[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Udayalekha vs State Rep.By on 27 February, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
CRL A No.623 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20-02-2026
DATE OF DECISION : 27-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL A No.623 of 2019
Udayalekha
W/o Udayabalan
New No.10, Old No.133
Jothi Nagar Main Road
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600 032
Presently Residing at
No.205, Gandhi Road, T.R.Pattinam
Karaikal District-609 606
Puducherry State
Appellant
Vs
State rep.by
The Inspector of Police
EF-II, Team III CCB, Vepery, Chennai
J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai
(Crime No.1942/2017)
Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.08.2019
made in S.C.No.141 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
For Appellant: Mr.John Sathyan
Senior Counsel for Mr.Swami Subramanian
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
CRL A No.623 of 2019
For Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem for State
Mr.S.Seenuvasan
for de-facto complainant
JUDGMENT
P.Velmurugan J.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in
S.C.No.141 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019 convicting and sentencing the appellant,
who was tried as A2, to undergo life imprisonment each for the offence under
Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 109 IPC, ordered to run concurrently.
2. Totally two accused were arrayed as A1 & A2 before the trial Court in
S.C.No.141 of 2018 and pending trial, since A1 died, the charges framed him
stood abated, necessitating the passing of the judgment of conviction and
sentence against A2 by the trial Court. For convenience, the accused will be
referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, in this judgment.
3. The respondent Police filed the charge sheet against the accused stating
that the de-facto complainant is the father of the deceased, A1 is a call taxi
driver and A2 is the wife of the deceased; that A1 and A2 were having illicit
intimacy; that the accused joined together and criminally conspired to commit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
the murder of Udayabalan to grab his properties, as he was a hindrance to their
illicit relationship; that in order to execute the criminal conspiracy, A1 prepared
a duplicate key for the outer door of the house of Udayabalan with the help of
A2, who told A1 that she was going to her native village for festival along with
her children and he can execute the plan when her husband was alone in the
house, thereby abetted A1 to commit the murder; that in continuation of the
criminal conspiracy, on 04.06.2017 at about 04.30 hours, A1 from his mobile
phone 9884993953 called A2 on her mobile phone 9884993952 and went to her
house with knife, chilly powder, duplicate key and brandy bottle and hid himself
under the cot in the room at the ground floor. Later A2 left to her native village
at Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal along with her children at 10.10 night
hours; that on 05.06.2017 at 02.30 early hours, A1 went to the room in the first
floor and murdered Udayabalan, who was in sound sleep, by inflicting grave cut
injuries with a knife on his head, face and hands; that he also took the gold
chain weighing 5 sovereign and cash of Rs.30,000/- from the house; that in
order to screen the offence, A1 spilled the chilly powder all over the floor; that
after completing the crime, he locked the outer door with the duplicate key and
fled from the spot, thereby A1 committed the offence punishable under Sections
450, 302 and 380 IPC and A2 committed the offence punishable under Sections
120-B and 302 r/w 149 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
4. The case was taken on file by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai in PRC No.81 of 2017. At that point of time, the prosecution
filed the death certificate of A1 before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet and as such, the case was proceeded against A2 alone. After
completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai committed the case for trial to the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, since the case was exclusively triable by the
Court of Session. The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai has taken up
the case for trial in S.C.No.141 of 2018 and made over to the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai for disposal of the case in accordance with
law.
5. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, finding sufficient
materials, framed the charges under Sections 120-B & 302 r/w 109 of IPC
against A2.
6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 36
witnesses as PW1 to PW36 and marked 76 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P76,
besides exhibiting 22 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.22. After examining the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, when A2 was questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating materials culled out from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
evidence of prosecution witnesses, she pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
However, on the side of defence, Ex.D1 was alone marked and no oral evidence
was let in.
7. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the arguments advanced on
either side, the trial Court found A2 guilty of the charged offences and convicted
and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment for the offence(s) as stated
above. Aggrieved by the same, A2 has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
8. The case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows:-
(a) PW1 Sadasivam is the father of the deceased. He preferred the Ex.P.1
complaint before the Guindy police. In the complaint he has stated that he was
residing with his wife at Porur and his son was living with his family at
Ekkattuthangal. On 04.06.2017 his son was alone in his house after sending his
wife and children to Thirumalairayanpattinam at Karaikal. On 05.06.2017 at
11.00 A.M he went to the company at Thirumudivakkam, taking his food.
Udhayabalan did not come to the company. So he made a call to his son’s
mobile phone. He did not attend the call. PW1 went to his house and informed
his wife. She also made a call to her son’s mobile phone. He did not attend the
call. So they took the food and went to their son’s house at Ekkattuthangal. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
door was locked. Another key of the house was with them. By using the same,
they unlocked the door and went to his room on the first floor and found their
son lying dead in a pool of blood with injuries on his head, face and hand.
(b) On receipt of the complaint at 14.45 hours, PW35-Inspector of Police,
Guindy Police station registered a case in Cr.No.1942 of 2017 under Section
302 IPC. The printed form of F.I.R is Ex.P45. Immediately he rushed to the
place of occurrence on the same day at 15.30 hours and prepared the Ex.P.47
observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses P.W.18 Aswin and P.W.19
Vigneswaran and drew the Ex.P.46 rough sketch. On the same day between
15.00 and 17.00 hours, he conducted inquest and prepared the Ex.P.49 inquest
report in the presence of Panchayatars at Royapettah Government Hospital. On
the same day at 15.00 hours, PW35 Dhanaselvan recovered a piece of blood
stained pink colour cloth from the bed cover, blood stained green towel, blood
stained vests and blood stained briefs under Ex.P.48 seizure mahazar in the
presence of same witnesses PW18 and PW19.
