[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Subbu @ Subramaniyan vs State By The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 18.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)Nos.897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.897 of 2024
1.Subbu @ Subramaniyan
2.Sultan Mydeen ... Appellant/Accused Nos.1 & 4
Vs.
1.State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thalayuthu Rural,
Thalayuthu Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.213 of 2011. ... Respondent/Complainant
2.Poyyamani ... Respondent/
defacto Complainant
(R2 is suo-motu impleaded
as per the order of this Court
dated 20.01.2025)
1/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2)
BNSS to call for the records and set aside the conviction
imposed against the appellant in judgment dated 08.10.2024
made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing this Criminal
Appeal.
For Appellant No.1: Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
For Appellant No.2: Mr.S.R.Muthuvasan
for Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.Thirumurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.957 of 2024
1.Karthick
2.Jacob
3.Praveen Raj ... Appellant/Accused Nos.5,6 & 7
Vs.
1.State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thalayuthu Rural,
Thalayuthu Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.213 of 2011. ... Respondent/Complainant
2/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
2.Poyyamani ... Respondent/
defacto Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2)
BNSS (Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set
aside the conviction imposed against the appellant in judgment
dated 08.10.2024 made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the
II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing
this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.Thirumurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.1147 of 2024
M.Vijayaramamoorthy ... Appellant/Accused No.8
Vs.
1.State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thalayuthu Rural,
Thalayuthu Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.213 of 2011. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Poyyamani ... 2nd Respondent/
defacto Complainant
3/39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2)
BNSS (Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set
aside the conviction imposed against the appellant in judgment
dated 08.10.2024 made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the
II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing
this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Nandhi Devan
For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.Thirumurugan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
These appeals are directed as against the Judgment
passed in S.C.No.96 of 2016, dated 08.10.2024 by the learned
II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the injured is
the President of the North Thalaiyuthu Panchayat and belongs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
to the Hindu Arunthathiyar Community. As a result, many of
the ward members of the Panchayat Board were displeased
with her. She is staying away from her office and would travel
there by auto. While being so, on 13.06.2011 at about 10.00
p.m., after finishing her work, she returned home in an auto
bearing Registration No.TN-72-AC-4158, which was driven by
one Valathi, along with one Sarpudin. Upon reaching her
village, the accused persons, armed with sickles and wooden
logs, way-laid the auto and indiscriminately attacked the
injured/complainant, while the auto driver and Sarpudin
attempted to shout for help but were intimidated by the
accused. As a result, they ran away from the scene of
occurrence. Immediately, the injured was taken to the
Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where she was in a
critical, dying condition. Her dyding declaration was recorded
by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
3. Based on the complaint, respondent registered an
FIR in Cr.No.213 of 2011 for the offences punishable under
Sections, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of IPC and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022.
The investigation revealed that all the accused individuals
belong to a different community, while the injured belongs to
the SC/ST community. As a result, the case was transferred to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. After
completing the investigation, a final report was filed, charging
the accused with offences punishable under Sections 341,
294(b), 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST Act. The trial court took cognizance and charged
accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section
341, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act and accused Nos.5 to 8 for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC,
Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
4. In order to bring the charges to home, the
prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.28. On the side of the accused no one was examined
and no document was produced. The prosecution produced
material objects M.O.1 to M.O.5.
5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 are not found guilty
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 r/w 149
r/w 34 of IPC, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4
of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and
acquitted them. A7 is not found guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and 4 of Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and A8 is not
found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x)
of SC/ST Act.
6. A1, A4, A5, A6 were convicted and sentenced to
undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 341 IPC; they were convicted and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment
for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307
r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable
under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and they were convicted
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
for three years for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act and further they were sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
three months for the offence under Section 4 of TNPWH Act.
