[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Unknown vs Manuvel @ Manuvel Amalraj on 27 February, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 29.01.2026
Judgment Pronounced on : 27.02.2026
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
---
The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police
'Q' Branch CID
Erode District
(Crime No.21 of 2013 of Hasanur P.S.) .. Appellant
Vs.
Manuvel @ Manuvel Amalraj .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the
judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused namely Manuvel Amalraj in Sessions
Case No.84 of 2015 dated 30.01.2019 by the Assistant Sessions Court (Sub Court),
Sathiyamangalam, Erode District and convict the respondent/accused for the charges
framed against him.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For Respondent :Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
Page No.1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State to set aside the judgment of
acquittal of the respondent/accused namely Manuvel Amalraj in Sessions Case No.84 of
2015 dated 30.01.2019 by the Assistant Sessions Court (Sub Court), Sathiyamangalam,
Erode District and convict the respondent/accused for the charges framed against him.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2013 at 2.00 p.m., the Hasanur
Special Sub Inspector (P.W.6), gave a special report to the Inspector of Police, Thalavadi
Police Station, stating that today (11.06.2013) at about 12.00 p.m., when he visited the
Neithalapuram Bus Stop along with Head Constable-2253 (P.W.7) and Constable-2541
(P.W.4) of Thalavadi Police Station, they noticed the accused/respondent herein was
speaking against the Government of India stating that the Government of India has
announced the setting up a Fourth Tiger Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu’s Sathiyamangalam
Forest and based on which, the Tamil Nadu Government has issued an order. The
accused instigated that if the Sathiyamangalam Forest is announced as a Tiger
Sanctuary, people cannot live there. The hill tribes and villagers who live there will be
removed by the Government and they cannot enter the forest even to collect fire wood,
graze cows etc. Even if people are permitted to reside nearby, schools, hospitals, water
connections and other Government welfare measures will not be provided to the people.
The Indian Government has to withdraw the orders of Tiger Sanctuary that have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
announced against the public and law. Against the orders that destroys agriculture and
takes away the rights of the State Government, the Tamil Nadu Government has to pass
a resolution in the assembly. Further, the accused instigated the people by stating that
you should fight against Government for your livelihood. Moreover, to create confusion
and riot among the people, he had spread false propaganda against the Government,
disrespecting the Government policies and orders, by showing gestures among the
people of Neithalapuram, thereby attempting to bring disbelief and disrespect towards
the Government.
3. Based on the report submitted by the Special Sub Inspector of Police, a case in
Crime No.21 of 2013 was registered by Hasanur Police against the accused/respondent
for the offence under Section 124(A) of IPC. Subsequently, 'Q' Branch CID of the State
Government took up the matter for its effective investigation, on the strength of the
appropriate orders of the department. After completion of thorough investigation, got
sanction accorded from the appropriate authority (P.W.27) and they filed 2 charge sheets
before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathiyamangalam, for the offences under Sections
124(A) and 505 IPC, alleging that the accused visited some of the witnesses in
Sathyamangalam on various dates and canvassed people stating that the people and
working class of Thalavaid, Hasanur and Neithalapuram should be given awareness as to
how the Central and State Governments are cheating the people in the name of Tiger
Reserve; He further canvassed that the Central and State Governments are helping the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
capitalists to exploit the working class and the tribal people and therefore, the people
should overthrow the Central and State Governments that are working in favour of the
capitalist through armed revolution; Further, the accused claimed himself to be a
member of C.P.I., (Moist) and trained in Arms and bomb making and instigated the
people to protest against the Central and State Governments by armed revolution stating
that he is ready to give Arms training; and thereby, the accused attempted to bring hatred
and enmity towards the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu; Further,
the accused screened a short film with a title Samaran to some of the witnesses using
pendrive, laptop and T.V.Monitor, a series of scenes of fabricated and false scenes of
alleged torture to a hill tribe boy by a man wearing camouflage police uniform and
thereby attempted to excite and disaffection towards the Government of India and the
Government of Tamil Nadu. The charge sheets were taken on file in P.R.C.No.34 of
2014. The learned Magistrate after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,
committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode since the offences
are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Erode, took the case on file in S.C.No.84 of 2015 and made over to the
Assistant Sessions Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode. The learned Sessions Judge after
perusing the charge sheets, framed charges for the offence under Sections 124(A) and
505 IPC and when questioned the accused, he refused the allegations stating that he is
not an accused. Hence, the case was tried for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
4. During trial, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, on
the side of the prosecution, totally as many as 31 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
P.W.31 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19, besides, 24 material objects
were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.24.
