[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
State Represented By vs Raja on 24 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.357 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 10.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 .02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.357 of 2023
The Inspector of Police,
Gandhimarket Police Station,
Trichy City.
(Crime No.794 of 2017)
State represented by,
The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court ... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.Raja
2.Pandiyarajan
3.Ragunathan
4.Beer Mohammed
5.Jegan @ Jeganathan
6.Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar
... Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 6
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.357 of 2023
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge
(PCR), Tiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.59 of 2018, dated 22.08.2022 and
convict the respondents/accused herein for the offences with which they
were charged.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivasubramanian – for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Sundar – for R4 & R5
Mr.Prasanth Nadaraj – for R6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant,
challenging the judgment 22.08.2022 made in S.C.No.59 of 2018 on the
file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Tiruchirappalli, in which judgment, the accused were acquitted of all
charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
2. The respondents/accused Nos.1 to 6 were charged for the
offences under Sections 148, 120(b) r/w. 302, 341 r/w. 149,
302 r/w.149 IPC.
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2017, the wife of
the deceased lodged a complaint before the Gandhi Market Police Station
with the following allegations:
(a) On 19.06.2017, at about 7.00 a.m., her husband left the
house for work. After approximately two hours, at about 9.00 a.m., a
police official came and informed her daughter that her father had died
due to cut injuries. Upon receiving the information, she came out and
immediately proceeded to the Government Hospital. She further stated
that her son, Prabhakaran, was murdered on 07.08.2016 near a public
toilet by Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6. During that incident, the accused also
attacked her husband, who escaped with serious injuries. The said case is
presently pending before the Court. Her husband had often expressed his
desire that the persons responsible for the murder of his son be brought to
justice. She also stated that her husband had informed her that the
accused involved in the murder of their son had been following him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
Therefore, she harbored suspicion against Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and
suspected that either they or their associates might have committed the
offence. She accordingly requested that appropriate action be taken
against the accused.
(b) The complaint (Ex.P1) was received by P.W.24,
Thiru.Thayalan, Sub-Inspector of Police, and a case in Crime No.794 of
2017 was registered under Section 302 IPC. The FIR (Ex.P15) was
forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate and copies were forwarded to the
higher officials.
(c) On 19.06.2017, P.W.25, Thiru. Sivakumar, Inspector of
Police, took up the case for investigation. He visited the scene of
occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch
(Ex.P16) in the presence of witnesses Mahamuni (P.W.14) and
Chandrasekar (P.W.16), and recovered blood-stained soil (M.O.4) and
ordinary soil (M.O.5) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P17).
(d) He conducted an inquest over the dead body in the presence
of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report
(Ex.P18). Thereafter, he sent a requisition for post-mortem examination
through a Police Constable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
(e) On the same day, he arrested A1 to A4 and he recorded the
confession statement of A1 (Ex.P20) in the presence of witnesses Selvam
(P.W.17) and Adaikalam, and pursuant to the admissible portion of the
confession, recovered a blood-stained full-hand shirt and weapons,
namely, a blood-stained crowbar (M.O.1), a blood-stained billhook
(M.O.2), and blood-stained knives (2 numbers) (M.O.3), under Seizure
Mahazar (Ex.P7).
(f) He also arrested juvenile accused Janardhanan, and A3 on
19.06.2017 and recorded their confession statement and recovered blood
stained knife. Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.
All the material objects recovered were sent to the Judicial Magistrate
Court through Form-95 (Ex.P19 & Ex.P23).
(g) He received the blood-stained dresses of the deceased
(M.O.6 to M.O.10) under Form-95 (Ex.P24). He examined other
witnesses and recorded their statements. Based on the confession
statement of A1, he came to know that eight persons had conspired
together and planned to commit the murder. Accordingly, he altered the
Section of Law to Sections 147, 148, 120B, 341, and 302 IPC under
Alteration Report (Ex.P25). Since two of the accused are juvenile, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
case split up as against juvenile accused.
