[Cites 27, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajarathinam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2026
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD) No.3039 of 2026
Crl.A(MD) No.118 of 2026
1. Rajarathinam
2. Muthuraj
3. Dinesh
4. Lakshumanaperumal ... Appellants/
Accused Nos.3, 5, 8 and 13
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi and another
(Crime No.48 of 2023) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. P.Ramkumar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(1) of SC & ST
Act, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 29.12.2025 passed by
the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act,
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.278 of 2025 in S.C.No.25 of 2023 and set aside the
same and discharge the appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.K.K.Samy
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.A.Robinson
Crl.A(MD) No.176 of 2026
1.Elangeswaran
2. Velmurugan
3. Rajesh @ Rejeswaran
4. Peter
5. J.Ramesh ... Appellants/
Accused Nos.2, 4, 9, 10 and 11
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
(in Crime No.48 of 2023) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. P.Ramkumar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(II) of SC & ST
Act, 1989, to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 28.12.2025 in
Cr.M.P.No.279 of 2025 in S.C.No.25 of 2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi,
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
set aside the said order and discharge the appellants from the said case.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Balasundarakumar
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.A.Robinson
Crl.A(MD) No.204 of 2026
1. J.Jeyaprakash
2. J.Murugesan ...Appellants/
Accused Nos.1 and 12
Vs.
1. The State
Represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi Rural,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.48 of 2023) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2. P.Ramkumar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(2) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to call for the
records and set aside the order passed by the Special Court for Trail of Cases
under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.277 of
2025, dated 29.12.2025 and allow this appeal and discharge the appellants from
the charges leveled against them.
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
For Appellants : M/s.P.Yasmin Begum
For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.A.Robinson
COMMON JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.3, 5, 8 and 13 have filed the criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD).
No.118 of 2026 under section 14-A (1) of SC and ST (POA) Act, challenging the
dismissal of discharge petition vide impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.278 of 2025
in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi, dated 29.12.2025.
2. Similarly, Accused No.A2, A4, A9, A10 and A11 have filed the criminal
appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.176 of 2026 under section 14-A (1I) of SC and ST
(POA) Act, challenging the dismissal of discharge petition vide impugned order
in Crl.M.PNo.279 of 2025 in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court
for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi
dated 29.12.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
3. Accused No.A1 and A 12 have filed the criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)
No.204 of 2026 under section 14-A (1) of SC and ST (POA) Act, challenging the
dismissal of discharge petition vide impugned order in Crl.M.PNo.277 of 2025
in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi dated 29.12.2025.
4. According to the prosecution, deceased P.K.Muthukumar, had two
brothers namely, P.K.Ramkumar and P.K.Sivakumar. He was practising advocate
in Thoothukudi Bar Association. Earlier, on 21.08.2019, his brother was
murdered by a mob in front of the court campus in the presence of the deceased
P.K.Muthkumar and defacto complainant. Hence, complaint was made and on
receipt of the complaint, Thoothukudi South Police officials registered the case
in Crime No.533 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302, 506(2), 120
– B, 34, 109 of IPC r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Thereafter final
report was filed. In the said case deceased P.K.Muthukumar and another brother
namely, the second respondent Ramkumar were persistently taking steps to in
intervene in the bail application filed by the all the accused. The same infuriated
and provoked the appellants herein to eliminate the deceased said Muthukumar
as he was hurdle to them for getting bail. Therefore, appellants and other accused
in the earlier case conspired to commit murder of said Muthukumar and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
infurtherence of the conspiracy on 22.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m. Accused No.1 in the
case wearing helmet along with identifiable four persons wielding aruval, lathi
trespassed into the pawn shop situated at Bazar owned by the deceased
Muthukumar and another identifiable accused came in a motor cycle and they
fled away from the scene of the occurrence. Thereafter, FIR was registered by the
SIPCOT Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2023 upon receipt of the complaint
from the second respondent namely defacto complainant. They registered the
case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, and 109 IPC r/w. Section
3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The investigating officer conducted investigation
and filed the final report against the appellants and other accused on 24.05.2023.
The appellants have filed the petitions to discharge them from the case on the
ground that the final report has not been filed within a period of sixty days and
the investigating officer has also not filed any written explanation and hence,
there is a violation of Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 as amended in the year
2016 (herein after called as “Rules”). The learned trial Judge after considering
the entire Rule position and the factual aspect dismissed their applications vide
impugned orders. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeals have been
filed before this Court by the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
5. In all cases, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit that there has been violation of Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1995 as amended
in the year 2016, as the Investigating Officer has filed the final report beyond the
prescribed period of 60 days without written explanation. According to the
learned counsel, once the final report is filed beyond the statutory period
prescribed under the special enactment without written explanation, the Special
Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such a defective and belated final
report. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners filed a discharge petition before the
learned Special Judge, which came to be dismissed erroneously without properly
considering the mandatory requirement under Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Rules.