5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances culled out from
the evidence of prosecution witness. The accused denied the same as false. On the side
of defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents were marked with
objections as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.
6. After completion of trial and upon hearing of the arguments advanced on either
side, the trial Court not found the guilt of the accused/respondent for the charged
offences and thereby, acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt stating that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that
the learned trial Judge had not applied its judicial mind and not appreciated the oral and
documentary evidences let in by the prosecution in its correct perspective. Further, the
learned trial Judge had not adopted all legal procedures, not considered all the evidences
and probabilities in the case and thereby unjustified the case of the prosecution and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
acquitted the respondent. The acquittal of the accused was not done with adhering to the
provisions of law.
8.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that admittedly the
FIR was registered against the respondent based on the Special Report filed by the
Special Sub Inspector that the respondent was spreading false propaganda about the
Governments and the Tiger Reserve in order create confusion and riot among the people
on the Government, Government policies. Subsequently, during investigation it revealed
that the respondent was a student of Government Law College in Madurai and
developed involvement with the ideology of Communist Party of India (Moist) and after
completing his B.L. degree in the year 2010, he turned to be a full time member of C.P.I.
(Maoist). Hence, he shifted to Devangapuram, Kottuveerampalayam near
Sathyamangalam in Erode District with a view to instigate the general public of that area
to develop hatred and enmity against the Government of India and the Government of
Tamil Nadu and in the year 2013, he visited the witnesses on various dates and told them
that he knew all kinds of weapons training and explosives training and ready to give
weapons training, called the tribal people and working class to join in his organization.
Based on which, two charge sheets were filed, whereas the learned trial Judge erred in
holding that there are two final reports and both the reports are for the offences under
Section 124 (A) and 505 IPC and the first one is for the incidents on 19.01.2013 and
20.01.2013 and the second one is about the incidents on 21.04.2013, 09.06.2013 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
11.06.2013, but there is no complaint for the incidents stated to have taken place on
19.01.2013 and 20.01.2013 and that the FIR has been registered based on the Special
report filed by P.W.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not
necessary that every incident should be mentioned in the FIR. If any of the incidents
come to notice during the course of investigation and based on the evidences collected, a
case can be filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
8.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial court
failed to consider that when the searches etc. takes place on information received, the
accused will not be present unless he is in custody at the time of the search. In this
instant case, the FIR is at 14.00 hrs. on 11.06.2013 and drawing of the scene is at 15.00
hrs. and the arrest is at 17.00 hrs. and that the accused had stated that he is producing
various booklets etc. before the police. Accordingly, the police prepared the seizure
mahazar and hence the doubt of the trial Judge regarding the presence of the accused,
does not seem to be a justified one. Further, the learned trial Judge has given undue
importance to the fact that the statements of P.W.26 (Tr.Manivannan, TNFSL Expert)
and P.W.27 (Tr.Jithendranath Swain, I.A.S.) recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., were
typed in computer and raised doubt that it is not stated as to how it was typed in
computer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this observation is
irrelevant as the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. have no value in
deciding the case as they can be used only in case of contradiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
8.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court
erred in appreciating that P.Ws.4, 6 and 7 had not stated as to how they came to know
about the fact that the accused is involved in the activities of banned organization viz.
C.P.I. Moist and the same has also not been stated in their statements recorded by P.W.29
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, their further statements cannot be taken into
account as the said details would have been an afterthought and a developed version.