7. A7 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 341 IPC; he was sentenced to undergo Life
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence
punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and
further he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
8. A8 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one
month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 341 IPC; he was convicted and sentenced to undergo
Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in
default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for
the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of
IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence
punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 4 of TNPWH Act. During trial, 9th
accused died and all the charges are abated as against the 9th
accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the injured, who deposed as P.W.2, was
immediately taken to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital
by her brother after the occurrence. He stated before the doctor
that she was assaulted by one un-known person on 13.06.2011
at about 09.00 p.m., near North Thalaiyuthu. The prosecution
failed to examine Gunasekaran, the brother of the injured, who
had brought the injured to the hospital. Subsequently, P.W.1
gathered information and lodged a complaint on 14.06.2011 at
around 7:00 a.m. Therefore, P.W.1 could not have witnessed
the occurrence and is not an eye witness to the occurrence.
P.W.4, who provided the information, turned hostile and did
not support the case of the prosecution. As a result, the
evidence of P.W.1 becomes doubtful. Furthermore, there was a
delay in lodging the complaint, as the incident occurred on
13.06.2011 at approximately 9:00 p.m., but the complaint was
only filed on 14.06.2011 at around 7:00 a.m. The FIR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
subsequently reached the Court at about 3:00 p.m. This delay
was not properly explained by the prosecution. The FIR states
that the injured person was attacked by four identifiable
persons, out of four persons, one person belongs to
Keelathenkalam, while the other accused persons to
Thalaiyoothu village. Subsequently, the dying declaration of
the injured was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.
IV, Tirunelveli. However, since the injured person subsequently
survived the injuries, her statement should have been treated as
a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to mark the statement
before the trial court, as required. There is no allegation of
participation by the present accused. Subsequently, another
statement was recorded from the injured under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C., in which she introduced new accused persons.
While deposing before the trial court, she further improved her
statement and described specific overt acts attributed to all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
accused persons. The injured had taken four versions, which
she also admitted during cross-examination. She further
admitted that the accused persons were only implicated after
political party leaders agitated the matter, leading to the
deletion of the original accused in the final report. Apart from
the injured witness, no other witnesses supported the case of
the prosecution to corroborate P.W.2's evidence. P.W.3, who
accompanied the injured, also turned hostile. Furthermore, the
prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 149 of the
IPC in accordance with the law. The prosecution also failed to
prove the charge under Section 34 of the IPC. The doctor who
recorded the Accident Register, P.W.16, deposed that the
injured was unconscious, and her brother stated that an
unknown person had assaulted her on 13.06.2011 at about
09:00 p.m. The injured was found to have sustained 12 injuries.
The injured was admitted as an inpatient, and injuries Nos. 3 to
8 were declared grievous, while injuries Nos. 1, 2, and 9 to 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
were classified as simple in nature. The wound certificate was
marked as Ex.P16. Initially, the injured stated that she was
assaulted by an unknown person; however, she later named
several accused persons and falsely implicated them. The
prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to
corroborate the testimony of P.W.2. Her evidence is unreliable
due to contradictions, exaggerations, and subsequent
improvements. Therefore, the trial court's conviction of the
accused was based solely on assumptions, as the prosecution
failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubts. The
injured categorically deposed that one Meeran used to abuse
her and that he was the mastermind behind the entire crime.
However, Meeran has not been implicated as an accused in the
case. The injured appears to have a motive to falsely implicate
the accused. As for accused Nos. 1 to 4, they were implicated
in connection with the construction of the septic tank. The
implication of Accused Nos. 5 to 9 is based on the allegation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
that there was a temple dispute between the injured party and
the accused. However, it is argued that they were falsely
implicated as accused. The trial court, without considering
these facts and circumstances, convicted the accused in a
mechanical manner.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents would submit that the injured is
the Panchayat President of Thalaiyuthu Panchayat and belongs
to the SC/ST community, while the other ward members
belong to a different community. Therefore, they did not allow
the injured to perform her duties as Panchayat President. It is
further submitted that all the accused conspired together to do
away with the life of the injured. On the date of occurrence, all
the accused waylaid the injured and brutally attacked her with
deadly weapons. Though she sustained grievous injuries,
including the severing of her fingers and a fracture, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
fortunately survived. She was unconscious, and at that
juncture, a dying declaration was recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli. Since the injured was
still alive, the statement cannot be treated as a dying
declaration, and as such, the prosecution did not mark it.
