Madras High Court
Udayakumar vs State Represented By on 29 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.183 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.183 of 2019
Udayakumar ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Mettupalayam, Coimbatore
(Cr.No.246/2017) ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 16.03.2018 in
S.C.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Bomb
Blast Cases at Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Mohan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
Crl.A.No.183 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
16.03.2018 in S.C.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Sessions
Judge for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore, sole accused has filed the
instant criminal appeal. The accused was convicted under under Section 302
of IPC and sentenced by the trial Court for life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
2.1. Deceased Anandhi is the wife of the accused. The accused and
the deceased married against the wishes of their family in the year 2016 and
thereafter, the deceased was brought to the house of PW1/mother of
deceased, after sometime, the accused again took the deceased to his house
and set up a separate house. The deceased unable to bear the cruelty left the
house 15 days prior to occurrence. The deceased went to her relative PW5's
house at Kotagiri. The accused also went to PW5's house and requested the
deceased to come with him, as she refused, he tried to attack her and dashed
her head against the wall. Since, other relatives gathered, the accused ran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
away from the Kotagiri.
2.2. When the matter stood thus, on the date of occurrence, viz.,
15.05.2017, while the PW1 and deceased were traveling in a bus bearing
TN-98-N-1774 proceeding towards Mettupalayam at 9.50 am and seated
behind the driver seat, the accused also boarded the bus at Sirumugai and
asked the deceased to join the matrimonial home, as she refused, the
accused suddenly took a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of
her chest. Immediately, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.
PW2 deposed that he has also seen the accused boarding the bus at
Sirumugai, stood near the deceased and quarreling with the deceased;
PW2/conductor had asked the accused to move to the backside of the bus
and he proceeded to issue tickets to other commuters, when PW1 and others
shouted that the accused had stabbed the deceased, the accused jumped from
the bus and ran away from the occurrence.
2.3. PW3 had deposed that he was also traveling in the same bus, at
that time, he witnessed the accused with the M.O.1 knife stabbing the
deceased at the left side of her chest and the accused ran away. PW1 took
the deceased in other vehicle admitted her in the hospital. PW4, relative of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
the deceased on hearing the death of the deceased went to the hospital and
has written a complaint on instructions by PW1 and PW1 had given the
complaint marked as Ex.P1. PW13 registered the FIR in Cr.No.246/2017
under Section 302 of IPC marked as Ex.P19 and the FIR was forwarded to
the superior authority.
2.4. PW14/Investigating Officer took up the investigation and went to
the place of occurrence immediately and prepared Observation Mahazar
(Ex.P4), Rough Sketch (Ex.P20) in the presence of witnesses and went to
the hospital and conduct inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest
report marked as Ex.P21 and gave a request to the post-mortem doctor to
conduct autopsy. PW7/Medical Officer, has, in fact admitted the deceased
brought by PW1 and found the stab injury on the left side of her chest at 2.5
x 3cm, the deceased succumbed to injury at 10.20 am and PW7 had issued
Ex.P5/Accident Register and intimated Ex.P6 to the police station and
thereafter, they conducted autopsy and found that the deceased died to
homicide violence of stab injury to vital organ heart (left ventricle) leading
to Hemorrhage – shock and death and the medical officer had issued
ExP9/postmortem certificate and Ex.P11/final opinion. She has also opined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
that the injury caused to the deceased is due to the possession of
M.O.1/knife. PW8/forensic officer has examined materials objects and had
issued Exs.P13 &P15, Biological Report and Serological Report. On
16.05.2017, the accused was arrested in the presence of PW9 and other
witness.
2.5.On the basis of his confession, Investigating Officer/PW14 seized
M.O.1, M.O.6 and M.O.7 in the presence of witnesses and forwarded the
accused and material objects to the Court. PW15, further conducted
investigation and finally laid the final report against the accused for the
offences under Section 302 of IPC in P.R.C.No.XXX of 2017 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.