The observation of the trial Court that the statement recorded by P.W.29 under Section
161 Cr.P.C. does not show anything about the involvement of the accused in the CPI
Moist activities, cannot be taken as a correct one. It may be noted that P.W.6 has clearly
deposed before the Court that the accused had instigated to protest against Tamil Nadu
for which he would help them and also provide weapons training; further by gestures
and body movements, he was speaking against the Government Policies and also
distributing propaganda and books related to Maoist and on enquiry, it revealed that he
belonged to CPI Maoist movement banned by the Government. Further, the evidences of
other witnesses viz., P.Ws.9, 10, 12 and 22 also confirm the fact of the membership of
the accused in the C.P.I. Moist party. Hence, the findings of the trial Court in this regard
are not correct and proper one. The trial Court also failed to consider that P.Ws.8, 9 and
10 had clearly deposed before the trial Court as to how the accused got himself
introduced to the witnesses, instead raised some unilateral doubts of his own without
proper reasons whatsoever.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
8.4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court
also erred in holding that non examination of L.W.31 (Kumar) as a prosecution witness
gives suspicion as no reason for his non examination had been given by the prosecution.
The learned Judge admitted that P.W.9 and P.W.10 had given evidence to the effect that
the accused had instigated the people. When L.W.31(Kumar) speaks of the same
evidence spoken by P.W.9 and P.W.10, giving importance to the non-examination as a
prosecution witness is not a criteria. But it is incorrect. Moreover, the defence side had
also not taken any credence to the said non-examination. If at all his (L.W.31) evidence
was very necessary, the defence side was at liberty to call him as defence witness and
would have examined, but they had not taken any steps for the same. Therefore, the
findings of the trial Court in this regard is not a proper one.
8.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court
in judgment running in Serial No.10.14 and 10.15 quoted that, it shows the evidence of
P.W.9 (Ranjithkumar) to the effect of the activities of accused who met him and asked
for donations, which the witness refused. P.W.9 had also stated that accused had stated to
him that he (accused) is a Maoist. It is stated in Paragraph 10.15 that “ m/r/9 u$;rpj; Fkhh;
mtuJ ePjpkd;w FWf;F tprhuizapy; 2014 k; Mz;L 1tJ khjj;jpy ; f;a{ gpuh";R nghyP!hh;
te;J tPl;oy; tprhhpj;j nghJ jkf;F kDntiyg; gw;wp rhpahf "hgfkpy;iy Mdhy; kDnty;
vd;gthplk ; rj;jpak';fyk ; ngUe;J epiyaj;jpy ; re;jpj;J ngrpapUg;gjhft[k ; brd;ndd ; vd;Wk;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
mjd; gpwF 2014k; Mz;L 6tJ khjj;jpy; kPz;Lk; vd;dplk; f;a{ gpuh";R Ma;thsh; tprhhpf;f
kDnty; vd;dplk; brhd;d Jg;ghf;fp RLtijg; gw;wpa tptu';fisa[k ; kw;w tpgu';fisa[k ; ehd;
mthplk; brhd;ndd; ”which means the Court had put question to P.W.9 and he answered.
A perusal of the certified copy of the deposition of P.W.9 does not contain the above
statement of P.W.9, but the trial Court judgment makes reference to that non-existing
statement of PW 9.
8.6 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Trial
Court observed that when M.O.9 was seized from the room of accused in the house
belonging to PW 25 (Kumara) in the presence of P.W.3 when P.W.25 was also present.
Another witness, Madevan, Village Assistant was also present, but he was not examined
as a witness, and it is not clear as to how accused came in contact with Kumara. The trial
Court failed to see that P.W.25 (Kumar) had categorically stated in his evidence that
"Sigamani who was with me at Chennai during 2012 when I was studying there,
telephoned me and told me that one of his friend Manuvel is going to come to Thalavady
and he (Sigamani) had given my number to him (Accused Manuvel) and he may contact
me and also asked me to extend all help to Manuvel. In April 2013, Manuvel came and
contacted me and then I met him at Thalavady Bus-stand and got introduced each other".
Hence the ambiguity raised by the trial Court is meaningless and unnecessary.
