[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Prabhakaran vs State on 20 January, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.697 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.697 of 2022
Prabhakaran ... Appellant/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.State,
Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Jeyamangalam Police Station,
Theni.
(In Crime No.115 of 2019). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Manivel
3.Saravanaprabhu ... Respondents 2 & 3/Accused 1 & 2
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set aside
the Judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2022 made in S.C.No.21 of
2020 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.697 of 2022
Periyakulam in Crime No.115 of 2019 on the file of the first
respondent police and convict the respondents 2 and 3/accused for
the charge of murder under Section 302 of I.P.C.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Lawrance
For R – 1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R – 2 : Mr.M.U.Mohamed Aslam
For R – 3 : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in
in S.C.No.21 of 2020 dated 20.06.2022 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Court, Periyakulam, thereby acquitting the
respondents 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 302
of I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2019 at about
07.00 p.m., the second accused developed an illegal intimacy with
the wife of the first accused. On account of the same, the deceased
used to insult the wife of the first accused by referring to her illegal
intimacy with the second accused whenever she came for fetching
water from the common water lane. Therefore, there was previous
enmity between the accused and the deceased. Hence both the
accused decided to do away with the life of the deceased.
3.While being so, on 08.07.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., the
second accused had picked up the deceased in his motorcycle and
took him along with liquor and snacks, to the scene of crime, which
is belonging to one Jeganathan. While they were consuming liquor,
the first accused pushed the deceased, causing him to fall down.
Thereafter, the first accused placed a stone on the head of the
deceased and the second accused placed a stone on his chest. After
causing the injuries, they fled away from the scene of occurrence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
The deceased died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him.
Based on the complaint, the first respondent registered an F.I.R in
Crime No.115 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 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.
4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. The
prosecution had produced Materials Objects M.O.1 to M.O.13 and
the Court documents were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On the side
of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were
produced before the Trial Court.
5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court found both the accused not guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of I.P.C and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
same, the defacto complainant as appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the Trial Court completely overlooked the evidence of
P.W.6, P.W.12 and P.W.13. They had seen the accused while they
were bringing the deceased to the scene of crime. They categorically
deposed that the accused picked up the deceased along with liquor
and snacks. The accused had a motive to do away with the life of the
deceased for the reason that he used to insult the wife of the first
accused. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found at the
place of occurrence. Therefore, the accused are liable to be punished
by applying the principles of the “last seen theory”, which is
sufficient to connect the accused in the absence of any other links in
the chain of circumstantial evidence. Further, the confession
statements of the accused led to the recovery of material objects.
Hence, the confession statements of the accused cannot be ignored
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
and they are liable to be punished and convicted for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC.
7.P.W.6 categorically deposed that he had seen the first
accused who brought the deceased on his motorcycle while P.W.6
was talking to one Loganathan at his workshop. Though the said
Loganathan turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.6 was corroborated
by P.W.12 and P.W.13. P.W.12 also stated that he had seen the first
accused who brought the deceased to the scene of crime on his
motorcycle at about 06.45 p.m., on 08.07.2019. The same was
further corroborated by P.W.13, who had also seen the accused along
with the deceased in his motorcycle. P.W.1 to P.W.3 categorically
deposed about the motive for the accused to do away with the life of
the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charges against
the accused, however, the Trial Court failed to convict them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
8.Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the
respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the prosecution failed to prove
the motive for the accused to do away with the life of the deceased.
Though P.W.6, P.W.12 and P.W.13 claimed to have seen the accused
along with the deceased, the prosecution failed to link the chain of
circumstances against the accused. The dead body of the deceased
was found only on the next day ie., on 09.07.2019. Further,
according to the prosecution, the material objects were recovered
only on 11.07.2019. Further, the arrest and recovery were not proved
by the prosecution in the manner known to law. Therefore, the Trial
Court rightly acquitted the accused and the same does not warrant
any interference of this Court.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the first respondent also supported the case of the appellant and
sought for conviction of the respondents 2 and 3 herein for the
reason that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
of P.W.6, P.W.12 and P.W.13, who had spoken about the accused
being last seen along with the deceased.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
11.The prosecution projected the motive for the occurrence
to be the alleged illegal intimacy between the wife of the first
accused and the second accused, which was criticized and
condemned by the deceased. Therefore, according to the
prosecution, the first and second accused decided to do away with
the life of the deceased. This version appears improbable. When the
second accused was allegedly having illegal intimacy with the wife
of the first accused, it is difficult to believe that both the accused 1
and 2 would have jointly intended to do away with the life of the
person who merely criticized their illegal relationship. It is unnatural
that a person having illegal intimacy with another man's wife would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
join hands with the husband to murder a person who criticized such
relationship.
