.P9. These facts create serious doubt about the
nature of occurrence, exact time of occurrence, place of occurrence and how
both groups sustained injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
19.Admittedly, there was a scuffle between two groups. However,
who attacked whom, has not been explained. In both the cases, the
witnesses have supported only their version, as if nothing happened to the
other side. Further, the Investigating Officer has also not made any attempt
to find out who are the aggressors and has mechanically filed final reports in
both the cases, which is against the very guidelines issued by the Full Bench
of this Court in T.Balaji v. State [Crl.O.P.Nos.4587 of 2024, etc. and batch,
dated 08.08.2024]. The Hon'ble Full Bench, in the said judgment, has held
as follows :
“49.The next question is whether a failure to adhere to
PSO 566, ipso facto, vitiate the prosecution? It is well-settled
that any defect in the investigation does not automatically
vitiate trial unless a miscarriage of justice is shown (vide H.N
Rishbud v State, AIR 1955 SC 196). In some cases where a
procedural defect is shown at the earliest point of time, it
would be possible for the superior court to remedy the
situation by setting aside the final reports and issuing
directions for proper investigation and filing of the final
report. However, where the case is at an advanced stage a plea
of non-compliance of PSO 566 cannot be acceded to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
automatically unless a miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
Whether miscarriage of justice has occurred or not will
depend on facts which must be assessed from case to case, and
we need say no more on this aspect at this stage except
observing that the directions contained in paragraph 35,
would ensure that such cases would be few and far between.
...
(b) At the stage of completion of investigation :
On completion of investigation, the investigation officer
may adopt any one of the below course of action :
i. Where the rival versions of the same incident are
inconsistent with each other ie., if one is true the other must
be false, the investigation officer is duty-bound to come
forward with a definitive case and cannot file final reports
under Section 193 BNSS 2023 in both cases (PSO 566).
ii. If the investigation officer after investigation finds
that one version is true and the other is false he shall file a
final report in the former case and refer the latter case as a
mistake of fact/law. While filing the final report the IO must
specifically state the gist of the counter case and the result of
the investigation in that case. He shall also ensure that the FIR
and the materials collected in the counter case are annexed to
the final report and forwarded to the Jurisdictional Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
who can take cognizance of the offence.
iii. Where the investigation officer finds from the
investigation that the divergent versions of the same incident
are not absolutely inconsistent with each other but however
finds that one party is an aggressor and the other party has
acted in self-defence, he should ordinarily file a final report
only against the aggressor.
iv. The party whose complaint is found to be false or is
found to be the aggressor by the IO resulting in the case being
referred as a mistake of fact, shall serve RCS notice to the
complainant. The complainant/victim may file a protest
petition and proceed further in a manner known to law.
v. Where after a thorough investigation he is unable to
find the real aggressor or where both parties are aggressors
and have exceeded the bounds of the law and committed
independent offences against each other, he may file a final
report in each of the cases. For the sake of clarity, we repeat
that these are cases which are not inconsistent with each other.
They are no doubt rival versions of the same incident but are
cases where both parties are found to have acted lawlessly or
committed acts of aggression. It is not necessary for the IO to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
obtain an opinion from the Public Prosecutor before filing two
final reports in such cases. However, the IO must assign
proper reasons indicating the factual reasons for filing two
final reports in such cases.
vi. In case and counter cases arising out of factious
rioting, communal and political clashes etc., the IO will
scrupulously follow PSO 703(i) and investigate the case
thoroughly. It is the duty of the IO to investigate and identify
the real aggressor keeping in mind the directions contained in
the said PSO. The filing of two final reports in such cases must
be confined to cases where both parties are found to have
acted lawlessly and committed acts of aggression.
vii. The aforesaid directions shall be adhered to
scrupulously and failure to follow the aforesaid directions will
expose the concerned investigation officer to departmental
action.”
(emphasis supplied)
20.In the present case, the Investigating Officer has not followed the
procedure as per PSO 566. When it is a case and case-in-counter, normally,
the Investigating Officer has to investigate into the matter and find out who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
is the real aggressor and file a final report as against the aggressor and close
the other FIR as mistake of fact. However, the Investigating Officer, has
mechanically filed final report in both the cases, one for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and other for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
21.Further, even when two final reports are filed, the learned
Magistrate can scrutinize the final reports carefully and if it is found that the
Investigating Officer has mechanically filed two final reports without
properly investigating the matter, the learned Magistrate can return the final
reports and direct the Investigating Officer to come up with a definitive
case. In this regard, the Full Bench of this Court in T.Balaji v. State
(supra), has held as follows :
“B. For the Courts
(a) Pre-Cognizance stage :
...
iv. Where two final reports are filed in a case and
counter case, it is the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize the
final reports carefully. If it is found that the final reports put
forward inconsistent rival versions of the same incident (ie., if
one version is true the other must necessarily be false), or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
where it is found that the IO has filed two final reports
mechanically without properly investigating and finding out
the true aggressor the Magistrate shall return the final reports
and direct the IO to come up with a definitive case.”
However, this has also not been done in this case.
22.The fact that the very FIR itself has been registered after the Police
visited the spot earlier and the possibility of improvement of the case later
to suit the convenience of the injured, cannot be ruled out. The injuries
sustained by the witnesses herein are only simple injuries, whereas, the
appellants and the witnesses herein are charged for the offence of murder in
the other case. In the absence of a complete investigation or any clinching
evidence as to who is the aggressor and having regard to the fact that the
Investigating Officer has mechanically filed final reports in both the cases
without following the procedure as per PSO 566, we are of the view that it
is highly unsafe to rely upon the prosecution version alone and convict the
accused for such a grave crime. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to
benefit of doubt and the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused
without properly assessing the nature of injuries sustained on either side, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
liable to be interfered with.
23.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions
Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.327 of 2016 dated 10.08.2018, is set aside and
the appellants/accused are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, shall be refunded to
them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
27.10.2025
(2/2)
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The VII Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
R-8 Vadapalani Police Station,
Chennai - 600 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
mkn
27.10.2025
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:58 pm )