(c) He instructed PW27 Sophia Joseph to take photographs of blood
stained foot prints. She handed over the CD, which was recovered under
Ex.P.50 seizure mahazar. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He
submitted the Ex.P.51 requisition to medical officer to conduct autopsy through
PW31 Velraj. The blood stained cloths worn by the deceased were recovered
under Ex.P52 mahazar. The properties which were recovered from the place of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
occurrence and the blood stained cloths were sent to chemical analysis through
the Court under Ex.P53 requisition.
(d) On 15.06.2017, at 9.30 hours, on suspicion A1 was arrested near
Poonamallee – Ekkattuthangal junction. He voluntary confessed in the presence
of PW20 Baskaran and Kanakaraj. He recorded the confession in the presence
of the witnesses. Based on his confession, the admissible portion of which is
Ex.P54, he recovered M.O.10 Knife, M.O.5 Gold Chain, M.O.6 to M.O.8, 3
bundles of hundred rupee notes, M.O.9 key and M.O.20 blood stained dark blue
color pant under seizure Mahazar Ex.P55. He submitted the alteration report
Ex.P56 altering the Section from 302 IPC to 302, 380 IPC. The recovered
properties were submitted to the Court in Form 95 under Exs.P57 to P60. The
properties were sent to chemical analysis under Ex.P61. The City Commissioner
of Police transferred the investigation to Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
(e) PW36 V.Arokia Ravindran took up further investigation on
20.06.2017. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of
the witnesses. On secret information he called for the cell phone call details. A1
was taken into police custody and interrogated. A1 had confessed that the
deceased was his friend and since he refused to lend him money, he killed the
deceased. Since there was no evidence for having conversed with the deceased,
PW36 asked him to demonstrate the occurrence. A1 was taken to the house of
the deceased on 26.06.2017 at 17.00 hours. He once again confessed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
presence of PW21 K.Dilip Kumar and PW22 Manikandan. Based on the
confession, A1 was taken to his house on 27.06.2017, where A1 handed over a
white colour Samsung cell phone, (SMJ1104/DD), another Samsung cell phone
(SMJ200GDD), Ash colour Lenova cell phone (A6020A40), unregistered rent
agreement between A1 and Renukadevi, an identity card and RC book of Bajaj
Discover Motorcycle TN20AV5028. The said properties were recovered under
seizure Mahazar. In the meanwhile, A2 was brought to the police station by
PW1. A2 voluntarily confessed in the presence of PW21 Dilipkumar and PW23
Arumugham. Based on her confession, empty card board box of Samsung cell
phone was recovered. A2 was taken to her father’s house at
Thirumalairayanpattinam and in the presence of PW24 Kiruba and Mangalraj
Samsung cell phone was recovered from A2. A2 was remanded to judicial
custody. The statement of the witnesses and the doctor who did the autopsy
were recorded. PW16 Sundarrajan gave statement that the accused A1 and A2
attended the ‘Dyana’ programme from 15.05.2012 to 21.05.2012 at Sanantha
Marriage Hall, Rajakilpauk. He obtained the cell phone call details of
9884993952, 9884993953, 9840385954, 8012712771 with 65(B) Evidence Act
Certificate. On 29.11.2017, the foot print was taken in the presence of learned
IX Metropolitan Magistrate for comparison with the foot prints found at the
scene of occurrence. PW27 obtained the foot impression of A1 in the presence
of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Both foot prints were found to be identical.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
The order passed by the Commissioner was marked as Ex.P62. The order for
transfer of investigation to CCB was marked as Ex.P63. The intimation sent to
the Court was marked as Ex.P64. A1 was taken into police custody based on the
requisition under Ex.P65. The admissible portion of the subsequent confession
of A1 was marked as Ex.P66. The seizure mahazars were marked as Exs.P67 &
P68. The admissible portion of the confession of A2 was marked as Ex.P69. The
seizure mahazar of the samsung card board box handed over by A2 was marked
as Ex.P70 and the form 95 was marked as Ex.P71. The seizure mahazar for
recovery of samsung cell phone from the father’s house of A2 was marked as
Ex.P72 and the form 95 was marked as Ex.P73. The requisitions sent through
the Court for forensic analysis of the foot prints taken of A1 and the foot prints
of A1 taken from the place of occurrence were marked as Exs.P74 & P75. The
seizure of the application forms submitted by A1 & A2 before the meditation
centre were seized under the mahazar, Ex.P76. After completing the
investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.
9. In order to substantiate the charges, the father of the deceased
Sadasivam was examined as PW1 before the Court. He has deposed that on
04.06.2017, he attended the dance programme of his grand children at their
school, along with his wife, son (deceased) and daughter-in-law (A2). The
programme got prolonged. A2 already planned to go to her father’s house at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
Thirumalairayanpattinam. He asked her to cancel the programme and to go on
next day, but A2 refused. His son, with his family, went to their house and he
and his wife went to their home. On 05.06.2017 he called the deceased through
cell phone. He did not answer. He came to house, took meals for the deceased
and went to the house of the deceased along with his wife PW2. They reached
the house at 1.00 P.M. The outer door was locked inside. He asked a passerby
boy to open the door. The boy jumped over the door and opened the door. PW2
was having another key of the house. She tried to open the main door.
Meanwhile, he asked the driver of the opposite house to climb on the ladder and
call his son. He attempted, but failed. By the time PW2 opened the door, went
upstairs and found the deceased in a pool of blood with injuries all over the
body. He preferred a complaint before the Guindy Police. Later he informed that
the gold chain which the deceased was wearing was found missing. So the
police came to the conclusion that it is a murder for gain. After postmortem, the
corpse was handed over to them. A2 did not participate in the funeral rites. Later
PW9 Vinoth Kumar informed PW1 certain facts on 13.06.2017. He told that a
person used to come at midnight to meet A2. Further he told that the said person
came on 04.06.2017 and parked his motorcycle and went to the house of A2
with a bag. A2 took him inside the house. Again on 05.06.2017 he came out
from the house and took away his motorcycle. The said person was residing in
the next street. PW1 passed this information to the Guindy Police. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
informed him that the culprit who murdered his son was arrested. PW1 went to
the police station along with A2. PW35 showed the knife, gold chain and 3
bundles of Rs.100/- notes recovered from A1. A2 was so tensed on seeing him.