Moreover, she was unconscious at the time of giving her
statement and, as such, was not in a fit state of mind to give
correct statement. Additionally, the statement recorded in the
Accident Register was taken from the brother of the injured,
who was not an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, it cannot
be said that there were any contradictions or improvements in
the version of occurrence. Subsequently, the statement of the
injured was recorded and marked as Ex.P2. In her statement,
she deposed before the Court as P.W.2, detailing specific overt
acts against all the accused persons. Her testimony clearly
corroborates with the injuries she sustained. All the accused
brutally attacked her, resulting in the loss of several fingers,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
and she was in a critical condition. Fortunately, due to proper
treatment, she survived. Further, an injured eyewitness is often
considered the best witness, provided their testimony is cogent
and trustworthy to convict the accused. It need not be
corroborated by any other independent witness. The eyewitness
categorically identified the accused and deposed about the
specific overt act committed by each of the accused persons.
Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the accused, and
there is no warrant for interference of this Court.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
12. The present case highlights the unfortunate state
of affairs in our country, primarily for two reasons: firstly,
because a woman was elected as the Village Panchayat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
President, and secondly, because the woman belongs to the SC
Arunthathiyar community. This case serves as a clear example
of the illegal actions committed by members of the other
community against individuals from the SC Arunthathiyar
community, who are part of a marginalized group. P.W.2 was
elected as the Village Panchayat President for the term
2006-2011. During her tenure, the representatives of women
requested the construction of public conveniences.
Accordingly, P.W.2 submitted a request to the Union Block
Development Officer, but the request was declined due to
insufficient funds. The matter was then taken up with the
District Collector, and ultimately, her request was rejected on
the same grounds that the panchayat lacked the funds for the
construction of public conveniences. P.W.2 approached a
private cement company, which agreed to construct a public
convenience for the general public. They decided to build it on
a Government Poramboke land, where a toilet serving the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
Muslim community, a veterinary hospital, and a ration shop
were already located nearby. However, when the construction
work began, accused Nos. 1 and 4 arrived at the site and
obstructed the construction process. On 13.02.2011, after the
Block Development Officer had halted the construction of the
public convenience, P.W.2, along with other community
members, went to the office of the District Collector to submit
a petition on grievance day. After submitting the petition, while
P.W.2 was returning home in an auto with the help of the
driver, P.W.2, the accused way-laid the auto, who were hiding
in the library building with deadly weapons. The auto driver
realized that the accused had waylaid the auto to assault him,
so he stopped the auto and fled from the scene of occurrence.
When P.W.2 attempted to exit the auto, the fifth accused
verbally abused her with filthy language, including her caste
name, and attacked her with a sickle. When P.W.2 tried to
block the attack, she suffered an injury on her left shoulder, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
her left index finger was completely severed. Subsequently, the
sixth accused attacked her with an aruval, causing severe injury
to her right ear lobe, including the complete severance of the
pinna cartilage. The force of the attack caused her to fall, and
the earring fell from her ear. The sixth accused then further
attacked her on the neck, causing her to lose balance and fall
down. Subsequently, the 8th and 9th accused lifted the saree
and attacked her right knee, while another accused caught hold
of her hair, cut it, and threw it on her face, causing her to fall.
She was immediately taken to the hospital and admitted as an
inpatient for two months due to multiple injuries on her neck,
shoulder, and hands. Initially, she was admitted at the
Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, but due to inadequate
medical facilities, she was later transferred to Rajiv Gandhi
Hospital in Chennai and they refused to admit her as well and
therefore, she was referred to Stanley Hospital, Chennai and
she underwent several surgeries and treatment. The husband of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
the P.W.2 deposed as P.W.1. He deposed that all the accused
came in an auto and attacked the injured with deadly weapons.
