[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Vasanth vs State Represented By on 20 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.149 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.149 of 2023
K.Vasanth ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Boothapandi Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.29 of 2013). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C
to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated 30.01.2023
passed in S.C.No.153 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kanyakumari
District, Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sukumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.149 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in
S.C.No.153 of 2014, dated 30.01.2023 on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, thereby convicting the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C.
2.The case for the prosecution is that on 24.01.2013, the
deceased teased the girls who had come to the temple function at
Boothalinga Temple in Boothapandi. As a result, enmity arose
between the deceased and the accused. On the same day, at about
09:15 p.m., the deceased narrated the incident to P.W.7 and informed
him to arrange a compromise with the accused. Therefore, P.W.7
called the accused to come for a compromise. A.1, along with A.2 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
A.5, arrived at the scene of the crime in an auto, armed with deadly
weapons such as knives and a wooden log. Immediately after getting
out of the auto, A.1 brutally attacked the deceased and also assaulted
P.W.2, causing injuries. A.2 to A.5 obstructed the injured persons.
Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died in the hospital.
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in
Crime No.29 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 341, 302 and 324 of I.P.C. After completion of
investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken
cognizance by the trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149,
307 and 341 read with 34 of I.P.C.
4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Ex.P1 to P17. The
prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents
were produced before the trial Court.
5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court acquitted A.2 to A.5 and found A.1 guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. He was sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was also sentenced to
undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 307 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A.1.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that there was a delay in lodging of the complaint. The
alleged occurrence took place on 24.01.2013 at about 09.30 p.m.,
and the complaint was lodged at about 02.30 a.m., on 25.01.2013,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
the next day. In fact, the distance between the alleged scene of the
crime and the police station is only 1 km. However, the prosecution
failed to explain the delay.
7.P.W.1 categorically admitted that he was tutored by the
police, and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon to
support the case of the prosecution. There are contradictions
between the eyewitnesses. The prosecution failed to examine the call
detail records of P.W.7, who only called the accused to come for a
compromise. P.W.8 also categorically deposed that there was a
possibility of an electric power cut at the time of the alleged
occurrence. Therefore, the accused were not even identified by any
witnesses.
8.Furthermore, the person who suffered injury due to the
occurrence, deposed as P.W.2, and turned hostile. No one supported
the case of the prosecution for the charge under Section 307 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
IPC. Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the
deadly weapons and also failed to establish the motive for the
occurrence. Even then, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the
accused, and the same is liable to be set aside.
9.In respect of tutoring the witnesses, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Manikandan v. State by the
Inspector of Police [Manu/SC/0283/2024], wherein it is held as
follows:
“8.Thus, the scenario which emerges is that
precisely a day before the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 was
recorded before the Trial Court,they were called to the
Police Station and were taught to depose in a particular
manner. One can reasonably imagine the effect of
“teaching” the witnesses inside a Police Station. This is a
blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution
witnesses. All of them were interested witnesses. Their
evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the
police on the earlier day. This kind of interference by the
Police with the judicial process, to say the least, is
shocking. This amounts to gross misuse of power by the
Police machinery. The Police cannot be allowed to tutor
the prosecution witness. This conduct becomes more
serious as other eyewitnesses, though available, were
withheld. We are surprised that both the Courts overlooked
this critical aspect. It is pertinent to note that the defence
of the accused, as can be seen from the line of cross-
examination, was that they were not present at the place of
the incident at the time of the incident. PW-2 admitted that
accused no.1 was working in another village called
Tirrupur. Although available, independent witnesses were
not examined by the Prosecution. Therefore, adverse
inference must be drawn against the prosecution. Hence,
there is a serious doubt created about the genuineness of
the prosecution case. The benefit of this substantial doubt
must be given to the appellants. Before the appellants were
enlarged on bail by this Court, they had undergone
incarceration for more than 10 years.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
10.Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a
person who has been tutored by the police must have their
testimony discarded, as there is a distinct possibility that the said
witnesses were tutored by the police on an earlier day.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the prosecution failed to mark the serology report,
which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana
[Manu/SC/1317/2025], wherein it is held that the evidentiary value
of this recovery is undermined by the fact that the Forensic
Laboratory Report did not indicate any blood group on the said
weapon, nor any serological report produced to establish that the
blood allegedly found on the knife matched that of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
12.The learned counsel further submitted that except A.1,
all other accused viz., A.2 to A.5 were acquitted by the Trial Court.
