[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Palani vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2023
Palani : Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvadanai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
Crime No.69 of 2019. : Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 28.06.2022 in S.C.No.
168 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram
and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.419 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was
delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The sole accused assails the judgment passed by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, made in S.C.No.168 of 2019 dated
28.06.2022 in this appeal, wherein the trial court convicted the accused
person for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to
undergo two months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the brother of the de-facto
complainant (PW1) was residing along with his elder son Palani and
there was some dispute between Solaimalai and Palani regarding a
landed property. On 05.04.2019, the said Palani is said to have attacked
and murdered Solaimalai. The same resulted in a complaint (Ex.P1)
given by PW1, which resulted in the registration of FIR (Ex.P9) by the
Sub-Inspector of Police (PW15) in Crime No.69 of 2019 for offence
under Section 302 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
3. The investigation was taken up by PW16, who visited the scene
of crime on 06.04.2019 at about 10.00 AM and in the presence of
witnesses prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and the Rough
Sketch (Ex.P10). In the presence of the Panchayatars, inquest on the dead
body was conducted and Inquest Report (Ex.P11) was prepared. At about
13.15 hours, MO3 to MO16 were seized under Ex.P7.
4. In the course of investigation, the accused person was arrested
on 06.04.2019 at about 19.30 hours at Govindamangalam Bus Stop and
his confession statement was also recorded in the presence of witnesses.
Based on the confession, MO1 and MO2 were seized under Athatchi
Ex.P6. The accused person was produced before the Judicial Magistrate
and was remanded to judicial custody.
5. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and PW9
conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P4)
and the following injuries were noted:
“A 73 year old lying in supine position with hands along
body side.
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs. Eyes closed, blood
present. Mouth opened, tongue protruded. Nasal blood and
right ear bleeding present.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
Open fracture over right forearm present below the elbow
joint. Both ulna and radial fracture present at middle third.
Laceration present on:
(1) Left eyebrow side (3 cm × 2 cm x 0.5 cm).
(2) Forehead – multiple lacerations measuring (3 cm × 0.5 x
0.5 cm). Two measuring 2 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm and three
measuring 1 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm.
(3) Occipital region (3 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm). On right side of
occipital region laceration (3 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm); laceration
on left side of occipital region (1 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm).
(4) Laceration over behind right ear (2 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm)
and (2 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm).
(5) Laceration on right arm (0.5 cm x 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm) on
right side.
(6) Right side zygomatic bone fracture present.
(7) Laceration over centre and left lower lip present (2 cm ×
0.5 cm x 0.5 cm).
(8) Old fracture present on left lower leg, below knee joint.
Stool passed, semen not present.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
On opening thorax cavity:
Ribs – Normal, no fracture.
Lungs – Bilateral lungs normal, congested.
Heart – Normal, congested.
On opening abdominal cavity:
Stomach – Semi-solid food particles present.
Liver – Normal, congested.
Small intestine – Food particles present.
Large intestine – Empty.
Kidneys – Bilateral kidneys normal.
Spleen – Normal, congested.
On opening cranial cavity:
Skull bone – Intact, no fracture.
Meninges – Intact.
Brain – Intracerebral hemorrhage present below occipital
region.
Opinion as to cause of death:
Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis, report
pending. The deceased appears to have died of hypovolemic
shock and head injury.”
6.The final opinion as to the cause of death was stated as
hypovolemic shock and head injury.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
7. The investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses
under Section 161 CrPC. and collected all the relevant materials and filed
the final police report before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai, which was taken on file in PRC No.4 of 2019. The copies
were served on the accused person under Section 207 CrPC. The case
was thereafter committed to the Principal Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram, which was taken on file in SC No.168 of 2019.
8. The trial court framed charges against the accused person for
offence under Section 302 of IPC and the accused person denied the
charges.
9. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW17 and marked Exhibits
P1 to P15 and relied upon MO1 to MO16.
10. The incriminating circumstance in evidence was put to the
accused person when he was examined under Section 313 CrPC, and he
denied the same as false.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
11. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he
rely upon any document.
12. The trial court on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came
to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused
person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal has been filed before this Court.
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
14. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4, PW6 and PW10 as
eyewitnesses. PW1 is the brother of the deceased. PW2 and PW3 are the
daughters-in-law of PW1. PW6 is the son of PW1 and PW10 is the wife
of PW1. PW4 is the neighbour.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 was
aged about 80 years and he had very poor eyesight. Even during cross-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
examination, he had admitted the said fact and was not very clear about
the identity of the accused person. It was submitted that except the
evidence of PW1, none of the other eyewitnesses really supported the
case of the prosecution.
16. PW1, who is the brother of the deceased, is a natural witness
who was aged about 80 years and was residing next to the house of the
deceased. He has clearly spoken about the wordy quarrel between the
deceased and the accused person and he was well aware of the voice of
the accused person, since he is none other than the son of the deceased
and nephew of PW1.
17. It is also relevant to take note of the evidence of PW3. Even
though PW3 did not completely support the case of the prosecution, in
the chief examination she has specifically stated that the accused person
was present in the house of the deceased and they were having a wordy
quarrel. To that extent, the evidence of PW3 supports the evidence of
PW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
18. Even if on a demurrer, it is assumed that there were no clear
eyewitnesses to the incident, there are sufficient materials to establish the
involvement of the accused person in this case and the occurrence. The
dispute between the father and the son, the fact that the accused person
was present along with the deceased just before the incident, the wordy
quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased, the
postmortem report which noted the injuries and the non-explanation of
the accused person as to what happened inside the house which results in
an adverse inference drawn against the accused person, forms a perfect
chain of circumstances and each of the link has been proved by the
prosecution. Therefore, even if the eyewitness account is not very strong,
on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has sufficiently proved the
occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.
19. The next issue is as to whether on the proven facts, the offence
of murder under Section 300 of IPC has been made out.
20. On a careful assessment of the evidence available on record, it
is seen that the present case can be brought within Exception 4 to Section
300 of IPC. There was always a dispute between the father and son and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
on the fateful day there was a fight between the father and son upon a
sudden quarrel. Considering the material object that was used (wooden
stick), it is quite clear that it was not a premeditated murder, but a
culpable homicide not amounting to murder which took place in the spur
of the moment. In view of the same, on the proven facts, the conviction
and sentence has to be modified to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
21. In the light of the above discussion, this criminal appeal is
partly allowed in the following terms:
(a) The judgment passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Ramanathapuram, made in S.C.No.168 of 2019
dated 28.06.2022, is modified to one under Section 304
(ii) of IPC;
(b) The appellant is sentenced to undergo three and
a half years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple
imprisonment;
(c) The period of sentence already undergone by
the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
(d) The appellant shall surrender before the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai
and he shall be confined to the jail to undergo the
remaining period of sentence, if any;
(e) In the absence of surrender, the learned Judicial
Magistrate, shall ensure that the appellant undergoes the
remaining period of sentence, if any.
[N.A.V., J.] [P.D.B., J.]
11.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvadanai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
PKN
Judgment made in
11.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:05:10 pm )