3.On appearance of the accused, the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
was complied with and the case was committed to the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore as contemplated under Section 209 of CrPC in
S.C.No.8 of 2018 and was made over to Special Sessions Judge for Bomb
Blast Cases at Coimbatore, for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
4.The trial Court framed the charges for the offence against the
accused under Section 302 of IPC. When questioned, the accused pleaded
“not guilty”.
5.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked Exs.P1 to P24 and produced
M.Os.1 to 9.
6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 16.03.2018, found the
accused guilty of the offences under Section 302 of IPC and thereby,
convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.
7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the instant appeal is filed
by the accused/appellant.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence
of PW1 to PW3 are not reliable and they are interested witnesses. Even, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
their evidence is taken as such, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not
maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offence
under Section 302 of IPC will not attract, only the offence under Section
304 of IPC will attract. The prosecution failed to prove the overt act
attributed by the eye-witness. PW7/Medical Officer has stated that the
injury is not possible by M.O.1 and therefore, the theory of stab injury is
falsified. There is no pre-meditation to commit murder, therefore, the
ingredients of Section 302 of IPC is not made out. Further, according to
him, FIR came to be filed later and prior to the FIR being registered, the
Investigating Officer already visited the place of occurrence, therefore, the
genesis of crime has been suppressed.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
evidence of the witnesses clinchingly establishes the complexity of the
accused in the crime, PW2 and PW3, independent eye witnesses have
clearly spoken about the nature of injury and PW7/medical officer also
clearly spoken that the injury is possible by M.O.1/knife. Therefore, it is his
contention that the Trial Court has considered all these facts and clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
found that the accused guilty. Hence, he would submit that the judgment of
the trial Court does not require any interference.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
offence under Section 302 of IPC has not been made out, only the offence
under Section 304 of IPC is maintainable. We perused the entire materials
placed on record. We are unable to find any materials to bring home the
offences under Section 304 Part I and Part II of the IPC. There is no
foundation whatsoever laid by the accused, further in questioning under
Section 313 of CrPC, in the oral explanation, he has simply denied the
crime. Whereas, in the written statement filed by the accused under Section
313(5) of CrPC, he has stated that when the deceased and PW1 were
travelling in the bus on 15.05.2017, he boarded the bus and requested his
wife to join his matrimonial home, that time there was altercation and PW1
along with others tried to attack the accused, as a result, the deceased was
injured. Having made such statement in the written statement, no materials
whatsoever was placed on the side of the defence before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
11.In light of the above, when the prosecution witnesses, particularly,
the evidences of eye-witnesses, PW1 to PW3 when carefully perused, it not
disputed that the deceased is the wife of the accused, they married as against
the wishes of PW1 and others, they were co-habitating separately and later
dispute arouse between the husband and wife which has been clearly
supported by the evidences of PW5, in fact, the deceased left the
matrimonial house and took shelter in PW5's house, who is also happened to
be a relative. PW5 clearly stated that 15 days prior to the date of occurrence,
the accused came to the house of PW5 and requested the deceased to come
with him, as she refused, he tried to attack her and dashed her head against
the wall. Since, other relatives gathered, the accused ran away from the
Kotagiri. Therefore, PW5 evidence clearly indicates that there was
matrimonial dispute between the deceased and the accused. PW1 clearly
deposed that on the date of occurrence, viz., on 15.05.2017, the deceased
and PW1 were travelling in bus proceeding to Mettupalayam at around 9.50
am, the accused boarded the bus at Sirumugai and he came near the seat
where the deceased and PW1 were seated and asked the deceased to join the
matrimonial house, when the deceased refused, he immediately took the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of her chest.