12.The son of the deceased had deposed as P.W.1. He
deposed that the deceased was a drunkard and used to return home
very late in the evening and sometimes only on the next day,
depending upon his consumption of alcohol. On the date of the
alleged occurrence ie., on 08.07.2019, the deceased did not return
home. On the next day, P.W.1 enquired about his whereabouts and
came to know that the dead body of the deceased was lying at the
scene of crime. After seeing the body, he lodged the complaint which
was marked as Ex.P.1. He further deposed that only thereafter he
came to know about the alleged illegal intimacy between the wife of
the first accused and second accused and that the deceased had
condemned the same, thereby giving rise to a motive for the accused
to do away with the life of the deceased. However, it is clear from
his evidence that P.W.1 had no prior knowledge of such illegal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
intimacy between the wife of the first accused and second accused.
He categorically admitted that he did not even whisper about the
illegal intimacy between the wife of the first accused and second
accused in his complaint. Further, he deposed that there was no
previous enmity between the accused and his father.
13.The wife of the deceased had deposed as PW2. She
deposed that only three days after the date of occurrence she came to
know that her husband had been murdered by the accused. She also
did not even whisper about the illegal intimacy between the wife of
the first accused and the second accused nor stated that her husband
had condemned or criticized the same.
14.The son-in-law of the deceased had deposed as P.W.3.
He corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 and he did not even whisper
about the motive on the part of the accused to do away with the life
of the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
15.Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
motive behind the crime allegedly committed by the accused. None
of the witnesses spoke about the illegal intimacy between the wife of
the first accused and second accused. P.W.6, who is an independent
witness, deposed that he had seen the first accused picking up the
deceased in his motorcycle on 08.07.2019 at about 07.00 p.m.
Thereafter, he came to know that the deceased was murdered and
that his body was lying in the scene of crime. He further deposed
that while he was talking with one Loganathan, who owned a
workshop, he had seen the first accused along with the deceased.
The said Loganathan was examined as P.W.11, however, he turned
hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Another
independent witness, P.W.12, deposed that he had seen the first
accused along with the deceased in his motorcycle on the date of
occurrence at about 06.45 p.m. He further deposed that after
sometime, he had also seen the second accused bringing snacks,
water bottle and glass to consume liquor. Thereafter, both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
accused returned back on the same way and he did not see the
deceased thereafter. All this evidence is not helpful to the case of the
prosecution for the simple reason that they failed to prove the
complete chain of circumstances against the accused. Even assuming
that the accused and the deceased went to the scene of crime, there is
no chain of evidence to connect the accused in the case of murder of
the deceased. Mainly, the prosecution failed to prove the motive
behind the crime to do away with the life of the deceased. There was
a long gap of about 12 hours between the time when the deceased
was allegedly last seen with the accused and the time when the dead
body was found. According to P.W6, P.W12 and P.W.13, the accused
were last seen with the deceased between 06.45 p.m and 07.00 p.m
on 08.07.2019. In order to apply the “last seen theory”, there must
be a complete and unbroken chain of evidence connecting the
accused with the crime, which is absent in the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “State of Goa
Vs. Pandurang Mohite, AIR 2009 SC 1066” and a plethora of other
judgements has stated that the time gap between last seen alive and
the recovery of dead body must be so small that the possibility of
any person other than the accused being the author of the crime
becomes impossible.
17.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Arjun Marik v.
State of Bihar” [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372], wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as follows:
“31. ….Even if it is accepted that they were
there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the
appellants having been seen last together with the
deceased. But it is settled law that the only
circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain
of circumstances to record the finding that it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis
alone can be founded.”
17.Further the prosecution failed to prove the story of
illegal intimacy between the wife of the first accused and second
accused. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In order
to establish such a case, the prosecution must prove each
circumstance and connect the chain of evidence conclusively.
18.In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish
motive or enmity with the deceased which forced them to do away
with the life of the deceased. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly
acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 and this Court finds no infirmity
or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and the same does
not warrant any interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
19.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal fails and is
dismissed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
20.01.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
ps
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court,
Periyakulam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Jeyamangalam Police Station,
Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
20.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/01/2026 12:03:21 pm )