PW1 took a photo of the accused in his cell phone. The photo was shown to
PW4 and PW5. They told him that he was a call taxi driver, used to come to
pick them up to school whenever school van fails to come. A2 told the children
that he was a resident of next village of their grand father. They all went to
Kishkintha, Sivan Park, Saravana Store etc several times. A2 was sitting very
close in roller coaster with A1. Likewise, PW4 told him one day night at 8.30
P.M., when they went to their father’s room, A1 was seated there. When she
informed A2, she told her that it was her imagination. They went again and he
was not there, but the outdoor in upstairs was opened. In yet another situation,
when PW4 and PW5 were sleeping in their room, A1 came crawling. On seeing
the shadow she woke up and saw A1. He kept his finger on his mouth and told
her not to make noise. He went out and locked the room. This was also
informed to A2. Whenever PW4 attempted to inform the deceased, A2 stopped
her. PW1 informed the same to the officers of CCB. They inquired and told him
that A1 and A2 were known to each other for the past 5 ½ years. A2 was
arrested. He identified the weapon, gold chain, Rs.100/- note bundles, the
dresses of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 was corroborated by his wife
PW2 Ramani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
10. PW3 Kanchana is the domestic servant. She has deposed that when
she asked for leave on 3rd, A2 told her to take leave on 4th. She went to
Thiruvannamalai to get TC for her son. She returned on the next day and came
to know that her boss was murdered.
11. PW4 Minor Udhaya Anusha is the daughter of the deceased and A2.
She narrated the incident which had happened on 04.06.2017. Further she added
that A2 was talking all along in the bus when they were going to their
grandfather’s house. They were about to go to the temple and at that time news
came from PW1 that her father was murdered. When they were returning, the
car was parked to go to washroom, A2 told her to say ‘don’t know’ what ever
the police asks. Later PW1 showed the photo of A1. She told him that she knew
A1 already. She also told him that A1 used to take them to Kishkintha, Sivan
Park and Saravana Stores many times. After 2 days, A2 asked what she will do
if she also goes to jail. She asked A2 why she was talking like this. She also told
PW1 that A1, A2 went together in roller coaster. When she asked A2, she told,
“if you want you also go”. About 2 to 3 months prior to the death of her father,
one day A1 was inside her father’s room. She told her mother, for which she
said “don’t imagine”. She and her sister took the cricket and shuttle cock and
started to go upstairs. A2 stopped them and told that she will go first. She went
upstairs and was talking to someone and came down and said no one was there.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
Later when she was asleep, she saw the shadow of some one standing. A1 came
crawling. She got up and sat. He kept his index finger on her mouth and told not
to make noise. She locked the door. She was awake throughout the night. A2
prevented her from telling her father. She kept quiet, since she did not want to
create problem once again between her parents. Once A2 handed over the debit
card to A1. He took money and returned the card. She informed PW1 on seeing
the photo. PW5 minor Riya corroborated the evidence of PW4.
12. PW6 Vedavalli is another house maid. She has deposed that she went
on leave for 4 days. Later she came to know that her master was murdered.
13. PW7 Parthiban Balasubramanian is the friend and class mate of the
deceased. He has deposed that after marriage, both were concentrating on their
own business. He was at Bangalore and the deceased was at Chennai. He saw
the deceased for the last time on 26.05.2017. Later he came to know that his
friend was murdered.
14. PW8 Jothi Kriplani came to know the deceased through her friend
Saravanan. Later,she came to know the death of deceased. She was at
Bangalore. This was corroborated by PW17 Vijay Baradwaj.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
15. PW9 Vinoth Kumar was having rubber moulding shop near the house
of the deceased. He knew the deceased and A2. About 3 to 4 years before the
occurrence, A1 used to park his motorcycle before his shop and go to the house
of the deceased. Later about 2 years back, A1 shifted his residence nearby the
house of A2. He saw A1 and A2 talking together for about an hour. One day
prior to the occurrence, A1 went to the house of A2 early in the morning at 4.30
A.M. He was having a bag with him. A2 opened the door and A1 went inside
the house. On the same day at 11.00 P.M., the deceased came in a car. A cow
was lying in front of the house. So he was honking. He chased away the cow.
On next day early morning about 4.30 A.M., again A1 came back. He seemed to
be tensed. In the afternoon, he came to know that Udayabalan was murdered.
He did not reveal the same immediately out of fear and after a week, he
disclosed these facts to PW1.
16. PW10 Ganesan is an auto driver. A2 used to come in his auto. About 4
years back, the accused A2 called him to bring the children from school. When
he was near the police booth, A2 received a phone call. She got down near
Ambal Nagar bus stop. After a while, one person came in a motorcycle wearing
helmet. The child was made to sit on the fuel tank and A2 sat on the pillion
covering her face and they left. He used to play cricket in the ground. He used
to see A1 and A2 driving the car. He had a doubt about the behaviour of A2. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
informed PW1. Later the police came and recorded his statement.
17. PW11 Harikrishnan is the duplicate key maker. His cousin brother
Munusamy was also doing same profession at Jafferkhanpet. A1 asked
Munusamy to make a duplicate key. Since the key has to be made by machine,
that facility was available only at his son’s shop. A1 took Munusamy to his
son’s shop. His son PW12 Venkatesh made a duplicate key and gave it to A1.
PW12 corroborated the evidence of PW11.