12. PW2, who is the conductor of the bus has clearly stated that the
accused standing near the seat of the deceased and they were quarelling, he
asked the accused to stand at the backside of bus and he went to issue
tickets to fellow passengers, on hearing the sound that the accused had
stabbed the deceased, PW2 saw the accused jumping out the bus and
running away from the place of occurrence and the accused was carrying
knife. The evidence of PW2 is also clearly admissible under Section 6 of the
Indian Evidence Act, since, it also form part of the same transaction and
there is no gap or interval; on hearing the sound that the accused had
stabbed the deceased, accused was seen by the PW2 immediately and the
accused had left the place of occurrence immediately.
13. PW3, one of the traveler in the same bus also witnessed the
occurrence. In his evidence, he has clearly spoken about it, in the entire
cross examination of against PW2 and PW3, there is no motive or
suggestion put against PW2 and PW3 for false implication of the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
PW2 and PW3 are independent witnesses, their evidences clearly indicate
that immediately after the stab injury, the deceased was taken to the hospital
in some other vehicle and was admitted in the hospital by PW1. PW7 has
clearly deposed that he has seen the deceased with stab injury on the left
side of her chest at 2.5 x3cm and had issued Accident Register (Ex.P5) and
also intimated to the police under Ex.P6. Later the deceased was succumbed
to injury. The evidence of PW7/medical officer deposed that the cause of
death was due to stab injury to vital organ heart (left ventricle) leading to
hemorrhage-shock and death. He also clearly deposed that the stab injury
was possible by M.O.1/Knife.
14. Therefore, when the evidences of the eye-witnesses clearly
establishes the specific overt act of the accused that has resulted in the death
of the deceased, we are of the view that very blood group not detected in the
material object, the same is irrelevant. This Court is of the view that when
the ocular evidence does not suffer from any infirmities and clearly
establishes the guilt of the accused in causing the death, other aspects
assumes insignificance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
15. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darbara
Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 476 has held as follows:
“10. So far as the question of inconsistency between
medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is
well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence
would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between
medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a
witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical
evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony
improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process
of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the
contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical
evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular
evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to
be disbelieved…”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has consistently
accorded greater weight to ocular testimony than to the opinion of medical
experts, and the same principle governs the case before us.
17. Even assuming that the Inspector of Police has visited the spot,
immediately after hearing the crime, that will not dent the prosecution. It is
normal when any occurrence takes place in public transport, visiting such
place by police is normal. Be that as it may, the Inspector of Police is bound
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
to appear before such place of occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be said that
all other aspects will lead to suppression of the genesis of crime.
18. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
conduct of the accused comes within the meaning of Section 299 of IPC, on
thorough scanning of the entire materials, we find there is no materials to
arrive at there was a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased
which deprived his self-control and in heat of passion he caused such injury.
There was no evidence or a suggestion was put forth to the effect that there
was sudden quarrel between the deceased and accused and on heat of
passion, he deprived his self control and caused such injury. In the absence
of any materials, merely, on the basis of single injury which resulted in the
death of the deceased, the Court cannot presume that the accused has caused
death only due to quarreling between the husband and wife. Once the
accused had intention to cause injury which is sufficient in the ordinary
course of time as likely to cause a death, that act will certainly come within
the ambit of Section 300 of IPC. In the instant case, the accused knows that
bodily injury is likely to cause death and had inflicted such injury in vital
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
part of the body namely chest, such view of this Court this Court is of the
view that his act will certainly come within the ambit of Section 300 of IPC
not under Section 304 of IPC, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
19. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case. The
Criminal Appeal has no merit, and hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment
of the trial Court dated 16.03.2018 in S.C.No.8 of 2018 on the file of the
Special Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore is confirmed.
The order dated 30.06.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.6465 of 2021 in
Crl.A.No.183 of 2021 suspending the sentence of imprisonment alone as
against the appellant stands vacated. We direct the Trial Court to secure his
presence immediately to serve out the rest of his sentence.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
29.10.2025
dhk
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Special Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mettupalayam Police Station,
Mettupalayam, Coimbatore
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
dhk
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2025 10:03:57 pm )