It was marked as Ex.P1. The first ground raised by the accused
challenging the conviction and sentence is that there was a
delay in lodging the complaint, registering the FIR, and
sending the same to the Court.
13.P.W.2 deposed that the occurrence took place at
approximately 9:30 p.m. on 13.06.2011. The incident was
reported to P.W.1, the husband of the injured, who was also
informed that the injured had been taken to the hospital. Upon
reaching the hospital, he found the injured person unconscious,
and first aid was being administered. Upon enquiry, he found
that the accused had assaulted her. After shifting the injured to
the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and receiving the
intimation, the respondent recorded the statement of P.W.1 at
about 6:00 a.m. On 14.06.2011, at about 7:00 a.m., an FIR was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
registered in Cr.No.213 of 2011 for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of the IPC, and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Women Act. The
complaint was marked as Ex.P1, and the FIR was marked as
Ex.P15. It reached the Court at 3:00 p.m. on 14.06.2011, and
therefore, there was no delay in lodging the complaint,
registering the FIR, or sending the FIR to the Court.
14. In respect of motive, P.W.2 categorically deposed
that she was holding the position of Panchayat President at
Thalaiyuthu Panchayat. In an effort to construct a public
convenience, she approached the concerned authorities.
However, her request was denied due to a lack of funds, and as
a result, a private company constructed a public toilet on the
Government Poramboke land. This, however, was objected by
members of the other community. Apart from that, there was a
dispute related to the temple between the injured party and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
accused. The injured woman, who belongs to the SC
Arunthathiyar community, was carrying out public work
independently. As a result, the accused, who belongs to a
upper community, decided to do away with her life. Therefore,
the prosecution has clearly established the motive against the
accused.
15. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is
extracted hereunder:-
“13.06.2011k; Njjp kjpaj;jpw;F gpd;G
kWehs; tUtha; jPu;g;ghaj;jpy; nfhLg;gjw;fhf
kD vOjp nfhz;bUe;Njd;. mt;thW vOjp
nfhLg;gjw;F ,uT 9.30 kzp
Mfptpl;lJ. ,uthdjhy; tsjp vd;gtupd;
Ml;Nlhtpw;fhf tsjpf;F Nghd; nra;Njd;.
mtUila Ml;Nlh vz; TN 72 AC 4158. Ml;Nlh
te;j gpd;du; ehDk;> ru;GjpDk; mjpy; Vwp tPlb
; w;F
Gwg;gl;Nlhk;. ru;Gjpd; tPl;bw;F mUfpy; te;jTld;
mtu; ,wq;fptpl;lhu;. mjd; gpd;du; vd; tPl;bw;F
nry;Yk;NghJ fUg;grhkp Nfhtpy; Kf;fpy;
jpUk;Gk;NghJ Rg;Gk;> Ry;jhDk; mq;F rf;fpypa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
Njtbah tuh mtis ntl;Lq;fs; vd;W
rj;jk;Nghl;lhu;fs;. mg;NghJ mq;F liabrary
fl;blj;jpy; xope;J ,Ue;j N[f;fg;> gputpd;>
tp[auhk%u;j;jp> fhu;j;jpf;> eluh[d;> fNzrd;
MfpNahu;fs; iffspy; mUths;> fk;G itj;J
nfhz;L Ml;Nlhit ghu;j;J Xb te;jij
ghu;j;jTld; Ml;Nlh biutu; mtiu jhd; ntl;l
tUfpwhu;fs; vd;W Xbdhu;. ehd;
Ml;Nlhtpy; ,Ue;J Ngf;if vLj;J
nfhz;L ,wq;Fk;NghJ rf;fpypa Njtbah cd;id
jhd; ntl;l NghNwhk;> rf;fpypa Njtbah eP vg;gb
Xil Gwk;Nghf;fpy; fopg;giw fl;Lt vd;W
nrhy;yp fhu;j;jpf; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j mUthshy;
,lJ ifapy; Xq;fp ntl;l ehd; jLj;Njd;. uj;jk;
te;jJ. khwp khwp ntl;bajpy; vdf;F ,lJ
Njhs;gl;ilapy; ntl;Lfhak;> ,lJ Ms;fl;b tpuy;
Jz;lhdJ> gputpd; tyJ ifapy; ntl;bajpy;
ehd; jLj;Njd; ,uz;L tpuy;fs; Nkhjputpuy;>
Rz;Ltpuy; Jz;lhfptpl;lJ. N[f;fg; rf;fpypa
Njthbah ehNa vd;W nrhy;yp mUthshy; Xq;fp
ntl;bajpy; vd;Dila tyJ gf;f fhJ
Rk;kNthL ,Ue;jJ Jz;lhfp tpOe;jJ. fOj;jpy;
ntl;bajpy; fOj;J njhq;fptpl;lJ. tp[auhk
%u;j;jpAk;. eluh[Dk; NriyNa Jhf;fp tyJ
fhy; Kl;bia gP];]hf cilj;J tpl;lhu;fs;.