Hence, the appellants/petitioners seek interference of this Court, contending that
the impugned order suffers from illegality and non-application of mind.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
6. In support of their contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 47 reported in (Madhu
Limaya Vs.State of Maharashtra.
(ii) In the judgment of High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.638 and 550 of
2016 (Premalatha Divakar Vs. the State of Karnataka and
others and State of Karnataka Vs. Shreemad Jagadguru
Shankaracharya)
(iii) AIR 2021 Supreme Court 2351 reported in Criminal
Appeal No.472 of 2021 (Sanjay Kumar Rai V.State of Uttar
Pradesh and another) and
(iv) (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577 reported in State
of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Babbu Rathore and another)
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
present case involves a grave offence of conspiracy and murder. During the
course of investigation, the involvement of the accused persons came to light
periodically, upon the arrest and interrogation of the co-accused. Therefore, the
investigation was carried out in a systematic and meaningful manner by a
competent officer, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in consonance
with the object and spirit of the Act. It is further submitted that the delay in filing
the final report was neither intentional nor deliberate, but it occasioned due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
the complexities involved in unearthing the conspiracy and collecting
incriminating materials against the accused. The delay has also been duly
explained in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
contended that mere delay in filing the final report cannot be a ground to
discharge the accused, particularly in serious offences involving members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In support of his submission, he relied
upon the following precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i)In the case of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Vs.
B.Srinivas reported in 2008 8 SCC 580
(ii)In the case of Narendra Kumar Amin Vs. Central Beureau of
Investigation and others reported in 2015 3 SCC 417
8.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant reiterated the
submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and further submitted
that even though this Court issued a direction on 11.10.2023 in Crl.A.(MD).No.
494 of 2023, to complete the trial in jail premises and complete the trial within a
period of two months, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.Crl.No.422 of 2024, the appellant without co-operating for the trial by
participating in the trial process, along with other accused persons had filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
petition after petition and caused obstruction to trial. They not even allowed the
learned judge to frame the charges and also intentionally refused to receive the
copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. One after another has filed the petition to
discharge from the case. Therefore, the accused not only adopted dilatory tactics
to prolong the trial and also demoralised the witnesses. This court called for the
reports from the learned trial Judge, about the case of the trial in the bail
application filed by the accused Suthersan in the second round in Crl.A.
(MD).No.429 of 2025 and posted the case for further hearing. At this stage, the
accused have filed these appeals and the Hon'ble Judge hearing the case directed
all the above appeals to be placed before this Court on the ground that this Court
already was seized of the matter. The learned counsel sought to dismiss the
petition and allow to proceed with the trial with further necessary directions.
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
10.The primary question that arises for consideration in this revision is
whether the final report, filed beyond the period of sixty days as contemplated
under Rule 7(2), and that too without a written explanation by the Investigating
Officer as required under Rule 7(2-A), vitiates and renders the cognizance taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
by the Special Court invalid, and consequently, whether the accused’s plea for
discharge is legally sustainable.
11.For better appreciation of the above question it is relevant to extract the
above said Rule 7.
7.(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be
investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be
appointed by the State Government, Director–General of Police,
Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past
experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications
of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the
shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub–rule (1)
shall complete the investigation on top priority and submit the
report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn will immediately
forward the report to the Director–General of Police or
Commissioner of Police of the State Government, and the officer–
in–charge of the concerned police station shall file the charge–
sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a
period of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and
filing of charge– sheet.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
(2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or filing of charge–sheet
in accordance with sub–rule (2) shall be explained in writing by the
investigating officer.
(3) The Secretary, Home Department and the Secretary,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department
(the name of the Department may vary from State to State) to the
State Government or Union Territory Administration, Director of
Prosecution, the officer–in–charge of Prosecution and the
Director–General of Police or Commissioner of Police in–charge
of the concerned State or Union Territory shall review by the end of
every quarter the position of all investigations done by the
investigating officer.
12. It is a well-settled principle of law that delay in filing the final report,
by itself, is not a ground to quash the proceedings or discharge the accused. The
time limit prescribed for completion of investigation primarily enables the
accused to claim statutory bail, but it does not automatically render the
investigation illegal or invalidate the final report filed thereafter.