(h) Thereafter, P.W.26, Thiru.Senthilvel Kumar, took up the
case for further investigation. He arrested A6 in the presence of witnesses
Muthukrishnan (P.W.18) and Manikandan (P.W.19) and recorded his
confession statement (Ex.P8). On 06.07.2017, A5 surrendered before the
Judicial Magistrate No.5. On 12.07.2017, he took the said accused into
police custody and recorded his confession statement in the presence of
witnesses Sathishkumar and Marimuthu (P.W.20). Thereafter, the accused
was sent to judicial custody.
(i) Dr. Selvakumar (P.W.21), conducted the post-mortem
examination. The material objects were sent for forensic analysis. The
Investigating Officer received the Serological Report (Ex.P26), examined
necessary witnesses, and upon completion of the investigation, filed the
final charge sheet on 03.02.2018 against the accused.
4. Upon receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate No.5,
Thiruchirappalli, took cognizance of the case in P.R.C. No.8 of 2018 and
issued summons to the accused. After their appearance, copies of the
entire records were furnished to them free of cost under Section
207 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
5. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 209
Cr.P.C. The Principal District and Sessions Judge took the case on file as
S.C. No.59 of 2018 and made it over to the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.
6. Upon receipt of the records, the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, framed charges against the
accused under Sections 120(b) r/w 302 IPC, 148 IPC, 341 r/w 149 IPC
and 302 r/w 149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, the case was posted for trial.
7. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.26 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to
M.O.9 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was
examined. Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
8. On conclusion of trial, the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, acquitted the accused of all the
charges by judgment dated 22.08.2022, against which, the present
Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State/complainant on the
following, among other grounds :
(i) The prosecution has clearly established the motive for the
crime, as spoken to by P.W.1 to P.W.7. Further, the eyewitnesses P.W.4 to
P.W.7 have consistently and cogently deposed about the occurrence. The
incident took place in broad daylight and was directly witnessed by the
said witnesses. However, the trial Court erroneously discarded the
testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.7 without assigning cogent and legally
sustainable reasons, which amounts to a serious error resulting in grave
miscarriage of justice.
(ii) The material objects recovered during the course of
investigation were sent for forensic examination. The forensic and
serological reports conclusively establish that the bloodstains found on
the weapons at the scene of occurrence matched with the bloodstains
found on the dresses of the deceased, thereby corroborating the
prosecution case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
(iii) The trial Court rejected the prosecution’s case on motive,
particularly declining to consider the previous murder of Prabhakaran
involving the accused, by placing reliance on Section 53 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The said reasoning is legally unsustainable. Evidence
relating to prior incidents is admissible when it is relevant to establish
motive under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 53 has no
application in the context of proving motive, and the trial Court’s
interpretation reflects a misapplication of law.
(iv) The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt through reliable ocular evidence, corroborative medical evidence,
and scientific evidence. The trial Court, without properly appreciating the
evidence on record, acquitted the accused. The findings of the trial Court
are perverse, contrary to evidence, and legally untenable. Hence, the
judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.
(v) That the entire judgment deserves re-appreciation of
evidence and the criminal appeal against acquittal is to be allowed and
prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court.
9. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 contended that
the testimonies of P.W.4 to P.W.7 are unreliable and suffer from serious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
infirmities. It was argued that, although these witnesses claimed to have
witnessed the occurrence, they admittedly did not disclose any details of
the incident to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, despite being closely
acquainted with the family.
10. He further submitted that during cross-examination of P.W.
4, he admitted that he visited the Government Hospital between 9.30 and
10.00 hours, however, he did not reveal the names of the accused either
to the police or to P.W.1. The learned counsel further submitted that
material contradictions exist among the eyewitnesses. Notably, P.W.6
introduced the involvement of A6 by asserting that A6 also attacked the
deceased Annadurai, but subsequently admitted in cross-examination that
he was not present at the place of occurrence.
11. It was also emphasized that the occurrence allegedly took
place near a police station, yet none of the eyewitnesses lodged a
complaint. One of the witnesses stated that immediately after the
occurrence, he went to his house. According to the learned counsel, if the
witnesses had genuinely been present at the scene, they would have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
promptly informed the deceased’s family, particularly when the residence
of the deceased was located in close proximity to the place of occurrence.
P.W.5, in fact, admitted that the deceased’s house was situated within a
short distance, yet failed to inform any family member and no
explanation was offered for the same.