18. PW13 Kandan is the Photographer, who took photographs of the
deceased in different angle and gave 11 photos to the police, which were
marked as M.O.21 series and the CD containing the photographs was marked as
M.O.22.
19. PW14 Manikandan was working at Johnson and Johnson company in
the year 2016. A1 was also working in the same company. Police told him that
the SIM card stands in the name of the company. He told them that he did not
know because he was site incharge.
20. PW15 Karthikeyan is the Manager of Samantha Marriage Hall. In
March 2014, there was a programme conducted in the name as True Realisation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
Centre. Tr.Sivasamy conducted the programme. Organizer was one
Sundarrajan. The programme was conducted from 19th March 2016 to 26th
March. The participants list was with Sundarajan.
21. PW16 Sundarrajan was the organizer of meditation centre. A1 and A2
participated in the programme. The application forms of A1 & A2 were marked
as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The entire list of participants was marked as Ex.P4.
22. PW18 Aswin and PW19 Vigneswaran are the mahazar witnesses, who
witnessed the preparation of observations mahazars and rough sketch. In their
presence, properties were recovered from the scene of occurrence. Photograph
of blood stained foot prints were also taken in their presence. They were marked
under Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 respectively.
23. PW20 Baskaran is a worker in the company. When he was proceeding
on Jawarharlal Road on 15.06.2017 at 10.00 A.M., Guindy police asked him and
Kanagaraj to be the signatories to the confession given by A1. Based on the
confession, A1 handed over the gold chain, Rs.100 rupee notes 3 bundles and
house key, which are M.Os.5 to 9, respectively. The said properties were
recovered under seizure mahazar, Ex.P11 & Ex.P12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
24. PW21 Dilip kumar is the Senior Revenue Inspector and PW22
Manikandan auto driver witnessed the confession given by A1 before CCB on
26.06.2017. Based on the confession under Ex.P13, police recovered 2 samsung
cell phones, 1 Lenova cell phone, A1’s ID card, Rent agreement and RC book
of motorcycle, which were marked as M.Os.11 to 14 respectively, which were
recovered under the seizure mahazar, Ex.P.14. On the same day evening A2
voluntarily gave a confession under Ex.P17 in the presence of PW21 and in the
presence of Arumugham. Based on her confession, a card board box of cell
phone, M.O.15 was recovered. The said card board box was recovered under
seizure mahazar, Ex.P18. PW23 corroborated the evidence of PW21.
25. PW24 Kiruba is the VAO of Thirumalairayanpattinam. In his presence
and Mangalraj presence, the police recovered the black colour Samsung cell
phone, M.O.16 from A2’s father’s house under the seizure mahazar, Ex.P23.
26. PW25 is the Alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone Company. On
receipt of requisition under Ex.P26, he gave the mobile phone call details of
9884993952 and 9884993953 under Exs.P24 & P25. The mobile number
9884993952 and 9884993953 both stands in the name of A1, Johnson and
Johnson Company. He also gave 65B Evidence Act certificate under Ex.P27.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
27. PW26 David Joseph Paulraj is the Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel
Company. On receipt of requisition under Ex.P28, he gave the call details of
9840385954 and 8012712771 under Exs.P29 & P30 along with 65B Evidence
Act certificate under Ex.P31.
28. PW27 Sophia Joseph is the Assistant Director of Forensic Lab. She
was called to recover the blood stained vests, briefs and piece of bed sheet cloth.
She took photograph of the blood stained foot prints through her cell phone and
copied in a CD, M.O.17. Later on 28.11.2017 she took the foot prints of A1 in
the presence of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate under Ex.P32 series.
29. PW28 Vijayalakshmi is the Scientific Officer who chemically
analyzed the visera and detected no poisonous substance. She issued the
Toxicology report under Ex.P33.
30. PW29 Dr.Naleena is the Assistant Director of Forensic Lab who
chemically analyzed the piece of cloth, towel, vests, screen cloth and banian.
The blood found in the above items were human blood. Out of which item 1, 2
and 4 belong to ‘A’ group and 3 and 5 are inconclusive. Likewise she analyzed
the knife and pant, which contained human blood. Out of which the blood in
knife belong to ‘A’ group and the blood in pant was inconclusive. She also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
analyzed the blood collected from the deceased body and found it to be ‘A’
group. She issued the Serological reports under Exs.P34 to 36 respectively.
31. PW30 Sebastian is the sniffer dog trainer. Sniffer dog Juli was
deployed, but the dog did not detect anything.
32. PW31, Head Constable Velraj identified the corpus before the Doctor
who conducted autopsy. He collected the belongings of the deceased and
handed over the same to the investigating officer.
33. PW33, Dr.K.V.Vinoth conducted the autopsy and he noted the
following antemortem injuries:-
“oblique cut injury: i) 6x2-1 cm x cavity deep cm on right side of the
scalp Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage all over the brain;
ii) 6x3-2cm x cavity deep on right parietal region of scalp;
iii) 6x4-3x3cm on left temporal region of scalp;
iv) 4x3-2x2cm on right first web space;
v) 3x2x1cmon left cheek;
vi) 4x2-1x1cm on right forehead. All above mentioned injuries margins
are clear cut.”
He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P37 opining that the deceased would
have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury to the head.
34. PW33, Murthy is the Nodal Officer of Flipkart at Bangalore
Corporate office. He gave the reply and copy of invoice for the purchase of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
Samsung Guru cell phone under Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40. His company delivered
Samsung Guru cell phone to A1 under Ex.P41. It was delivered on 05.01.2015
at 10.30 A.M.
35. PW34, Nalini Natarajan is the Assistant Director of Forensic Lab at
Chennai, who compared the blood stained foot print taken in the place of
occurrence and the foot print taken in the presence of learned IX Metropolitan
Magistrate, which are M.Os.18 & 19. She issued the certificate under Ex.P43
stating that both the foot prints are found to be of the same person.