13.It is also relevant to note that the present case involves grave and
serious offences, including murder committed in a public place near the court
premises, and further allegations of conspiracy involving multiple accused
persons., as rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
investigation progressed in stages, with the arrest of the accused persons at
different points of time. The Investigating Officer examined several witnesses
and collected incriminating materials in a fair and proper manner. Therefore,
gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances warrant fair
investigation. The investigation in the murder case as a result of the long period
of criminal conspiracy cannot be said to be a taken as one to be probed within a
short span of time. In this aspect, Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the SC/ST Rules must
be interpreted in accordance with the object of the Act. The amendment to the
Rule 7(2) of the Act was brought in the year 2016 with inclusion of Rule 7(2-A).
Before amendment, there was no duty cast upon the Investigating Officer to
explain the delay in writing. The Rule and the provisions in Section 4 and the
various provisions of Cr.P.C., has to be harmoniously interpreted without making
the object of the Act otiose. The amended provision of 2016 in both Section 4
and Rule 7(2), 7(2-A) is victim centric and they aimed to complete the
investigation in order to safeguard the interest of the witnesses and to protect the
witnesses from tampering and the possible erosion of evidence due to their
vulnerability. Further, the Hon'ble three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
Ramawatar v. State of M.P. Reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, has held that
“16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special
statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically
enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is
also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking
several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to
be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The
Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been
enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards
enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-
fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable
communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the
victims of caste-based atrocities.
14.Before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in (2017) 14
SCC 304, there was a challenge of the investigation by the Sub-Inspector of
Police as against the Rule and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted the
said submission and held that there was no miscarriage of justice and failure of
justice and serious prejudice caused as per Section 465 of Cr.P.C. Applying the
said principle to this case mere non filing of final report within a period of sixty
days along with written explanation is not a ground to discharge the accused.
Further in this case, there was a planned gruesome murder of Scheduled Caste
person who was prime witness in his brother's murder case in the Bazar through
the well organised manner with involvement of hirekillers which necessiated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
thorough investigation by arresting the number of accused from various places
which legally consumed more than a period of sixty days as contemplated under
Rule 7 (2) and 7(2-A) which in considered opinion of this Court, it is not
mandatory and the word “shall” in the Rule casts a duty on the investigating
officer to complete the investigation within a period of sixty days but it cannot
be extended to quash the final report in so far as SC/ST offence. That is not the
intention of the Act, and if the said interpretation is allowed, then 90% of the
cases have to be stuck off from the record. Therefore, this Court relies the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Amin
Vs. Central Beureau of Investigation and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 417
to treat the word “shall” as “may” to interpret the Rule 7(2)(A) and the relevant
paragraph is as follows:
15.The observation made at para 76 of the Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in K. Veeraswami [K.Veeraswami v. Union of
India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, para 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] that the
report is complete if it is accompanied by all documents and
statements of witnesses as required under Section 173(5) CrPC
cannot be construed as the statement of law, since it was not made
in the context of the police report under Section 2(r) read with
Sections 173(2), (5) and (8) CrPC. On the contrary, the three-Judge
Bench of this Court in the decision in CBI v. R.S. Pai [(2002) 5 SCC
82 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 950] case, after referring to the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
judgment of the coordinate Bench in Narayan Rao case [Narayan
Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1957 SC 737 : 1957 Cri LJ 1320 : 1958
SCR 283] categorically held that the word “shall” used in sub-
section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but directory. The
said statement of law is made after considering the provisions of
Section 2(r) read with Sections 173(5) and (8) CrPC. Therefore,
filing of the police report containing the particulars as mentioned
under Section 173(2) amounted to completion of filing of the report
before the learned ACJM, cognizance is taken and registered the
same. The contention of the appellant that the police report filed in
this case is not as per the legal requirement under Sections 173(2)
and (5) CrPC which entitled him for default bail, was rightly
rejected by the High Court and does not call for any interference by
this Court.
15.Further, looking from the other angle punishment for Section 3 (V) of
the Act, is life imprisonment and punishment for the other major offence 302 IPC
is life imprisonment or death and in the said circumstances, as per 173 Cr.P.C.,
and 167 Cr.P.C, limitation for filing the final report is 90 days. In default, the
only benefit accused to the accused is that benefit of statutory bail. Except that
there is no question of entitlement of quashment of case or discharge and the
same was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments on
different angle including the case of Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta Vs. B.Srinivas reported in 2008 8 SCC 580 and the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
Court held that mere delay in conclusion of the investigation of the case is not a
ground to quash the FIR and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows:-
10.There is no general and wide proposition of law formulated
that whenever there is delay on the part of the investigating agency
in completing the investigation, such a delay can be a ground for
quashing the FIR. It would be difficult to formulate inflexible
guidelines or rigid principles in determining as to whether the
accused has been deprived of fair trial on account of delay or
protracted investigation; it would depend on various factors
including whether such a delay was reasonably long or caused
deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or
whether the delay was inevitable in the nature of things or whether it
was due to dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. It would depend
upon certain peculiar facts and circumstances of each case i.e. the
volume of evidence collected by the investigating agency, the nature
and gravity of the offence for which the accused has been charge-
sheeted in a given case. The nexus between whole and some of the
above factors is of considerable relevance. Therefore, whether the
accused has been deprived of fair trial on account of protracted
investigation has to come on facts. He has also to establish that he
had no role in the delay. Every delay does not necessarily occur
because of the accused.