fNzrd; vd;Dila jiyKbia gpbj;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
mUthshy; mWj;J Kbia vd; Kfj;jpy;
tPrptpl;lhu;. rf;fpypa ehNa nrj;jh xopr;rh ,dp
Nky; ve;jpupr;rp Nghaplkhl;lhs; vd;W Nfl;lNghJ
Ms; rj;jk; Nfl;lJ. Ms; rj;jk; Nfl;lTld;
mtu;fs; XlMuk;gpj;jhu;fs;. ehd; uj;j
nts;sj;jpy; rha;e;J tpl;Nld;. mtu;fs; Nghl;L
tpl;L Xb tpl;lhu;fs;. mjd; gpd;du; ahu; vg;gb
Jhf;fp nfhz;L NghdhHfs; vd;W njupahJ
ghisaq;Nfhl;il `fpuTz;l; kUj;Jtidapy;
Nru;j;jhu;fs; mq;F rpfpr;irapy; ,uz;L
khjk; ,Ue;Njd;. fOj;J nfhz;il euk;G mWe;J
tpl;ljhy; fOj;J Ml;lk; epw;ftpy;iy. Mb
nfhz;Nl ,Ue;jJ. mjdhy; mjw;F rpfpr;ir
mspg;gjw;Fupa trjp ,q;Nf ,y;iy vd;gjhy;
Mk;Gyd;]; %yk; nrd;id uh[Pt; fhe;jp
kUj;Jtidf;F mDg;gp itj;jhu;fs;. mq;F
mtu;fs; vd;id vLj;J nfhs;stpy;iy. ];lhd;yp
kUj;Jtidf;F khw;wp tpl;lhu;fs;. mq;F xU
khjk; cs;Nehahspahf ,Ue;Njd;. mq;F fhy;
fz;il euk;ig vLj;J fOj;jpd; tyJ gf;fk;
ite;J ijj;jhu;fs;. vdf;F ,e;j rk;gtj;jpw;F
gpd;du; fz;ghu;itapy; FiwT Vw;gl;Ls;sJ.
vjpupfis jg;g tpl$lhJ. tof;F rk;ge;jkhf
Nghyprhu; vd;id tprhupj;jhu;fs;. FtpKr gpupT
164 d; gb ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; kd;wj;jpy; thf;F
%yk; nfhLj;Njd;.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
16. Fortunately, due to proper treatment, P.W.2
survived. After the occurrence, her condition was immediately
assessed, and a dying declaration was recorded. At that time,
she was unconscious, and there was no evidence to determine
whether she was fit to make a statement. She was unaware as
to who took her to the hospital or what treatment she received.
In fact, she was treated for over three months in various
hospitals and underwent several surgeries. Since she survived,
the dying declaration recorded by the judicial officer no longer
holds its validity and need not be marked by the prosecution.