8.7 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court
has observed that the recovery of M.O.9 is not according to the procedure and raises
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
doubt as to when they were placed there etc. This observation of the trial Court is not at
all correct as it can be seen from Ex.P.2 (admissible portion) that the accused had given a
confession statement to the effect that if he is taken to the house of Kumara, he will get
the books connected with Maoist activities and will hand over the same to Police. This
portion of the evidence is confirmed by P.W.3 and there seems to be no contraindication
on this aspect. Further, it is a fact that the accused was taken to the place along with the
independent witnesses and also Kumara who all were present at the place and, no claim
that the accused was not present as the accused was properly taken with Court
permission. Further, the witnesses viz., P.Ws. 3, 25 and 29 had confirmed the fact that
the accused had taken the books and a kaki colour cover from the wooden cupboard and
handed over to the Investigating Officer and the same were taken into custody vide
Mahazar (Ex.P.3). Therefore, the question of as to whether Kumara had stated about the
books in the cupboard, does not arise at all in as much as it is the accused who himself
had given the confession on 20.06.2013 at 08.00 Hrs. as is evident from Ex.P.3 and then
only, the team proceeded to the spot. Hence the questions raised by the trial Court are
not a correct one. In other words, the trial Court appears to have taken only such of the
items which are beneficial to the accused. Further, in as much as the seizure was carried
out only after the confession of the accused, the question of the possession of the keys
does not raise at all. The accused had made the confession as to the production of the
books, if he is taken to the house of Kumara, where he (accused) had stayed and upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
reaching there and on search, the books were taken by the accused himself and handed
over to the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses. Hence the doubt as to
who placed the books does not raise at all. The recovery of the said books will clearly
establish the facts and connections of the accused to the CPI Maoist movements. Hence,
the benefit of doubt given by the trial Court on this account, is not a correct one.
8.8 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Trial
Court has held that the film shown by the accused is a film shown through You Tube
and there appears that no steps had been taken for its removal, whereas the misuse of
objectionable film exhibited among the innocent public alone is the criteria and removal
of objectionable stuffs in the You Tube, is immaterial and which is not possible. Further,
the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by PW.s 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16,
18, 19 & 22 which confirms the fact that accused had called upon the public to train in
arms and ammunition and daringly called upon them to fight with arms but on the
counter, chose to give interpretation for Ex.PW.11 and martial objects. The Trial Court
also erred in holding that M.Os 1 to 25 does not show anything about the Maoist
activities, calling upon to fight with arms. The Trial Court ought not to have held that
there are no evidence as to the fact that the 3 books (M.O.9) were kept in the house of
Kumara (P.W.25) where accused was staying and those books does not show that
accused is a Maoist, while the confession of the accused only the books were recovered
and it shows that the same is indirectly connected with Maoist activities. Moreover, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
evidences of witnesses also showed that the accused had called upon them to fight
against the Government by using arms and he also introduced himself as a CPI (Maoist)
member.
8.9 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Trial
Court ought not to have drawn adverse influence that the house owners of
Kottuveerampalayam and Neythalapuram had not given evidence in favour of the
Prosecution. P.W.28 (Owner of Kottuveerampalayam house) was declared as "Hostile",
but the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 7 clearly establishes the fact that the search was
conducted at No.14, Devangapuram Street, Kottuveerampalayam and it is P.W.28 who
got opened the room where accused was staying. This witness had stated that on
11.6.13 his house was searched and also admitted that he knows the accused. Further
the address given by P.W.28 in his deposition i.e.14, Devangapuram,
Kottuveerampalayam is the same place where search had taken place. P.W.28 had
identified the accused before the Court and stated that he knows accused since 2010.
8.10 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that it can be
proved that the knowledge about the accused and his arrest is known to P.W.28 when he
had stated "on 13.6.13 a notice was circulated against arrest of the accused giving my
name and Cell phone number" and his suggestion/claim that it is done by his friends
without his knowledge cannot be accepted in as much as using one's name and cell
phone in a public circulated notice is without one's own knowledge. The fact of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
accused's stay at the residence of P.W.28 is getting confirmed by way of perusal of
M.Os 1 to 25 and Exs.P1 to 19 in which the address i.e. 14, Devangapuram,
Kottuveerampalayam, is seen and it also shows, for information contact "Manuvel"
(Accused). Further, the trial Court failed to consider the report of the TNFSL and
evidence of P.W.26. The trial Court erred in holding that P.Ws 4, 6 & 7, being Police
personnel, had stated some facts on 11.6.13 when they were first examined, but later on,
when they were examined by "Q" branch CID, they have stated that they came to know
that the accused is a Maoist etc. and therefore the Court had raised suspicion on their
evidence. The learned Judge had also observed that the discrepancies in seizure are not
minor one and it cannot be discarded as minor one. But the evidences produced
establish the involvement of accused in the instigating of public to use unlawful method
for fighting against the Governments. Hence no much credence should have been given
for some failure, on the part of Police, if any.