16.In this case, occurrence took place on 22.02.2023 and final report filed
on 26.05.2023. Totally 15 accused persons and one juvenile accused were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
arrested and 91 witnesses have been examined by the investigating officer. 11
Expert witnesses were examined and 4 Eye witnesses were examined and
various persons from the tele communication department and bank officials were
examined and confession of many accused were recorded and incriminating
materials were recovered at their disclosure on various dates. Further, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has produced petition filed by the Investigating
Officer in R.No.543 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023 to extend the period, which
contained explanation. Therefore, this Court finds no intentional lapse on the
part of the investigating officer causing prejudice to the accused. Hence, this
Court holds that the prayer to discharge the accused on the ground that the
investigating officer has filed final report beyond the period of sixty days as
stated in the Rule 7(2) is misconceived one. The main SC/ST Act, did not
prescribe any time limit to complete the investigation. The time limit cannot be
predicted for completing the investigation. Therefore, the legislator in their
wisdom did not fix the outer limit but imposed the statutory duty on the
investigating officer in all fairness to complete the investigation within a period
of sixty days and to impose a further duty to submit the written explanation for
the delay of more than sixty days. This does not create any right on the accused
to seek discharge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
17.As per Cr.P.C., final report has been filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
and the offence punishable for more than a period of three years there is no
question of application of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. On this reasoning also, this
Court finds no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant to discharge the accused on the ground that the investigating officer
filed the final report beyond the period of sixty days without written explanation
and the question of filing final report without written explanation is a fact that
has to be decided at the time of the trial during the course of the examination of
the investigating officer and it is open to the accused to raise before the trial
Court and establish prejudice and failure of justice. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as stated above clearly stated that the final report is not defective for non
filing of some of the document. Looking from other angle, lapse on the part of
the investigating officer whether intentional or unintentional is not a ground to
discharge the accused. Therefore, filing of final report beyond sixty days in the
specific case of murder out of the organised conspiracy cannot be faulted and
hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss all the criminal appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
18. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. The Course of the investigation depend upon the certain peculiar
circumstances of the each case. The same also depend upon the gravity of the
offence. More particularly, in the case of criminal conspiracy, time lapse between
the arrest of the one accused and the other accused has to be considered.
Therefore, in this case, as rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor more than 16 accused were arrested and the connecting materials
were collected and therefore, time lapse to file the final report beyond 60 days
cannot be put against the Investigating Officer and said delay is not a ground to
discharge the accused from the grave charge of murder of the deceased
belonging to the vulnerable Section of schedule caste, in the main Bazar ie., in
the pawn shop owned by the deceased. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in
the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the
appeals deserve to be dismissed.
19. This Court also perused the report submitted by the learned trial Judge
and also considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor about the
conduct of majority of the accused to file the petition after petition exceeding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
150 in numbers to protract the trial without allowing the trial Court to move an
inch of trial despite the direction issued by this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.,494 of
2023 and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.
422 of 2024 and holds that the conduct of the accused in adopting dilatory tactics
to protract the trial proceedings is not appreciable.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit
in the present Criminal Appeals. The Criminal appeals are misconceived and
devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
21.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeals stand dismissed. However,
considering the gravity of the offence and the prolonged delay in trial, this Court
issues the following directions:
(i) The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the trial on a day-to-
day basis and complete the trial within a period of two months from today
without granting unnecessary adjournments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
(ii)This Court hereby directs all the accused to extend their full
cooperation for the expeditious completion of the trial.
(iii)The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is directed not to
assign any additional judicial work to the learned trial Judge concerned until the
completion of trial in the present case, so as to enable the trial Judge to devote
full time and full attention for expeditious disposal of the trial.
22. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeals
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
25.02.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
ebsi/sbn
Note: Issue order copy on 25.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi South Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi Rural,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Special Judge,
Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.118, 176 and 204 of 2026
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ebsi/sbn
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 204, 118 and 176 of 2026
and
25.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:15 pm )