12. In light of these circumstances, the learned counsel argued
that the presence of P.W.4 to P.W.7 at the scene is highly doubtful. It was
further submitted that, owing to political enmity, a false case has been
foisted against A1 to A5, and that P.W.4 to P.W.7 were subsequently
introduced as eyewitnesses after deliberation. Significantly, the complaint
(Ex.P.1) lodged by P.W.1 does not contain specific details regarding the
accused. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5/A4 and
A5 adopted the arguments advanced by respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A6 submitted
that A6 has been charged solely under Section 120(b) IPC. It was
contended that A6 came to be implicated only on the basis of the
confession statement of A1, wherein it was alleged that A6 conspired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
with A1 to A5 to commit the murder and undertook to meet the expenses
for the said offence.
14. He further contended that it is well settled that a confession
of a co-accused is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence
Act, however, such confession can only be taken into consideration if
there is independent evidence establishing the involvement of the
accused in the conspiracy. A confession alone cannot form the basis for
conviction.
15. According to the prosecution, A6 was allegedly in contact
with the other accused through phone conversations. In such
circumstances, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the
relevant phone records, establish the ownership of the phone numbers,
and prove the existence of any communication indicative of conspiracy.
16. Admittedly, A6 was not present at the place of occurrence.
The prosecution has failed to produce any legally admissible evidence to
substantiate the alleged conspiracy between A6 and A1 to A5. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
absence of any independent corroborative evidence, the learned counsel
prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal, contending that there is no
perversity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court.
17. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
18. Now, this Court has to decide whether the prosecution has
proved its case by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubts or whether
the trial Court is right in acquitting the accused or the order of the trial
Court is liable to be set aside?
19. In order to set aside the acquittal recorded by the trial
Court, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that the
judgment of acquittal is perverse, manifestly erroneous, and wholly
unsustainable in law.
20. On perusal of the record, P.W.1 wife of the deceased, has,
clearly stated in her evidence that she received intimation regarding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
murder of her husband at about 9.00 a.m., where in a police official came
and informed her that her husband had been murdered by an unknown
person. Immediately thereafter she proceeded to the respondent police
station and lodged the complaint and soon-after the receipt of such
information, FIR (Ex.P15) was registered at about 9.30 a.m.
21. P.W.1, both in the complaint and in her chief examination,
has consistently stated the same version of events. She has also spoken
about the motive for the crime. P.W.1 categorically deposed that about
one year prior to the occurrence, her son Prabhakaran was murdered by
A1, A2 and A6. According to her, her husband Annadurai (deceased),
frequently expressed his desire that the accused persons be brought to
Justice and punished in accordance with law. She further stated that her
husband had informed her that A1, A2 and A6 along with their associates
regularly following him. P.W.2, the daughter of P.W.1, also corroborated
the evidence of P.W.1.P.W.3 who had drafted the complaint, clearly stated
on 19.06.2017, P.W.1 came to the police station and requested him to
write the complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
22. P.W.4 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. He deposed
regarding both the incident and the pre-motive involving the accused and
the deceased. According to him, in the year 2016, the son of the deceased
was murdered by A1, A2, and A6. During that earlier incident deceased
was also attacked. While his son succumbed to the injuries, the deceased
survived, and the case was pending trial. P.W.4 further stated that the
deceased was an important witness in that case and was determined to
bring the accused before the Court to ensure that they were punished.
23. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved
the motive for the occurrence that the deceased was an important witness
in the earlier case. The accused bore hostility due to the earlier incident.
It is relevant to note that the accused followed the deceased which gave
rise to hostility. Such evidence falls within the ambit of Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Rejection of such evidence on the ground of
admissibility is legally unsustainable.