Since the appellant is also standing in the same footing as the other
accused, he is entitled to the relief on the ground of parity. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025, dated 19.01.2026
[Rajababu and another v. The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli
District], wherein it is held that when there is similar evidence from
eyewitnesses against all the accused persons, deposing that all the
accused persons had specific allegations and played the same role in
the occurrence, the Trial Court cannot convict the appellant alone
while acquitting the other accused persons. All the accused will be
governed by the principle of parity. The Court cannot make a
distinction between the accused, as it would amount to
discrimination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
13.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that there are specific overt
acts against the accused, namely the appellant herein, to prove the
charges. The Trial Court convicted the appellant alone and acquitted
the other accused persons. It cannot be said that the appellant was
convicted alone while the other accused persons were standing in the
same footing. There are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Further, the
eyewitnesses were examined after a period of six years from the date
of the occurrence. Therefore, before giving evidence, they verified
the documents and deposed before the Court. It is not the case of the
defence that the eyewitnesses were called to the police station and
tutored. One of the eyewitnesses admitted that before giving
evidence, he verified the documents. However, this does not mean
that the prosecution witnesses were tutored by the respondent. The
prosecution clearly proved the motive behind the crime. The accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
were called to compromise the issue between the deceased and the
accused, as the deceased had eve-teased some of the girls during the
Poodhalinga Swami Temple event, and the same was informed to the
accused. Utilizing these circumstances, all the accused persons came
with deadly weapons in an auto and immediately assaulted the
deceased with deadly weapons. They also attacked another person,
who sustained grievous injuries, but they turned hostile. The
accident register and medical evidence support the case of the
prosecution to prove the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant, and the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
14.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
15.Admittedly, during the temple festival, the deceased
teased some of the girls, and this was informed to the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
Therefore, the accused warned the deceased, and enmity arose
between them. While being so, the deceased called the first accused
through P.W.7 to resolve the issue. The deceased believed that the
accused were coming only to compromise the matter. However, the
first accused, along with four others, came to the scene of the crime
in their auto, armed with deadly weapons. This indicates that the
accused had premediated to do away with the life of the deceased
and arrived at the scene with deadly weapons. Immediately after
getting out of the auto, the first accused attacked the deceased with a
knife. Due to the injury, the deceased's intestine came out. The
occurrence happened in the presence of A.2 to A.5.
16.The brother of the deceased deposed as P.W.1. He
categorically deposed about the occurrence, and his testimony is
corroborated by other eyewitnesses. The relevant portion of his
evidence is as follows:
“21.03.2013k; Njjp ,uT 7 kzpf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
fiyepfo;r;rp ghu;f;f Nghdhu;. ,uT 1 kzpf;F jpUk;g
te;jhu;. M[u; vjpupfs; vd; jk;gp Rgh~; ngz;fis
Nfyp nra;tjhf nrhy;yp tk;gpOj;jjhf nrhd;dhu;.
kWehs; fhiyapy; vd; jk;gp Nkw;nrhd;d tptuq;fis
nrhd;dhu;. ehd; mtuplk; ve;j gpur;ridf;Fk;
NghfNtz;lhk; vd;W mwpTiu nrhd;Ndd;. 22> 23
Njjpfspy; vd; jk;gp fiyepfo;r;rpf;F NghdNghJ
vjpupfs; vd; jk;gpia Kiwj;J ghu;j;Jf;
nfhz;bUe;jjhf vd; jk;gp vd;dplk; nrhd;dhu;. 24k;
Njjp njw;F ujtPjp Rfhjhu epiyaj;jpw;F Kd;G
rhl;rp N[k;]; vd;w n[g];bd; me;j topahf
te;jjhfTk;> me;j N[k;rplk; vd;dplk; gpur;rid
Ntz;lhk; Ngrp Kbj;Jtplyhk; vd;W vd; jk;gp M[u;
vjpupfis ,uT 9 kzpf;F Nky;
tur;nrhy;yp ,Uf;fpwhu;. N[k;];> ngh;ypd;> vd; jk;gp
Rgh~;> jpNd~; MfpNahu;
Nkw;nrhd;d ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;J rkhu; 9.15 kzpf;F
epd;W nfhz;L Ngrpf;nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;. ehd; mtuplk;
vd;dntd;W tprhupj;j NghJ Vw;fdNt vq;fSf;Fs;
fiyepfo;r;rpapy; Vw;gl;l gpur;rid Fwpj;J Ngrp
Kbj;Jtplyhk; vd;W vjpupfis
tur;nrhy;yp ,Ug;gjhf vd;dplk; nrhd;dhu;. Rku; 10
epkplk; ,Uf;fyhk;. mq;fpUe;J xU Ml;Nlhtpy; M[u;
vjpupfs; midtUk; te;jhu;fs;. Mju; 1k; vjpup
Ml;Nlhit epWj;jpaTld; vd; jk;gp Kd;Nd nrd;whu;.
clNd 1k; vjpup eP ngupa ,tdh vd;W nrhy;yp
fj;jpia vLj;J vd; jk;gpapd; ,lJGw neQ;rpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
Fj;jptpl;lhu;. jpNd~; vd;d MdJ vd;W Xbg;Ngha;
ghu;g;gjw;Fs; ePAk;nrj;JNghNy vd;W nrhy;yp
mtuJ ,lJGw ,Lg;gpy; mNj fj;jpahy;
Fj;jptpl;lhu;. kw;w vjpupfs; 4 NgUk; ahiuAk;
gf;fj;jpy; tutplhky; itj;Jf;nfhz;L tPrpdhu;fs;.
