[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajababu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 January, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.20275 & 20276 of 2025
1.Rajababu
2.Murugan ... Appellants/Accused Nos.2 & 3
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Manur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.331 of 2014). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment of conviction
passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and allow this
Criminal Appeal.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
Crl.A(MD)No.1207 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment of
conviction passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the
file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli, thereby convicted the appellants for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute
regarding the administration of a temple between the deceased and
accused. Further, a dispute arose between them with regard to
construction of a compound wall around the temple premises. In the
year 2011, the deceased assaulted one Arunachalam/10th accused,
which resulted in enmity between the two groups. Further, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
deceased lodged a complaint against the accused. Due to the said
motive, all the accused conspired together to do away with the life of
the deceased. While being so, on 05.09.2014, at about 08.00 a.m.,
when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused
came there in an auto and waylaid him. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and
11 discriminatively assaulted him with sickles, causing his death on
the spot. On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in
Crime No.331 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation,
the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken
cognizance by the Trial Court.
3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. The
prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8.On the
side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and marked Ex.D.1
to Ex.D.7 before the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the appellants/A.2 and A.3 alone guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced them to
undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, A.2 and A.3 as
appellants have preferred the present appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the
evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were projected as eyewitnesses to
the occurrence. However, the unnatural conduct of P.W.3 and P.W.4
creates suspicion with regard to their very presence in the scene of
crime. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint.
However, she did not write the complaint herself and categorically
admitted during her cross-examination that she explained the
occurrence to a third party and read the complaint before lodging it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
to the respondent police. After registration of F.I.R, it was sent to the
Court with delay of 6 hours, for which there is absolutely no proper
explanation by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place
on 05.09.2014. The statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded
after 8 days from the date of occurrence. Subsequently, their
statements were sent to the Court only after a period of one year and
that too along with the final report. There is no explanation by the
prosecution for the huge delay in sending the statements to the
Court, which creates doubt over the credibility of the case of the
prosecution. Despite this, the Trial Court convicted the appellants.
The statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C were recorded from
P.W.3 and P.W.4 only on 13.09.2014 ie, after a delay of 8 days from
the date of occurrence. They are supposed to be eye witnesses as
projected by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer should have
examined them on the date of occurrence itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
6.In fact, the statements recorded from P.W.1 to P.W.3
dated 05.09.2014 were sent to the Court the very next day ie., on
06.09.2014 itself. The inquest report dated 05.09.2014 was also sent
to the Court on 06.09.2014. That apart, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are close
relatives of the deceased, which raises doubt about their impartiality
and their actual presence at the scene of crime. Further, when the
Trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4
concerning the other accused persons, acquitting them, it is evident
that the appellants, who stood in the same footing as of the other
accused persons, were convicted by the Trial Court in a pick and
chose method by showing partiality. There should not be
discrimination when considering the testimony of others and the
Trial Court should have acquitted the other accused persons as well,
instead of convicting the appellants alone.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further
submitted that as per the F.I.R, there were only 7 named accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
persons. However, the prosecution keep on adding more accused and
finally, 21 accused persons were included in the charge sheet. When
all the accused persons were standing in the same footing, the Trial
Court ought not to have convicted the appellants alone while
acquitting the other accused. In fact, there was enmity only between
10th accused and the deceased. However, the Trial Court acquitted all
the accused persons except the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution
failed to prove the charges as against the appellants beyond a
reasonable doubt and even then, the Trial Court convicted the
appellants.