24. With respect to the present occurrence, P.W.4 stated that on
the date of the incident, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased came near to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
workplace. P.W.4, along with P.W.5 to P.W.7, and the deceased had tea at
a nearby shop. At that time, A5 was present near the tea shop, speaking to
someone. After having tea, deceased sat on the steps. Suddenly, an auto
arrived at the scene. A1 to A3 with two juvenile accused persons alighted
from the vehicle armed with weapons and attacked the deceased. A1
assaulted the deceased with a billhook, A2 attacked him with the
crowbar, and the remaining juvenile accused attacked him with knives.A3
to A5 restrained him from proceeding further. As a result of the assault,
the deceased sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter, all the accused fled
from the scene in the auto. P.W.4, and the rest of the witnesses proceeded
and witnessed that deceased had sustained injuries on his face, head,
hands, and legs, and he subsequently succumbed to those injuries. P.W.4
also identified the weapons M.O.1 to M.O.3.
25. P.W.5 to P.W.7 also corroborated the statement of P.W.4.
Except for minor contradictions, there are no serious discrepancies in
their evidence. P.W.6, in his evidence deposed that A6 was also involved
in the occurrence which is proved false. The trial Court disbelieved the
evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.7, only on the ground that they did not inform
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
the occurrence to P.W.1 and remained silent without informing the same
to police station. Mere delay or failure of an eyewitness to immediately
inform the police is not by itself, a ground to discard their testimony.
Eyewitnesses may remain silent due to shock, fear, confusion, threats,
social pressure, or lack of opportunity. Therefore, delay is only a factor
for appreciation of evidence, not for automatic rejection.
26. P.W.13,Thiru.Mohammed Jaffer who was working in the tea
shop clearly stated that upon hearing a commotion, he came out, and
witnessed the deceased lying with cut injuries. He further deposed that
he was informed that an auto proceeded towards the northern side. This
evidence corroborates the prosecution case by confirming that the
occurrence took place near the tea shop.
27. It is to be noted that soon after the occurrence, P.W.1 was
informed about the death of her husband. Immediately, thereafter, she
lodged the complaint, and the police registered the FIR without any
delay. The FIR reached the Court on the same day at 10:30 a.m. The
endorsement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Trichy,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
Ex.P15,clearly establishes the same. P.W.1, clearly stated that she had
suspicion against the accused.
28. Further, the Investigating Officer conducted the inquest on
the dead body on the same day at 11.30 p.m. and the same was marked as
Ex.P18. In the inquest report, it is clearly recorded that the accused
A1,A2 along with A3 and A5 murdered the deceased, to prevent the
deceased from deposing against them in the pending murder case, as per
the information received from the witnesses and panchayatars.
29.Further, the ocular evidence stands duly corroborated by the
medical evidence of P.W.21 (Dr.Selvakumar) who conducted the
postmortem. The doctor clearly deposed regarding the injuries sustained
by the deceased as follows:-
“1.Brain deep vertical cut wound over the left
side of the forehead and fronto-parietal region of 13x2
cm; Situated 2 cm above left eyebrow; 1 cm away from
midline of face:
2. Oblique brain deep intersecting "T" shaped
cut wound on left side of the head of 10x2 cm and 6x2 cm
over the temporal region;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
3. Bone deep cut wound present over the right
side frontal region of head of 3x1 cm; underlying bone
cut;
4.Oblique bone deep cut wound present on left
side of face of, 12x2 cm: Upper end placed near the nose;
Situated 1 cm away from midline of face; Underlying
facial bones involving lower jaw fractured; Marginal
contusion noted; Skull: On dissection, Bony defect of
13x10 cm on left side fronto-temporal region;
Membranes: patchy subarachnoid hemorrhage present on
left side; Brain: soft and not retaining its shape on left
side; C/s: sticky;
5. Oblique muscle deep cut wound present on
left shoulder neat armpit of 5x1 cm; marginal contusion
noted;
6. Intersecting, muscle deep gaping cut wound
with marginal contusion present over the left forearm and
hand front side of 22x10 cm; On examination, left inner
forearm and little finger bones are fractured; Underlying
blood vessels, nerves and muscle are cur
7. Bone deep cut lacerated wound with avulsed
laceration present over the front of the right palm and
entire front forearm of 31x6 cm; Underlying blood
vessels, nerves and muscles are cut;
8. Irregular oblique skin deep cut lacerated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
wound two in number present over the back of the arm of
size 9x0.5 cm and 4x0.5; parallely placed;
9. Reddish brown abrasion present over the
back of the left shoulder of 3x1 cm;
10. Obliquely horizontal bevelled muscle deep gaping cut
wound present over the back of the left side of the chest,
over the shoulder blade, of size 5x2 cm, upper margin
visible, lower one over hanging; marginal contusion
noted
11. Vertical abdominal cavity deep cut wound
present over the lower back on left side of 6x3 cm; On
examination, Intestinal coils noted; coils of small
intestines are perforated at two places;
12. Skin deep cut wound present over left foot of
size 3 x 1 cm; involving the 2nd to 4th toe.”