Cu;kf;fs; midtUk; tUtJ njupe;jTld; mNj
Ml;Nlhtpy; Vwp te;j topNa nrd;Wtpl;lhu;fs;. vd;
jk;gp Fj;Jgl;lTld; fPNo tpOe;Jtpl;lhd;. uj;jk;
tope;J XbaJ. rhl;rp jpNd~; tapw;wpy; fj;jp
gl;ljhy; Fly; ntspNa tpOe;Jtpl;lJ. ,uz;L
NgiuAk; J}f;Ftjw;Fs; Mk;Gyd;]; mq;F
te;Jtpl;lJ. ehq;fs; ,UtiuAk; J}f;fpf;nfhz;L
muR kUj;Jtkid éjg;ghz;bf;F nfhz;L
nrd;Nwhk;. mq;F kUj;Jtu; te;J ghu;j;J ,q;F
rpfpl;ir mspf;Fk; R+o;epiy ,y;iy vd;W nrhd;dhu;.
mq;fpUe;J Mrhupg;gs;sk; kUj;Jtkid nfhz;L
NghFk; topapy; vd; jk;gp ,we;Jtpl;lhd.; clNd
jpNdi~ Mrhupg;gs;sk; kUj;Jtkidapy; jPtpu
rpfpl;ir gpuptpy; Nru;j;Njhk;. mtUf;F 8 ehl;fs;
RaepidT jpUk;gypy;iy. xUkhjj;jpw;F Nky;
rpfpl;irapy; ,Ue;jhu;.”
17.Though the accused were called to resolve the issue
between the first accused and the deceased, the first accused, along
with the other accused, arrived in an auto with deadly weapons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
intending to murder the deceased. Immediately after getting out of
the auto, without asking anything, they began assaulting the
deceased with a knife. There is no specific overt act against A.2 to
A.5. This is corroborated by the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, and
P.W.5. The injured witness deposed as P.W.2. Although he turned
hostile, during cross-examination, he admitted the entire statement
made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The first accused is a habitual
offender and, apart from the present case, he is involved in three
other murder cases. Therefore, P.W.2 was scared to give any
evidence. However, the admitted portion of his evidence can still be
taken into consideration. He categorically deposed that the accused
came in an auto and assaulted the deceased, and they also assaulted
him. He was immediately taken to the hospital and was unconscious
for eight days; he was treated by doctors for more than a month.
18.The person who informed the accused through phone to
come for the compromise deposed as P.W.7. He categorically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
deposed about the occurrence. Although the prosecution did not
produce any call detail records regarding the phone call to the
accused, this is not fatal to the case on hand, since it is not of major
significance. The accused came to the place of occurrence in an auto,
based solely on the phone call from P.W.7, which is not disputed by
the defence. Further, the occurrence took place on 24.01.2013, and
the trial commenced only in February 2019. Therefore, after a period
of six years from the date of the occurrence, the eyewitnesses could
have gone through their statements and records before deposing
before the Court. It cannot be said that they were tutored by the
police. There is absolutely no record to show that the eyewitnesses
were tutored by the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution
that they were tutored in the police station. Just before their
evidence, they went through the documents and then deposed.
Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant is not applicable to the case at hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
19.Insofar as the principle of parity is concerned, it is not
applicable to the case on hand for the simple reason that A.2 to A.5
are not standing on the same footing as A.1. According to the
prosecution, there was no specific overt act attributed to A.2 to A.5
to attract any of the charges. No witness has spoken about any overt
act on their part, and as such, the Trial Court rightly acquitted them.
However, insofar as A.1 is concerned, all the prosecution witnesses
have spoken about his specific overt act, and he alone assaulted the
deceased. Therefore, the principle of parity cannot be applied to the
appellant in this case. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not applicable to the
case on hand.
20.In view of the above, the prosecution has categorically
proved the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused. The same
does not warrant any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
21.Though P.W.2 turned hostile, during his cross-
examination, the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
was confronted to him; however, his evidence is not supported by
any medical evidence. The prosecution marked the accident register
as Ex.P.2. On a perusal of Ex.P.2, it is revealed that P.W.2 was
attacked by 10 known persons. Except the accident register, the
prosecution did not produce any medical evidence to show that
P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient.
22.Further, he deposed that while he was intercepting A.1,
A.1 stabbed him. Therefore, A.1 had no intention to do away with
the life of P.W.2. It was only when P.W.2 intercepted A.1, he
assaulted him. That apart, P.W.2 was under the influence of alcohol
at the time of the occurrence. This is also evident from the accident
register marked as Ex.P.4. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove
the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
23.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant in S.C. No.153 of 2014, dated 30.01.2023,
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court), Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC are confirmed. However,
the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC are set aside, and
the appellant is acquitted of the said offence.
24.With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is
partly allowed. The fine amount, if any paid, in respect of the
offence under Section 307 of I.P.C shall be refunded to the appellant
forthwith. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant
shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 20.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Boothapandi Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 01:15:30 pm )