36. PW35 is the Inspector of Police, Guindy Police Station who
investigated the case till it was transferred to CCB, Chennai and later it was
investigated by PW36 Arokia Ravindran, as mentioned already.
37. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found the appellant/A2
guilty of the charged offences and convicted and sentenced her to undergo life
imprisonment as stated already. Hence, the present appeal.
38. Assailing the judgment, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant/A2 would submit that there is no eye-witness in this
case. PWs.1 & 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and the in-laws of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
the appellant herein and on the next day morning, they went to the scene of
occurrence and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood and thereafter
informed the police. Similarly, PWs.4 & 5 are the minor children and they were
not in the custody of PWs.1 & 2. However, they tutored PWs.4 & 5 against the
appellant and there is no material to show that A1 and A2 were having illicit
intimacy and thereby both conspired to murder the deceased. Therefore, PWs.1
& 2 are only interested witnesses and there will be embellishments and
improvements in their version, as they are not the eye-witnesses, and their
evidence cannot be of much importance to convict the appellant. The evidence
of PWs.4 & 5 also cannot be taken into consideration, since they are not the
eye-witnesses and they have spoken about A1 visiting their house in the absence
of the deceased. PWs.4 & 5 have not stated that the appellant and A1 had illicit
intimacy and after the arrest of A2, they were in the custody of PWs.1 & 2.
Therefore, they have been tutored and their evidence cannot be believed to
convict the appellant. In this case, A1 already died during the trial. There is no
material to show that this appellant was involved in the crime. Since the case
rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not proved the
circumstances without a break in chain. The motive was not established and the
last seen theory also not established, besides recovery against this appellant.
Whatever materials collected against A1 and produced before the Court, even if
the prosecution proved its case against A1, there is no material to connect this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
appellant with A1 for causing the murder of the deceased. There is no direct
evidence to prove the motive and the prosecution relied upon the confession
statements of A1 & A2, as prior to the death of the deceased, he was appointed
as Director of the company by PW1, which provoked A2 to take away his life.
This motive is hard to believe. The main motive attributed against this
appellant is that after taking away the life of her husband, she can enjoy the
property and run the business on her own, which is highly improbable. There is
no material to show that in order to enjoy the property, this appellant set up A1
and there are no materials to show that there was illicit intimacy between A1 &
A2. The deceased was cordial with the appellant till his death. At the time of
occurrence, the appellant and children were staying in her parents house to
attend the festival in native place, Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal. Only
after hearing the news, they came from that place. Even on the date of
occurrence, the appellant was not present either in the house or in Chennai.
Further he would submit that the deceased was having illicit relationship with
one Jothi, PW8. She used to visit the house of the deceased and they used to
reside in the room of the deceased located upstairs. Further the deceased was
having enmity with other people due to the business and the appellant need not
take away her husband’s life when she was blessed with three children through
him. The criminal conspiracy was not made out between A1 & A2 and there is
no evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy. The call details of Vodafone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
network cell phone numbers 9884993952 and 9884993953 were obtained from
PW25. Likewise, the mobile cell phone call details of Bharati Airtel network for
the numbers 9840385954 and 8012712771 were obtained from PW26. The call
details are marked as Exs.P24, P25, P29 & P30. Though the prosecution case is
that A2 was having mobile number 9884993952 and A1 was having mobile
number 9884993953, admittedly, no SIM cards were recovered and the same
have not been proved in the manner known to law. They were having the above
said cell phones for their usage. Though the prosecution has stated that several
calls went from one mobile to another mobile, which were alleged to have been
used by A1 & A2, the said allegation was also not proved by the prosecution in
the manner known to law. Apart from the above said documents, there is no
evidence on record to show that the mobile numbers stand in the name of A1.
The prosecution did not secure the KYC form alleged to have been submitted
by A1 at the time of obtaining the connection. The investigating authority did
not recover the SIM card from A2 pertaining to the mobile number
9884993952. The prosecution, though relied upon the confession and recovery
of Samsung Guru cellphone form the father’s house of A2, the said cellphone
was purchased by A1 through Flipkart and was handed over to A2. According
to the prosecution, the purchase of cellphone through Flipkart was proved. The
evidence for call details was supported as per S.65 B of the Evidence Act.