Subsequently, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., on 27.09.2011, which was three months after the date
of the occurrence, and it was marked as Ex.P2. Although P.W.2
was examined regarding the dying declaration and the
contradictions between the dying declaration and the statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she was unconscious
at the time the dying declaration was recorded. If the dying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
declaration was to be deemed relevant, the defense should have
marked it for comparison with the statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., but the defense failed to do so.
Therefore, despite the contradictions pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellants regarding the time, place, and specific
overt acts of the accused, there are no circumstances that warrant
disbelieving the evidence of the injured witness. Since the
prosecution has clearly established the motive behind the
occurrence, and the evidence of P.W.2 has inspired the confidence
of the Court as cogent and trustworthy, there is nothing to discredit
the injured eyewitness.
17. In fact, when the injured eye witness inspires the
confidence of the Court, the prosecution need not to establish
the motive. The injured eye witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless there are any compelling reasons exist their
statements are not be discarded lightly. Further, when the eye
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
witness categorically deposed about the time and place of the
occurrence, it cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions. Therefore, the trial Court believed the evidence
of the injured witness and convicted the accused. The injured
eye witness evidence must be believed so that the real culprits
shall not escape. Though other witnesses turned hostile, it
would not affect the case of the prosecution since the injured
eye witness is cogent and trustworthy. It is broad substratum
of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration
without considering the small contradictions and discrepancies.
That apart, the occurrence took place on 13.06.2011, after a
period of 11 years, the injured witness was examined on
19.09.2022. Therefore, the contradictions and discrepancies
which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of
time should be discarded. Further, the injuries sustained by
P.W.2 establishes her presence on the scene of occurrence and
it cannot be rejected unless there was strong ground of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
rejection. The testimony of an injured witness is of greater
evidentiary value when the injuries are also corroborated by the
doctor, who had treated the injured. The doctor who examined
the injured recorded the Accident Register, which was marked
as Ex.P16. The Accident Register revealed the following
injuries:-
“1.15 x 2 cm bone deep laceration right tempro
occipital region.
2. Loss of right ear lobe rip with throughout pinna
cartilage
3. 20 x 3 cm bonde deep laceration on right side
neck.
4. 3 x 05 cm x skin deep laceration on right side neck.
5. 3 x 2 cm bone deep laceration on right side
6. laceration on right fore arm and hand
(i) 3 x 2 cm bone deep
(ii) 6 x 3 cm bone deep
(iii) 4 x 3 cm bone deep
(iv) 4 x 3 cm
(v) 6 x 4 cm bone deep
7. V shaped laceration 6 x 3 cm x tender deep in left
forearm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
8. 6 x 2 cm x bone deep laceration V shaped in the
left forearm.
9. 6x 2 cm bone deep laceration in right arm.
10. 2 x 05 cm x Skin deep laceration in right thigh.
11. 5 x 3 cm x bone deep laceration in right knee.
12. 4 x 1 cm x bone deep laceration in right leg
below knee.”
The doctor had deposed as P.W.16. The doctor opined that
serial Nos.3,4,5,6,7 & 8 are grievous injuries and Serial Nos.
1,2,9,10,11, and 12 are simple injuries in nature.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Khema @ Khem Chandra etc., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 689 in which, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that with regard to oral testimony, it can be
classified as (I) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii)
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Since, P.W.2 had
improved and exaggerated her testimony for impleading other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
accused persons, her testimony shall be wholly unreliable as
stated supra.
19. On the ground of minor inconsistencies, the entire
evidence of P.W.2 cannot be brushed aside. It is to be noted
that whether there are any material improvements in her
evidence. Her evidence therefore is required to be scrutinized
with greater caution and circumspection. Though her dying
declaration was recorded immediately after the occurrence, she
was unconscious and there is no evidence to show that she was
fit enough to make any statement. That apart, it was not
marked before the trial Court and as such, the said
contradictions or any discrepancies are not proved by the
accused. Further, the presence of an injured eye witness at the
time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless
there are material contradictions in the deposition. Unless, it is
otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape.