8.11 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial
Court in the judgment running in Serial No.10.31 states that, D.W.1
(Shanmugasundaram) had stated that he is a communist activist and had organized
various meetings etc., against the declaration of "Puligal Kappagam." D.W.1 had further
stated that the accused herein had applied for permission from Police to conduct the
meeting but it was refused and there upon he (accused) had gone to the Hon'ble High
Court and his petition is Ex.D1. He had further stated that accused had an organization
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
and he was in another organization and both were against the creating of a special zone.
The evidence clearly confirms the fact that concerned Police had denied permission to
the accused for conducting the meeting. Hence it is to be presumed that the Police had
some information against the activities of the accused.
8.12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Trial
Court miserably erred in finding that the elected representatives and other public had
fought on the issue in a Democratic way and the fighting of the accused is also only on
the democratic way. Only the speeches, stated to have been made by the accused alone
cannot be taken into account to come to conclusion that accused had acted against the
Governments. The Learned trial judge failed to consider that the Gazette Notification
date 30.8.2018 regarding the Anti National Activities (Item 8.2 & 8.3) cannot be
applicable to the activities of the accused.
8.13 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial
Court while observing that the accused had not produced any evidences in support of
the reply of the accused and the submissions of the accused had been rejected on that
account and the argument of Prosecutor had been accepted, ought to have convicted the
accused. The learned trial Judge had not given any weightage to the evidences adduced
by the Prosecution and had arrived at his own conclusions without proper reasoning and
grounds. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside the this appeal
has to be allowed and the respondent/accused has to convicted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the
Government had announced that Tiger Reserve would come in the Sathyamangalam
forest area. Sathyamangalam forest area is a part of the Western Ghats. The decision of
the Government declaring Sathyamangalam forest as Tiger Reserve was in a way to
destroy the environment and the livelihood of the tribal people who lives there and it
was implemented in violation of the provisions and procedures prescribed under the
Wildlife Protection Act, 2006 and hence, various political parties, organization and
NGOs in Erode were protesting against the same and that the respondent, on behalf of
his organization had been campaigning legally and democratically and that he had not
indulged in any illegal action against the Governments as projected by the prosecution.
He further submitted that originally the FIR was registered against the respondent for the
offence under Section 124(A) IPC based on the Special report submitted by the Hasanur
Special Sub Inspector (P.W.6). Even in the Special report, it is only stated that on
11.06.2013 at about 12.00 p.m., when the Hasanur Special Sub Inspector visited the
Neithalapuram Bus Stop along with two other Head Constables of Thalavadi Police
Station, they noticed the respondent herein was speaking against the Government of
India regarding the announcement to set up a Fourth Tiger Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu
Sathiyamangalam Forest and propagated false information that if the Sathiyamangalam
Forest is announced as Tiger Sanctuary, the hill tribes and villagers who lives there, will
be removed and even if people are permitted to reside around, schools, hospital, water
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
connection and other Government welfare measures will not be provided to the people
and instigated the people to protest against Government for their livelihood and thereby
attempted to bring hatred and enmity towards the Government, whereas, contrary to the
FIR, the appellant/Police filed two charge sheets stating that the respondent is a C.P.I.