PWs.25 & 26 were cross examined in detail. But there is nothing to disprove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
their evidence. It is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
unless the confession stood proved leading to the recovery. The other portion of
the confession statement cannot be relied on, which is not admissible in
evidence. The recovery portion alone is admissible and the same was not
recovered in the manner known to law. Therefore, the same will not be helpful
to the prosecution to connect this appellant. This appellant is no way connected
with the purchase or usage of any of the above said cellphones and the same
was not proved in the manner known to law. Therefore, from this evidence, the
appellant cannot be connected with the murder of the deceased. Further there is
no material to prove that at the relevant point of time, either the appellant
contacted A1 or A1 contacted A2. The prosecution has not recovered any
material regarding the location of tower and that can be easily proved. If two
cellphones were used by A1 & A2 and at the relevant point of time, when A1
was in the house of the deceased, if the appellant had any contact, the location
of tower of the said cellphone can be easily identified, which has not been done
by the prosecution. Even the recovery effected from A1 under the seizure
mahazars will not connect the appellant. When A1 died, there was no chance of
challenging the materials placed against A1. Now the case had been proceeded
against the appellant/A2. Whatever materials collected based on the confession
and recovery from A1, cannot be put against the appellant even assuming that
the confession and recovery stood proved. Only the confession leading to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
recovery is admissible in evidence and whatever statement made against the
appellant will not be admissible in evidence. The confession made before the
police officer is not admissible in evidence and therefore based on the
confession of A1, the appellant cannot be convicted. Only the appellant was
called to the police station. Since she believed PW1, she accompanied him to
the police station, where they obtained the signature and she did not know what
was written in the said paper and therefore the statement alleged to have been
obtained from the appellant also is not admissible in evidence and based on that,
the appellant cannot be convicted. The prosecution neither proved through eye-
witnesses nor through circumstantial evidence that even at the time of
occurrence, admittedly, the appellant was in her parents house at
Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal District and therefore there are lots of
contradictions in the prosecution evidence and only based on some suspicious
evidence and the same was tutored by PW1 to PWs.4 & 5, the trial Court
believed the case and erroneously convicted the appellant and that the evidence
of PWs.9 & 10 also cannot be believed, as it is not natural and it is only
artificial. Even the evidence of PWs.11 & 12 is artificial one and there is no
material to show that A1 produced the key of the house where the deceased
lived and from that, they made the duplicate key and also the evidence of PW18
is unbelievable that the bloodstained photo footprint was taken from the house
of the deceased. Even assuming that the bloodstained photo print was taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
from the occurrence place, which belongs to A1, the same will not be a proof to
connect the appellant, unless it is proved that the appellant and A1 were seen
together immediately prior to the occurrence and/or otherwise there was a
conspiracy between A1 & A2. This appellant cannot be roped in the case, as she
is no way connected with the murder of the deceased. All the confession and
recovery are against A1 only. Except the evidence of PW23, all other evidences
are only against A1. These materials are not sufficient to connect the appellant
in this case. Therefore, though in the absence of any material to connect the
appellant with A1 and the conviction against this appellant is perverse, the trial
Court failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and erroneously
convicted only based on the circumstantial evidence, namely, motive, last seen
theory and recovery. But the circumstantial evidence has not been proved
without a break in chain. When two views are possible, the benefit of doubt
should be extended to and in favour of the appellant, because unfortunately the
trial Court failed to see that there was no absolute evidence to show that there
was only one view possible that the appellant entered into a conspiracy with A1
and through A1, took away the life of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel
also vehemently contended that there is no valid reason given by the police as to
why the case was transferred to CCB, which shows that they fixed the appellant
and A1 in order to safeguard the real culprits and so the same will not be helpful
to the prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed and the appellant is to be
acquitted.
39. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State would submit that though the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence
and there is no eye-witness, the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is clear and the evidence
of PWs.4 & 5 is very clear to prove the motive. They have clearly stated that
several times, A1 was having close contacts with the appellant inside the house
or outside the house and they also, in the absence of the deceased, went together
along with the children. At times, the children were also picked up from the
house and dropped in the school and they also went for picnic and at that time,
A1 & A2 were so close. Even the evidence of PWs.4 & 5 clearly shows that in
the absence of the deceased father, A1 was present in the house and when they
questioned and informed the same to the appellant, the appellant denied the fact
that A1 was present in their house. Though it is one of the main defence that
PW8 was suspected to have illicit intimacy with the deceased, there is no
material to show that PWs.8 & 17 were examined and nothing was elicited by
the defence that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with PW8 and also the
deceased was having some difficulty in the business and therefore the defence
regarding the possibility of taking away the life of the deceased by some other
person is not acceptable and the same was also not established. The evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
PW9 clearly shows that he saw A1 in the absence of the deceased, as he
frequently visited the house of the deceased and also he saw on several
occasions along with the appellant. PW10 auto driver has clearly stated that one
day the appellant came in his auto and after attending one phone call, she got
down and also informed that she would go in bus. However, when he was
waiting for other trip, at that time, the appellant went along with A1 and
therefore, PWs.11 & 12 have clearly stated that A1 got the duplicate key. Even
PW13 photographer has clearly stated that he took photographs in the
occurrence place. PWs.18 & 19 are the mahazar witnesses, who have spoken
about the recovery of bloodstained footprints from the scene of occurrence
under Ex.P32. PW20 is one of the witnesses who was present at the time of
confession given by A1 and the consequent recovery of M.Os.5 to 9. PW22 is
another auto driver who witnessed the confession given by A1 before CCB for
recovery of the M.Os.11 to 14. PW23 is also an auto driver who witnessed the
confession and has clearly spoken about the recovery of Samsung cellphone
cover box, M.O.15 from the bedroom of the appellant and it clearly shows that
A1 purchased the new phone and gave to the appellant. The appellant was
using the cellphone and which was recovered in the presence of PW24 from the
parental house of the appellant and only the cellphone box was recovered in the
bedroom of the appellant. Therefore, how that cellphone went to the house of
the parents of the appellant that too, in Thirumalairayanpattinam at Karaikal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
The appellant has not explained the same. Further the evidence of PW25 is clear
regarding the furnishing of call details of the Vodafone mobile number
9884993952 and 9884993953 used by A1 and A2 and the prosecution also
produced the certificate under S.65B of the Indian Evidence Act in Ex.P27,
which clearly shows that A1 purchased the two cellphones in his name and one
of the cellphones was handed over to the appellant and the call details also
disclose that they frequently made contacts. PW26 Nodal Officer of Bharati
Airtel company has also spoken about the call details furnished in respect of
two numbers 9840385954 and 8012712771 along with the S.65B certificate
under Ex.P31. PW27 Assistant Director of Forensic Lab has clearly stated that
she has taken the bloodstained footprint photo in her mobile phone from the
scene of occurrence and copied the same in a CD, M.O.17 and also the footprint
of A1 subsequently in the presence of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate
and after analysis, it was found that the footprint matched with A1. Therefore, it
is clear that on the date of occurrence, A1 was present at the occurrence place
and the evidence of PWs.4 & 5 clearly proved that in the absence of the
deceased in the house, A1 frequently visited the house of the deceased and from
the evidence of PWs.4 & 5, during midnight, when they woke up, they saw the
appellant missing and also on one or two occasions they also saw A1 in their
house even in the room used by the deceased. Further the post mortem doctor
has clearly stated that the death is due to head injury and the serological report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
also shows that no poison was detected in the alcohol, which clearly shows that
on the date of occurrence, the deceased did not consume any alcohol and since
A1 and A2 were having illicit intimacy and since the deceased was a hindrance
to their illicit intimacy, they entered into a criminal conspiracy and on the date
and time when the appellant was planning to go to her parents house at
Tirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal, taking advantage of the loneliness of the
deceased, the crime was committed. Even as per the evidence of PW9, before
going to Karaikal, the appellant facilitated A1 to enter the house. As if they were
not in the town, they went to the parental house and therefore when PWs.1 & 2
came on the next day to see their son, the deceased, at that time, they saw the
deceased lying in a pool of blood in his bedroom, thereby the prosecution has
established the motive aspect in this case beyond reasonable doubt through the
evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 & 5. Similarly, the last seen theory has also been
established through the evidence of PWs.9 & 10 and the arrest and recovery
were proved through the evidence of PWs.19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and further the post
mortem report also tallied with the same. Further the evidence of PW27 clearly
shows that the bloodstained footprint photo was taken in the occurrence place
and subsequently the sample was taken from A1 and sent for forensic lab and
both were compared and it tallied with the footprint of A1. Therefore, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court
rightly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
convicted the appellant, though pending investigation and before trial, A1 died.