The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account
of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions. Even assuming that if there be any exaggeration
or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured
witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or
embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of
injured, but not the whole evidence. Therefore, the trial Court
rightly discarded the alleged contradictions, exaggeration or
embellishment and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3.
20. Further, all the accused, with an intention to do
away with the life of the deceased, came with deadly weapons
and assaulted her. P.W.2 categorically deposed about the
specific overtact of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution
categorically proved all the charges. Insofar as the non-
recovery of weapons used in the commission of crime from A5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
and A8 is concerned, it is not a sine quo non to convict the
accused, if there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness
even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be
convicted. Mere, non-recovery of weapon is not a fatal to the
case of the prosecution.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that some of the accused names were added of the
later point of time and the suppression of dying declaration by
the prosecution proves that the accused have been falsely
implicated. Further, they have been added as an accused due to
the agitations initiated by the political leaders and the
community leaders. During cross-examination of P.W.2, she
categorically deposed that the real accused names were not
impleaded by the police and they refused to add their names.
Only after several protest, the respondent added the real
accused, who were involved in the crime. Further, there are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
specific overtact as against the accused and the evidence of
P.W.2 is cogent and clinching to convict each and every
accused. In fact, the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector
of Police belong to the same community as the accused and as
such, they refused to add their names as accused. Further,
some of the accused persons were not implicated as accused
and even then, it cannot be said that the investigation is a
defective investigation. Though the investigation was done
defectively, it would not amount for acquittal of the accused
solely on that ground. It would be tantamount to placing trust
in the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is
designed defectively, especially when ocular testimony is
found to be credible and trustworthy, supported by cogent
materials and the same is sufficient to convict the accused.
Insofar as the dying declaration which was recorded from P.W.
2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, is concerned, the
learned Magistrate mentioned that P.W.2 was unable to answer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
and she was not in a position to give any statement at 2.45
a.m., on 14.06.2011. The learned Magistrate recorded the
statement of P.W.2 at about 09.30 a.m. Therefore, P.W.2 was
not in a position to explain the incident properly. That apart,
the said dying declaration was not signed by P.W.2 and it was
attested by her left toe impression. Therefore, this Court can
visualise that at the time of recording the statement of P.W.2,
she was in a unspeakable pathetic condition as she was
assaulted on her neck and sustained extreme grievous injuries.
After completion of her treatment, her statement was recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the same was corroborated
by her evidence. Thus, the prosecution proved the charges as
against the accused and the trial Court rightly convicted them.
Insofar as the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that it cannot be sustained on the ground
that the provision envisages an increased punishment. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
argued that, when the punishment under Section 307 of the IPC
is life imprisonment, which is prohibited by law, the addition
of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act would be
redundant, as the punishment under Section 307 already covers
the offence.
22. In the case on hand, charge under Section 307 of
IPC is proved by the prosecution, which is an offence
punishable for more than 10 years. All the accused had
absolute knowledge that the injured belongs to SC
Arunthathiyar community and that she was serving as a
Panchayat President from the year 2006-2011. All the accused
belongs to the same panchayat and only after knowing her
identity, they intended to do away with her life and attacked her
with deadly weapons. Further, they had attacked the injured
only for the reason that she belongs to the member of SC
Arunthathiyar community, which adds more culpability to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
act of accused for committing the offence under the provision
of SC/ST Act. Therefore, they are liable to be punished under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the trial Court
rightly convicted the accused and sentenced them to maximum
punishment of life sentence.
23. In view of the above, these criminal appeals are
dismissed. The respondent police is directed to secure the
accused, who are in bail and produce them before the trial
Court for taking further steps.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
26.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thalayuthu Rural,
Thalayuthu Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR),
Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos. 897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
am
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
Crl.A(MD)Nos.897, 957 and 1147 of 2024
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2026 04:33:33 pm )