8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that due to previous enmity,
all the accused persons conspired together to do away with the life of
the deceased. On the date of occurrence, all the named accused
joined together, waylaid the deceased and indiscriminately attacked
him with sickles, causing grievous injuries which led to his death on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
the spot. The sickles were recovered and produced as materials
objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The vehicle which was used by the accused
was also produced as Material Object No.3. On the complaint, which
was marked as Ex.P.1, the respondent registered the F.I.R, which was
marked as Ex.P.13. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was
subjected for postmortem and the postmortem report was marked as
Ex.P.15. After the confession statements recorded from the accused,
the respondent altered the charges and submitted alteration reports
on two occasions, which were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. All
the prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses, categorically
deposed about the specific overt act of the appellants and the Trial
Court rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. The delay in sending the statements recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. In fact, the vital documents were immediately sent to
the Court along with F.I.R. Therefore, the prosecution has
categorically proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and the same does not
warrant any interference of this Court.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
10.There was enmity between the 10th accused and
deceased with regard to the construction of a compound wall around
two Mutharamman Temples situated in Rastha Village, Tirunelveli
District. There were totally 21 accused and all the accused are
relatives. The Trial Court split up the fourth accused and conducted a
trial as against the other accused persons. Except the appellants, all
other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court. According
to the case of the prosecution, on 05.09.2014 at about 08.00 a.m.,
when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused
waylaid the deceased and attacked him indiscriminately with sickles.
As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint and
the same was registered by the respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C against 7
named accused persons. During the investigation, the respondent
found that there were totally 21 accused and laid a charge sheet. The
Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 109 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After a full
fledged trial, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except
the appellants herein.
11.The complainant, who deposed as P.W.1, is none other
than the sister of the deceased. She deposed that 7 accused persons
including the appellants herein along with A.11 waylaid the
deceased, assaulted the deceased with sickles. The said occurrence
was witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.1 was informed about
the occurrence by P.W.3. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place of
occurrence and lodged the complaint before the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
Therefore, P.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and she
heard about the occurrence from P.W.3 and then lodged the
complaint. Another sister was examined as P.W.2. She was informed
about the occurrence by P.W.3. Therefore, she was not an eyewitness
and she was only a hearsay witness. One of the eyewitnesses, the
husband of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. He categorically deposed
that totally 7 persons assaulted the deceased with sickles. According
to him, A.11 also possessed a sickle and assaulted the deceased. The
relevant portion of his deposition is as follows:
“05.09.2014 Mk; Njjp fhiy 07.30
kzpf;F B Fbj;Jtpl;L CUf;F njw;Nj
gz;lhurhkp Nfhtpy; mUNf tPuGj;jpud; jupR
epyj;jpw;F mUfpy; fhiyfld; fopg;gjw;fhf
nrd;Nwd;> mg;NghJ vdf;F irby; vdJ
ikj;Jdh; ngUkhs;rhkp Nkhl;lhu; irf;fpspy;
fhiyf;fld; fopf;f nrd;whu;. ehDk;> vd;Dld;
vdJ ikj;Jdh;> khhpag;gd;> MWKfk;
MfpNahu;fSk; fhiyf;fld; fopf;f nrd;Nwhk;.
mUzhryj;ij ntl;b Kd;gifia nfhz;Lk;>
Nfhtpy; gpur;ridia nfhz;Lk; KUfd;> uh[ghG>
nts;sj;Jiu> fhe;jp> fhj;jg;gd;. nry;yj;Jiu>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
mz;zhkiy MfpNahu;fs; vdJ ikj;Jdh;
ngUkhs;rhkpia topkwpj;J Kufd;> uh[ghG>
nts;sj;Jiu MfpNahu;fs; mUthshy; vdJ
ikj;Jdu; ngUkhs;rhkpia fOj;jpy;
ntl;bdhu;fs;.”
Thus, it is clear that according to P.W.1, there were totally 7 accused
persons, who assaulted the deceased with sickles. However, the
prosecution recovered only three sickles, which were produced as
Material Objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The other accused persons were
also standing in the same footing of the appellants.