(Moist) and he attempted to bring hatred and enmity towards the Government of India
and the Government of Tamil Nadu; On 19.01.2016, 20.01.2013 and 21.04.2013 the
respondent met on K.Kumar, R.Ranjith Kumar and Rajendran, Ramesh and told them
that the people and working class of Thalavadi, Hasanur and Neithalapuram should be
made aware as to how the Central and State Government are deceiving them in the name
of Tiger Sanctuary; Further, the Central and State Government are helping the
Capitalists to suppress the working class and the hill people; therefore, we should take
up arms and overthrow these Central and State governments through armed revolution; I
belong to C.P.I. Maoist movement, I know all kinds of weapons training and explosives
training; therefore, you should join in our movement; the hill youth and working people
of this are should also be included in our movement; I ready to teach you the weapons
training and explosives training you need. The learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that in the second charge sheet it is also stated that on 09.06.2013 at about
9.30 p.m., in a vacant place in front of Vinayagar Temple, near Neithalapuram Bus Stop,
the respondent exhibited a short film with title Samaran, to the witnesses Ravichandran,
Ramachandran, Mahadevappa, Girish and others by using pen drive, Laptop and T.V.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
Monitor, a series of scene of fabricated and false scenes of alleged torture to a hill tribe
boy by a man wearing camouflage police Uniforms and thereby attempted to excite
disaffection towards the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu;
Further, the respondent instigated the people stating today, the tribal people of North
India have reached the peak on their struggle in protecting themselves and the forest
from the big capitalists; Through their heroic struggle, they have created a situation
where no global capitalist can enter the forest; They have prevented many projects like
the ‘Tiger Reserve’ and many agreements that plunder mineral resources, from being
implemented; Let us fight by taking those struggles as an example and win; and thereby
the accused attempted to bring into hatred and enmity towards the Government of India
and the Government of Tamil Nadu”.
9.1 The learned counsel further submitted that in order to prove the charges, on
the side of the prosecution as many as 31 witnesses were examined in which,
P.W.1/Village Administrative Officer, P.W.2/Village Assistant, P.W.3/Deputy Tahsildhar.
P.W.4 and P.W.7 are the Constable of Thalavadi Police Station who alleged to have
accompanied P.W.6/Special Sub Inspector, Hasanu, on 11.06.2013. P.W.23 and P.W.24,
P.W.26 are official witnesses. P.W.29 is the Inspector who registered FIR based on the
Special Report submitted by P.W.6. P.W.27 who was the Secretary to Public Department
in the Government of Tamil Nadu. P.W.30 was the Q Branch Inspector (incharge) and
P.W.31 is the Q Branch Inspector.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
9.2 The learned counsel further submitted that even P.W.27 who was the Secretary
to Public Department in the Government of Tamil Nadu and who sanctioned
Government Orders to pro secure the respondent, in his cross examination has admitted
that the FIR does not disclose anything about the recruitment of young boys for CPI
(Moist). He has further stated that he could not recollect the details of the short film of
the title of Samaran; I don’t remember whether the CD of the movie Samaran was given
to me; I cannot recollect the portion of the film that misguides the tribale people and
tries bring hatred and enmity, which would clearly show that without application of
mind, the sanction has been accorded by him.
9.3. The learned counsel further submitted that P.Ws.5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 28 are independent witnesses in which, 11, 15, 20, 21, 28
have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. P.W.15 who is alleged
to have lent his T.V. to the respondent to screen the short film, has turned hostile. He
further submitted that in the first charge sheet three persons have been shown namely
K.Kumar, R.Ranjith Kumar and Rajendran alleging that the respondent/accused met
them and spoken to him about armed revolution in which, the said Rajendran who was
examined as P.W.5 has turned hostile and the K.Kumar was not all examined by the
prosecution. Only R.Ranjith Kumar was examined as P.W.9 and one Ramesh shown in
the second charge sheet and alleged to have been met by the respondent/accused, was
examined as P.W.10. Even P.W.9, during cross examination has clearly stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
nghyp!py ; vd;id tprhhpf;Fk;nghJ jiykiy g!; vg;nghJ tUk; vd;W nfl;L mwpKfkhdhh;
vd;w tpguj;ij bry;ypapUf;fpnwd;/ 2014 k; Mz;L $dthp khjk; vd;id Kjypy; tPl;oy; itj;J
tprhhpf;Fk;nghJ Jg;ghf;fp RLtJ gw;wp kDnty ; vd;dplk ; brhd;d tpgu';fis nghyP!plk;
bry;ytpy;iy which is clear that the evidence of P.W.9 has been created for the purpose of
prosecution.