30. The medical opinion rendered by P.W.21 clearly established
that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries sustained by
him, thereby conclusively proving that the deceased was brutally attacked
and inflicted with severe injuries.
31. P.W.17, Thiru.Selvam, Village Administrative Officer,
deposed regarding the arrest of A1 to A4, and recording their confession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
statements, and the consequent recovery of material objects M.O.1 to
M.O.3. He further spoke about the recovery of blood-stained clothes,
namely the blue and white checked full-hand shirt worn by A1 and the
blood-stained black full-hand shirt worn by A2. P.W.18, Thiru.
Muthukrishnan, spoke about the arrest of A6, while P.W.20, Thiru.
Marimuthu, deposed regarding the arrest and confession of A5. The
serology report (Ex.P13) corroborates the prosecution case by confirming
that the bloodstains found on the billhook, crowbar, knives, and the
clothes recovered from the accused, as well as the clothes recovered from
the deceased, all belonged to the same blood group.
32. P.W.14, Thiru.Mahamuni, deposed regarding the
preparation of the observation mahazar and rough sketch. P.W.16,
Thiru.Chandrasekar, spoke about the recovery of blood-stained soil and
ordinary soil, along with the preparation of the observation mahazar and
rough sketch.
33. The eyewitnesses, P.W.4 to P.W.6, categorically stated that
A1 to A5, along with two juvenile accused, committed the crime. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
previous motive was also established by the prosecution. The trial Court,
however, entertained doubts on the grounds that the police officer who
initially informed P.W.1 was not examined, and that although the FIR was
received by the Judicial Magistrate at 10.30 hours, it was typed that it
was dispatched at 13.00 hours. The trial Court further suspected the
presence of P.W.4 to P.W.7, characterizing them as politically influential
persons who, despite allegedly witnessing the occurrence, did not inform
the police either directly or through any other means. The Court also
described them as chance witnesses or interested witnesses who had
inimically deposed against the accused, noting additionally that their
clothes did not bear bloodstains.
34.Such reasoning of the trial Court is not sustainable. On
careful verification of the records, it is revealed that the FIR was
registered promptly after the occurrence and was received by the Judicial
Magistrate No.5, Trichy, at 10.30 a.m., without undue delay. The
evidence relating to arrest, confession, and recovery stands duly proved.
The testimonies of P.W.4 to P.W.6 are consistent, cogent, and mutually
corroborative. Except for minor discrepancies, which are natural and do
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
not affect the core of the prosecution case, there exists no valid reason to
discard their evidence. The recovery of blood-stained weapons and
clothes from the accused, which upon serological examination were
found to tally, further strengthens the prosecution case.
35. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully proved that
A1 to A5 formed an unlawful assembly. A1 and A2 actively attacked the
deceased, while A3 to A5 facilitated the commission of the offence by
preventing the deceased from escaping. Therefore, A1 to A5 are liable to
be punished in accordance with law.
36. Insofar as the involvement of A6 is concerned, he was
arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the alleged confession of A1.
In the said confession statement, A1 purportedly stated that, due to prior
enmity, the deceased Annadurai had planned to eliminate him with the
assistance of A2 and A6 through rowdy elements. Apprehending danger
to his life, A1 allegedly conspired with the other accused to murder the
deceased Annadurai. It was further alleged that A1 contacted A6 over the
phone, discussed the plan, and that A6 consented to the conspiracy by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
assuring financial support for the expenses.