12.Another eyewitness was examined as P.W.4. He also
deposed that all 7 accused persons waylaid the deceased and
assaulted him with sickles. According to P.W.3 and P.W.4, the
deceased was travelling with motorcycle. However, the prosecution
failed to recover the motorcycle and produce it before the Trial
Court to prove that the deceased arrived at the scene of crime by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
motorcycle being waylaid and assaulted by the accused. The relevant
portion of his deposition is as follows:
“05-09-2014 Mk; Njjp fhiy Rkhh; 07.00
kzpastpy; ehd; uhikahit ghh;f;f u];jhtpw;F
te;Njd;. mjd;gpd;dh; uhikah tPl;bw;F gf;fj;jpy;
,Ue;j B filapy; ehDk; uhikahTk;
MWKfKk; B Fbj;Njhk;. mjd;gpd;dh; fhiy
Rkhh; 07.30 kzpastpy; ntspNa fhiyf;fld;
fopg;gjw;fhf gz;lhurhkp fy;Fthhp gf;fj;jpy;
ehDk;> uhikahTk;> MWKfKk; nrd;Nwhk;.
gz;lhurhkp fy;Fthup gf;fj;jpy; kz; Nuhl;by;
ehq;fs; nrd;W nfhz;bUe;j NghJ ngUkhs;rhkp
igf;fpy; vq;fis irL thq;fp Nghdhu;. ehq;fs;
gpd;dhy; nrd;Nwhk;. Rkhu; 20 mb njhiytpy;
fhiy 08.00 kzpastpy; tPuGj;jpud; jupR
epyj;jpy; njw;F ghu;j;J ngUkhs;rhkp nrd;W
nfhz;bUe;j NghJ %d;W Ngu; mjhtJ KUfd;>
ifapy; uh[hghG> fUg;grhkp kfd; nts;sj;Jiu
MfpNahu;fs; mUths;fSld; epd;W
nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;.”
Thus, it is clear that all the accused persons were standing in the
same footing and had specific overt acts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
13.One of the witnesses who was present along with P.W.3
and P.W.4 was examined as P.W.6, but he turned hostile and did not
support the case of the prosecution. Now, the entire case of the
prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who
were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Trial Court disbelieved
their evidence insofar as the other 5 accused persons, except the
appellants. In fact, all the accused persons were acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C, since there was no
evidence to show that all the accused persons waylaid the deceased
and restrained him from escaping from the scene of crime. Further,
the Trial Court also concluded that the offences under Sections
120(b), 148, 341, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C were not proved
by the prosecution as against other accused persons except the
appellants herein.
14.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat
[2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782], wherein it is held as follows:
“14. Assuming that PW-25 and PW-26
identified accused nos.2, 3 and 4 by stating that they
were members of the mob; once a Coordinate Bench of
this Court discards their testimony in its entirety being
unreliable, the benefit of the said finding will have to be
extended to the accused nos.2,3 and 4 as they are
similarly placed with accused Nos.1,5 and 13.
Moreover, except for PW-25 and PW-26, no other
witnesses have ascribed any role to the accused nos.2, 3
and 4.
15. When there is similar or identical
evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by
ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court
cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In
such a case, the cases of both the accused will be
governed by the principle of parity. This principle
means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases
alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a
distinction between the two accused, which will amount
to discrimination.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
15.The above case is squarely applicable to this case on
hand. When there is similar evidence of eyewitnesses against all the
accused persons by deposing that all the accused persons had
specific allegations and same role in the occurrence, the Trial Court
cannot convict the appellants alone while acquitting other accused
persons. All the accused will be governed by the principle of parity.
Hence, the Trial Court should decide cases alike, and in such cases,
the Court cannot make a distinction between the accused, which
would amount to discrimination.
16.When other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial
Court, the appellants should also have received the benefit of parity.
If the relief is denied to the appellants, their rights guaranteed to
them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated.
Further, it will also amount to doing manifest injustice. It is the duty
and obligation of the Court to extend the same relief to the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
17.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
pointed out irregularities committed by the prosecution and it
suspects the entire case of the prosecution. According to the case of
the prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014 at
about 08.00 a.m. On the same day, P.W.1 lodged a complaint which
was marked as Ex.P.1. Immediately after registration of F.I.R, the
Investigating Officer went to the scene of crime and prepared the
observation mahazar. P.W.1 categorically stated in her complaint that
she was informed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 about the occurrence and the
specific overt acts of all the accused persons. Even then, the
respondent failed to examine the eyewitnesses who had deposed as
P.W.3 and P.W.4 on the date of occurrence or next day of occurrence.