9.4. The learned counsel further submitted that even P.W.25 who gave
accommodation to the respondent has only stated that the respondent had informed him
that he came to create awareness about the Tiger Reserve and that he has got a short film
in pen drive to show the same to the people to create awareness. Though P.W.25 has
stated that his father shouted at him stating that he came to know that the film shown by
the respondent was in a way to create distrust and hatred against the Government and he
propagated not to hesitate to take arms, however, neither P.W.25 nor his father have
stated that they themselves saw the respondent speaking about armed revolution or they
saw the said movie. Further, P.W.25 in his evidence has stated that on the request of the
Thalavadi Inspector, he opened the door in which the respondent was staying and
subsequently, the police recovered 3 spiral binding books (Ex.P.9). Therefore, it is clear
that the key of the said house was with P.W.25 and there is no proof to show that the said
books were kept by the respondent.
9.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution is alleged to have
recovered 21 material objects from the respondent in which, M.O.1 to 8 are laptop,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
charger, Reliance cell, pen-drive, Indian Bank Debit Card and bit notices. M.Os.10 and
11/donation books from the respondent, however, the prosecution has not examined any
one to prove from whom the donation was obtained. Even the Exs.P18 to 22 would
show that there is nothing to incite violence and there is no proof to show that the same
were created by the respondent.
9.6 The learned counsel further submitted that even P.W.8 and P.W.17 have only
stated that the respondent had told them that he is protesting against the Government as
the tribal people cannot get basic needs for their livelihood if the Tiger Reserve is
established in Sathyamangalam and the people would be removed from the Village.
Other than that the witnesses have not stated anything against the respondent.
9.7 The learned counsel further submitted that in the second charge sheet, it has
been stated that on 09.06.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., near Neithalapuram Bus Stop, the
respondent exhibited a short film with title Samaran, to the witnesses Ravichandran,
Ramachandran, Mahadevappa, Girish and others by using pen drive, Laptop and T.V.
Monitor, a series of scene of fabricated and false scenes of alleged torture to a hill tribe
boy by a man wearing camouflage police Uniforms and thereby attempted to excite
disaffection towards the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu. But
the fact is that the said film is about a torture to a hill tribe boy by Indian Army and it
was written by one Magendran and directed by one C.S. Mahivarman and that the said
movie is still available in the You Tube. Till date, neither the Police nor the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
has taken any steps to remove the said movie from You Tube and they have also not
taken any action against the Writer, Director and actors of the said movie.
9.8 The learned counsel further submitted that though the prosecution has stated
that the respondent had spoken in a way inciting the people to create riot, violence by
using armed rebellion, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that after the
speech of the respondent or after watching the said short film, any of the witnesses or
any other persons of Neithalapuram and tribal, joined the respondent organization and
protested against the Governments or used weapons or took arms training from the
respondent. Therefore, mere expressing of merits and de-merits of Government
Policies/projects will not attract any offence.
9.9. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent alone had not
agitated against the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve, but various political parties,
organization and NGOs protested against the same in their own way as it was in
violation of the provisions and procedures prescribed under the Wildlife Protection Act,
2006. Even the evidence of D.W.1 and Exs.D2 and D3 would clearly show that a former
MLA had registered his opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and he had
also written to the Government seeking immediate rejection of the said proposal.
Further, the villagers in and around the area had also passed resolution against the said
proposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
9.10 The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D1,
Exs.P.21 and 22 would show that the respondent and D.W.1 had decided hold a
demonstration in order to create awareness for which, the police refused to give
permission against which, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P.No.13978 of 2013 and since the date on which the permission was sought to hold
the demonstration was over, the said petition was dismissed as infructuous granting
liberty to the respondent submit a fresh representation.
9.11 The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the film played in
through Laptop and there is no significance. As already stated, still the said film is
available in the public domain and the same has not been banned either by the
Government or by the police authority. Even P.W.25 has not stated that all the materials
were only brought by the respondent and the materials were collected by the respondent.
Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and
the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and extended the benefit of doubt in
favour of the respondent and acquitted him. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. Admittedly, in this case, most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution
are official witnesses, and the prosecution mainly relies on their evidence. It is a matter
of common experience that whenever a new Government policy or project is introduced,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
some sections of the public may apprehend adverse consequences and therefore express
opposition or protest against the same. For instance, people in the delta region had
agitated against the NLC project. Similarly, there have been protests against projects
such as the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and the establishment or expansion of
airports. Mere expression of opposition or apprehension regarding a Government policy,
by itself, cannot amount to an offence unless the ingredients of the penal provisions are
clearly established. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Government and the
public authorities to explain the benefits of such projects and address the concerns of the
people. Merely expressing such concerns cannot attract offences under Sections 124A
and 505 IPC.
12. In the present case, even according to the evidence of the official witnesses, the
allegation against the respondent is only that he had met certain persons and stated that
if the Sathyamangalam Forest is declared as a Tiger Reserve, the tribal people and others
residing in and around that area may be affected and their movements may be restricted.
Such statements, even if accepted, only show that the respondent expressed concern
about the possible consequences of declaration of the area as a Tiger Reserve.
13. It is not the case that the Sathyamangalam Forest had been declared as a Tiger
Reserve from the very beginning. When a policy change or new declaration is made,
people residing in the surrounding areas or those dependent on the forest resources may
naturally fear that their livelihood or access to the forest may be affected, and they may
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
therefore express opposition or protest. In that context, the respondent is stated to have
voiced his opposition to the declaration of the Tiger Reserve. Though some witnesses
have stated that the respondent introduced himself as belonging to CPI (Maoist) and
claimed that he knew weapons training and explosives training and was willing to
provide such training, and called upon the tribal people and the working class to join his
organization to protest against the Government, there is absolutely no material placed
before this Court to show that the respondent actually organized any group, conducted
any training, or engaged in any activity involving weapons or violence. No witness has
stated that any person joined such an alleged organization, received weapons training, or
participated in any violent act pursuant to the alleged speech made by the respondent.
14. It is also not the case that the respondent alone had opposed the declaration of
the Tiger Reserve in Sathyamangalam. From the evidence of D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D3, it
is evident that several persons and organizations had expressed their opposition to the
proposal. Even a former MLA had raised objections in the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly and had written to the Government stating that the proposal to declare the
Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary as a Tiger Reserve was in violation of the
provisions and procedures prescribed under the Wildlife Protection Act, 2006, and had
sought rejection of the proposal. Further, about 19 Panchayat Unions in and around the
area had also passed resolutions opposing the said proposal. This would clearly show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
that the issue had generated public debate and opposition from various quarters and that
the respondent was not the only person expressing such views.
15. Further, though the prosecution stated that the respondent screened a short
film by name Samaran to the people and attempted to excite and disaffection towards the
Government and that the the materials viz., laptop, charger, Reliance cell, pen-drive etc.
alleged to have been used by the respondent to screen the short film were recovered,
however, the said short film is still in the public domain and it has not been banned
either by the Government or by the police authorities and that they have not taken any
steps sofar to remove the same from the public domain.
16. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the evidence of official witnesses
alone, particularly when some of the independent witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case and some have turned hostile, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to
establish the serious offences alleged against the respondent. The prosecution has failed
to place any reliable material to show that the respondent instigated violence, attempted
to act against the Government, or caused any situation leading to public disorder.
Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 124A and 505 IPC are
not made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
17. When two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be
adopted. In the present case, the trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, extended
the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent/accused and acquitted him. This Court,
upon re-appreciation of the evidence, does not find that only one view is possible,
namely, that the respondent/accused has committed the charged offences. Normally, this
Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial Court in such circumstances.
18. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court does not find any
perversity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and there is no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has properly assessed the
evidence and has rightly extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent.
19. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J)
27.02.2026
ksa-2
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Court (Sub Court),
Sathiyamangalam, Erode District
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Copy to:
The Section Officer
V.R. Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J
ksa-2
27.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 06:26:44 pm )