However, the case was proceeded against the appellant and the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the written statement filed by the
appellant after S.313 proceedings are only an after-thought. S.313 proceedings
were completed on 30.04.2019 and though the appellant has stated that a false
case has been foisted against her, she did not file any statement on the date
when the appellant was questioned under S.313 regarding the incriminating
circumstances. Further she filed the written statement only on 11.09.2019.
Therefore, it is only an after-thought. Since the trial Court rightly appreciated
both the oral and documentary evidence and found that the prosecution proved
its case with circumstantial evidence without any break in chain, there is no
merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
40. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant
adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
41. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials
available on record.
42. The specific case of the prosecution is that A1, a call taxi driver and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
A2, the wife of the deceased were having illicit intimacy and finding that the
deceased Udayabalan was a hindrance to their illicit relationship and with an
intention to grab his properties, they entered into a criminal conspiracy to
murder the deceased and A1 prepared a duplicate key for the outer door of the
house of Udayabalan with the help of A2, who told A1 that she was going to her
native village for festival along with her children and he can execute the plan
when her husband was alone in the house, thereby abetted A1 to commit the
murder. In furtherance of the above motive, on 04.06.2017 at about 04.30
hours, A1 from his mobile phone 9884993953 called A2 on her mobile phone
9884993952 and went to her house with knife, chilly powder, duplicate key and
brandy bottle and hid himself under the cot in the room at the ground floor.
Later A2 left to her native village at Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal along
with her children at 10.10 night hours. On the next day i.e., 05.06.2017 at 02.30
early hours, A1 went to the room in the first floor and murdered Udayabalan
while he was in sound sleep, by inflicting grave cut injuries with a knife on his
head, face and hands and he also took the gold chain weighing 5 sovereign and
cash of Rs.30,000/- from the house and that in order to screen the offence, A1
spilled the chilly powder all over the floor and locked the outer door with the
duplicate key and fled from the spot.
43. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in this case and the case rests
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
upon the circumstantial evidence. PW1 is the father of the deceased, who filed
the complaint and set the law into motion. PW1 has stated that after the death of
the deceased, he was informed by PW9 about the frequent visits made by A1 to
the house of the deceased and he informed the same to the police. PW1 was
called by the investigating officer to the police station and he saw A1 in the
police station. At that time, he took a photograph of A1 in his cellphone and
when he showed the same to his granddaughters, PWs.4 & 5 as to whether they
know about A1, PWs.4 & 5 responded by saying that they knew A1 as he
frequently took them in his vehicle and when they asked the appellant about the
visits made by A1 to the house, she informed that he was a neighbour to their
grandfather’s house in Karaikal. Further PWs.4 & 5 informed PW1 that the
appellant and A1 were so close and in the absence of the deceased, they went to
picnic or some outings and even at that time, A1 & A2 were close and on two
occasions, they saw A1 in their house and the same was informed to their
mother. The mother denied the same and also informed that a ghost might have
come and it was an imagination. At that time, the appellant was not arrested and
they were under the control and custody of the appellant alone. There was no
necessity for the daughters to question the fidelity of the appellant. Only after
PW9 informed to PW1 about his suspicion and thereafter showed the photo to
PWs.4 & 5, they stated about the frequent acquaintance of A1 with A2.
Admittedly, PWs.1 & 2 were not residing with the appellant, as they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
residing in Porur. The appellant and the deceased along with PWs.4 & 5 were
residing in Ekkattuthangal and even on the date of occurrence, they went to the
school and since the programme got prolonged, PW1 and the deceased advised
the appellant not to go to Tirumalairayanpattinam on that day and she can
proceed on the next day. But the appellant refused to heed to the words of PW1
or the deceased and she was so adamant to leave from the place.