37. Based on this confession, A6 was arrested. The learned
counsel appearing for A6 relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Parveen @ Sonu Vs. State of Haryana reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 1184, in which in paragraph No.12, held as
follows :
“12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of
conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary
to establish that there was an agreement between the parties
for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted
that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence
at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to
show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the
intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to
hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of
IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which
prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for
connecting the accused with the commission of crime of
criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional
statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable
corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. In
the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
31], this Court has considered the conviction based only on
confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in the
crime. In the said case, while setting aside the conviction,
this Court has held in paragraphs 16 & 17 as under:
“16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid
provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that
confessions are extorted by the police officers by
practising oppression and torture or even inducement
and, therefore, they are unworthy of any credence.
The provision absolutely excludes from evidence
against the accused a confession made by him to a
police officer. This provision applies even to those
confessions which are made to a police officer who
may not otherwise be acting as such. If he is a police
officer and confession was made in his presence, in
whatever capacity, the same becomes inadmissible in
evidence. This is the substantive rule of law
enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has
been reiterated countlessly by this Court as well as
the High Courts.
17. The word “confession” has nowhere
been defined. However, the courts have resorted to
the dictionary meaning and explained that
incriminating statements by the accused to the police
suggesting the inference of the commission of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
crime would amount to confession and, therefore,
inadmissible under this provision. It is also defined to
mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the
admission of any incriminating fact, however grave
or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes
all those confessions inadmissible when they are
made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a
police officer, unless such a confession is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when
a person is in police custody, the confession made by
him even to a third person, that is, other than a police
officer, shall also become inadmissible.”
38. Upon careful perusal of the records, it is evident that, apart
from the confession of the co-accused, the prosecution has failed to
collect any independent material or connecting evidence to establish that
A1 and A6 had hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased Annadurai.
A thorough scrutiny of the evidence leads this Court to the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged conspiracy
involving A6.
39. It is a settled principle of law that the confession of a co-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot by itself form
the basis for conviction. In the present case, there is a complete absence
of independent evidence linking A6 to the alleged conspiracy. Therefore,
the confession of the co-accused is insufficient to implicate A6 or to
sustain a finding of guilt.
40. In view of the prosecution, having established the charges
against A1 to A5 beyond reasonable doubt, case stands posted for
examination/questioning of the accused on the question of sentence.
41. The prosecution has thus failed to prove the charges against
A6 beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, there is no ground to
interfere with the acquittal of A6. The judgment of the trial Court, insofar
as it relates to A6, stands confirmed.
42. The respondent police are directed to secure the accused
without fail and produce them before the Court on 25.02.2026.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
24 .02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN., J
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
A1 to A5 present and questioning about the sentence, they have
stated the following:-
A1- Fw;wthsp ,y;iy
A2- Fw;wthsp ,y;iy
A3- tof;fpw;;Fk; vdf;Fk; rk;ke;jk; ,y;iy
A4- tof;fpw;Fk; vdf;Fk; rk;ke;jk; ,y;iy
A5- Fw;wthsp ,y;iy
2.The prosecution has proved that A1 to A5 were members of an
unlawful assembly and had assembled with the common object of
committing the offence of murder. In furtherance of the said common
object, they proceeded to the place of occurrence in an auto, armed with
deadly weapons. Their previous antecedent also not good.
3.A1 and A2 attacked the deceased with dangerous weapons
indiscriminately and caused his death. A3 to A5 facilitated the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
commission of the offence by surrounding the deceased and preventing
him from proceeding anywhere, thereby enabling A1 and A2 to carry out
the fatal attack.
4.Considering the gravity and heinous nature of the offence, this
Court finds that the accused do not deserve any leniency. Accordingly:
(i)A1 to A5 are convicted under Section 148 IPC and are
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(ii)A1 and A2, who are convicted under Section 302 IPC, are
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
(iii)A3 to A5, who are convicted under Section 149 r/w
Section 302 IPC, are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life.
(iv)A3 to A5 are further convicted under Section 341 r/w
Section 149 IPC and are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
(v)Further, all the accused are directed to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
(vi).All the sentences imposed on the accused shall run
concurrently.
(vii).A1 to A5 are acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B
IPC.
(G.K.I.,J) (R.P.J.,)
25/02/2026
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Tiruchirappalli,
2.The Inspector of Police,
Gandhimarket Police Station,
Trichy City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
rm/er
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
25.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 03:51:00 pm )