Both the eyewitnesses were examined only on 13.09.2014 ie., after 8
days from the date of occurrence. There was absolutely no
explanation from the prosecution for the huge delay in recording
their statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
respondent had recorded their statements after 8 days from the date
of alleged occurrence, the statements were reached only along with
final report that too after one year. When the respondent had sent all
the other documents to the Court immediately after the occurrence,
the prosecution failed to explain the delay in sending the statements
to the Court that too after a period of one year. The Investigating
Officer had deposed as P.W.18. He categorically deposed as follows:
“05.09.2014 Mk; Njjp tof;fpy;
fz;fz;l rhl;rpahf cs;s khupag;gd;> uhikah>
MWKfk; MfpNahu;fis ehd; tprhupj;J thf;F
%yq;fs; gjpT nra;Njdh vd;why; 05.09.2014
Mk; Njjp ehd; mtu;fis tprhupf;ftpy;iy>
Mdhy; 13.09.2014 Mk; Njjp ehd; mtu;fis
tprhupj;Njd;. 05.09.2014 Mk; Njjpf;F gpwF Rkhu;
8 ehl;fs; fopj;J mjhtJ 13.09.2014 Mk; Njjp
jhd; ehd; mtu;fis tprhupj;J thf;F%yq;fs;
gjpT nra;Js;Nsd; vd;why; rupjhd;. ehd; gpNuj
tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;l NghJ MWKfk;>
uhikah> khupag;gd; MfpNahu;fs;
rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;jhu;fsh vd;why; mJ gw;wp
vdf;F jw;NghJ Qhgfk; ,y;iy> me;j tpguk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
tof;F ehl;Fwpg;gpy; Jyq;Fkh vd;why;
Jyq;fhJ.”
Thus, it is clear that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined only on
13.09.2014 and their statements were sent to the Court after a period
of one year.
18.That apart, the vehicle which was used by the deceased
was not recovered by the respondent. Therefore, the prosecution
failed to prove that the deceased came to the scene of crime by
motorcycle and was subsequently waylaid by the accused persons in
order to do away with his life.
19.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Jafarudheen and others Vs. State of Kerala
[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403], wherein it has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
“28.The Investigating Officer is expected to
kick start his investigation immediately after registration
of a cognizable offense. An inordinate and unexplained
delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to
be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case.
There may be adequate circumstances for not examining
a witness at an appropriate time. However, non-
examination of the witness despite being available may
call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It
only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is
required to be cleared.
29. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the
present case, the investigation report is expected to be
sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A
long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion.”
20.Therefore, the inordinate delay in recording the
statements of material witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the
credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
21.This circumstance, looming charge in the background
inevitably leads to the conclusion, that the prosecution story was
conceived and constructed after a good deal and deliberation of
delay in a shady setting, highly redolent of doubt and suspicion. Not
only there was delay in sending and recording the statements of
eyewitnesses, there was delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court.
Though the police station and the jurisdictional Court are situated in
the same campus, there was a delay of 6 hours in sending the F.I.R to
the Court. There was no explanation by the prosecution in sending
the F.I.R to the Court belatedly. The circumstances in this case led
such significance to this delay. Further, there is no corroboration of
P.W.3 and P.W.4's evidence from any independent source. When the
Trial Court concluded not to believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.
4, insofar as other accused persons, it becomes unsafe to rely upon
their evidence to uphold the conviction and sentence of the
appellants herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
22.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025
on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
23.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
Judgment made in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file
of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,
is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges.
The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand
cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the
appellants. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are
no longer required in connection with any other case. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
NCC :Yes/No 19.01.2026
Index :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
19.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 11:26:57 am )