44. The evidence of PW9 also clearly shows that prior to going to
Thirumalairayanpattinam, A1 parked the vehicle and proceeded to the house of
the deceased, where the appellant received A1 and allowed him inside the house
and thereafter, he has deposed that on the next day morning, A1 came from the
house of the deceased with a bag and took his vehicle. Later he came to know
that the deceased died and due to fear, he did not inform immediately. Later he
informed about the contacts of A1 & A2 to PW1. PWs.4 & 5 are none other
than the daughters of the appellant and they have also clearly stated that on
seeing the photo shown by their grandfather, they informed him that they knew
A1, as he used to come and pick them up and also in the absence of their father,
the appellant and A1 used to take them for picnic and also outings. At that time,
A1 & A2 were so close. Once when PW4 asked the appellant as to why she was
sitting closely with A1, the appellant replied that if she is interested, she can
also sit with him. Can this be the behaviour of a mother towards the child. If at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
all a necessity arises, the appellant has to be very close with the husband. The
evidence of PWs.4 & 5 clearly shows that one day they saw A1 in their father’s
room and immediately when they informed to their mother informed them that
it is their imagination and also a ghost might be present in the house. Therefore,
from the evidence of PWs.1,2,4 & 5, the prosecution has proved the motive and
from the evidence of PWs.9 & 10, the prosecution has proved that the appellant
was seen together with A1. Even on the date of occurrence, as per the evidence
of PW9, A1 went to the house of the appellant and the appellant only opened the
door and accommodated him. Thereafter, they went to the school and returned
back and the deceased dropped the appellant and his children in the bus stand
and they went to their native. Later the deceased alone came to the house and
stayed lonely in the house. On the next day morning PWs.1 & 2 tried to contact
him over phone. Since they could not get any response from the deceased, as
parents, they came to the house along with food. At that time they saw the
deceased lying in a pool of blood in his bedroom. Therefore, from the evidence
of PW9, A1 went inside the house on the previous day and only on the next day
morning he took the vehicle. The same was informed to PW1, who informed the
police. Thereafter, PW1 showed the photo of A1 to PWs.4 & 5 and they
informed PWs.1 & 2 about the visits made by A1 to the house. Subsequently,
A1 was arrested and the confession and recovery were effected. The admissible
portion of the confession given by A1 was marked as Ex.P54 and the properties
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
were recovered and marked as M.Os.5 to 16. Therefore, the prosecution proved
the motive, last seen theory and also recovery.
45. Even though the prosecution tried to establish the relationship
between A1 & A2 through their phone calls and also the call details and other
materials as well their attendance in the meditation centre, it is only to connect
the relationship between A1 & A2. As stated by the learned Senior Counsel,
though the same was not proved in the manner known to law, however, that will
not affect the case of the prosecution. Further it is settled proposition of law that
the defects or lapses on the side of the investigation will not affect the case of
the prosecution. As far as circumstantial evidence is concerned, in the absence
of any direct witness, the prosecution has to prove the cardinal principles of
motive, last seen theory and also recovery. Whereas in this case, the motive has
been established and proved by the evidence of PWs.1,2,4 & 5. The last seen
theory and also the relationship of A1 & A2 were proved by the evidence of
PWs.4 & 5 and also PWs.9 & 10. Apart from the evidence of PWs.4 & 5,
though there are improvements or exaggerations in the evidence of PWs.9 & 10,
however, their evidence cannot be totally ignored, as they have seen A1 coming
and parking his vehicle nearby the shop of PW9 and frequently he used to go
towards the house of the deceased and one day, he also followed him and found
him reaching the house of the deceased, which fact was confirmed by PWs.4 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
5, who are none other than the daughters of the appellant. Though the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that PWs.4 & 5 were
tutored by their grandfather PW1, it is to be seen that at the time when PW1
showed the photo of A1 to PWs.4 & 5, at that time the appellant was not
arrested and she was staying in the house and that PWs.4 & 5 were under the
care and custody of the appellant only. Only after recording the statement from
PWs.4 & 5, based on the information given by PW1, the appellant was arrested.
Therefore, the contention as regards tutoring is unsustainable. No children
would give adverse remarks against their mother and there was no animosity or
the defence has not established that the appellant used to beat the children and
also she was acting against the welfare of the children or the appellant was
harassing the children and therefore the children made a statement against their
mother. Even on hearing the news about the death of their father, PWs.4 & 5 did
not say anything about that. Though they were not aware that A1 was suspected
and only when the information was given by PW9, A1 was arrested based on
the information given by PW1 and when PW1 visited the police station and
took the photograph of A1 and thereafter, when the photo was shown to the
granddaughters, PWs.4 & 5, at that time only, they recollected and stated about
the relationship and the visits of A1 to their house and that the appellant also
engaged only A1 for going out and also picking up from the school and
dropping them at the residence. Even for regular travels, the appellant always
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
engaged only A1 and in the absence of the deceased, both took the children for
picnic and also outings. At that time the behaviour of A1 & A2 also was
different and therefore it cannot be stated that PWs.4 & 5, at the instance of
tutoring by PW1, made the statement against their own mother.
46. Considering the overall circumstances and the motive, last seen
theory and also the recovery effected and even the bloodstained footprints taken
from the place of occurrence and subsequently, they took the sample footprint of
the suspected accused A1 and the forensic report clearly shows that both tallied,
the presence of A1 at the occurrence place is not doubtful and the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
47. Now the only question is whether the prosecution has proved its case
as against the appellant to connect the appellant with A1, though he died before
the trial. However, all the materials produced by the prosecution would clearly
prove that A1 has committed the charged offences and further, from the
evidence of PWs.4, 5, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23 & 24, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence without any break in
chain, namely, motive, last seen theory and also recovery against the appellant
also. However, whatever contradictions and discrepancies and also flaw or
defects in the investigation pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
appellant will not affect the case of the prosecution, as it is settled proposition of
law that the defect in investigation will not be a sole ground to disbelieve the
prosecution case.
48. In the light of the above, this Court, on re-appreciation of evidence,
finds that the prosecution has proved the cardinal principles of motive, last seen
theory and recovery without any break in chain in this case and also does not
find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. Since the appellant/accused
is on bail, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the appellant and commit
her to prison to undergo the sentence of life imprisonment. Bail bonds executed
shall stand cancelled.
(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
27-02-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
To
1. The VI Additional Sessions Judge
Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police
EF-II, Team III, CCB, Vepery, Chennai
J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai
(Crime No.1942/2017)
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
ss
Judgment in
27-02-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 03:49:54 pm )
