Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2667
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
S.Annathai - Appellant
Versus
Marimuthu @ Kattamari - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.401 of 2021
Decided on : 02-04-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: 120(b), 147, 148, 302
Headnote
(B) Standard of Proof - The principle that prosecution must establish the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was reiterated, emphasizing that vacillation in witness credibility must not lead to a conviction based on assumptions or doubts. (Paras 28, 33)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the wife of the deceased, arguing against the trial court's acquittal of accused in the murder of Swaminathan due to alleged conspiracy and personal enmity, with critical evidence found uncorroborated. (Paras 2-10)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no reliable evidence to substantiate the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. The appellate court concurred with this reasoning and did not alter the trial court’s decision. (Paras 33, 34)
Issues: Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified given the testimonies' inconsistencies and the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 32)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the acquittal, reasoning that witness inconsistencies and lack of corroboration rendered the prosecution's case weak, confirming that the benefit of doubt lies with the accused. (Paras 33, 34)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For the Respondent: Mr.V.Kathirvelu, for Mr.K.Prabhu, Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, for Mr.P.Senthilkumar, Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. court observations on the trial court's acquittal reasoning. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 20 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33) |
| 3. arguments regarding the reliability of witnesses in the prosecution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. witness reliability and evidence contradictions. (Para 26) |
| 5. standard of proof in criminal cases. (Para 30) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal against acquittal. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
The Criminal Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., is filed by one Annathai, W/o Swaminathan, the defacto complainant, being aggrieved by the judgement of acquittal rendered by the III Additional Sessions Judge at Tirunelveli, in S.C.No:735 of 2016, dated 05-04-2021.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to personal enmity between two groups in the Dhandhanuthu Village, Tirunelveli District, Swaminathan, the husband of the de-facto complainant was done to death by the members of the other group. The de facto complainant set the law into motion through her complaint/Ex.P-1. The said complaint dated 25.09.2019 received at 17:30 hours registered as Cr.No.297 of 2015 under sections 147, 148, 120 B and 302IPC by Thalaiyuthu Police Station.
3. The sum and substance of the complaint is that, the husband of the de-facto complainant viz., Swaminathan was supervising about 100 acres of farm land owned by Sahib Meeran in that village. Out of which, in 25 acres he had fenced and rearing cattles. The deceased under his leadership conducted festivals of Mariamman Temple, Kaliamman Temple and Sudali Temple in the year 2014. At that time, he did not collect contribution from the members of the group led by NCC Maadaaamy, son of Subbaiah and Katta Mari @ Marimuthu, son of Chelliah.
4. Two months before the occurrence, a complaint to the Police was lodged by the poojari of Mariamman Temple, viz., Thangavelu regarding the theft of Temple hundi by Kallathiyan and Mani. The respondent Police registered the complaint against them and the same was under investigation. The deceased was assisting the complainant Thangavelu in this connection. Therefore, the said Kallathiyan and his associates Marimuthu, Madasamy, Komban @ Balasubramaniam, Amirtharaj, Kumar and Subramaniam and others had a grudge against Swaminathan. The complainant-P.W.1 when she heard that the associates of Kallthiyan had conspired to murder her husband, she warned him to be careful.
5. On 25.09.2015 at about 1:30 PM, the said Swaminathan went to the farm to milking. Since he did not return home, his wife/the complainant got panic, so at about 3.00 p.m., she went to the farm along with one Pappa wife of her husband’s brother in search of Swaminathan. Near the farm, they saw Komban @ Balasubramaniam, Kallathiyan, his brother Subramani, Kumar and Amirtaraj were running haphazard towards the Eastern direction. Amritaraj, Kallathiyan and Komban @ Balasubramaniam were carrying aruval with them. On seeing them running, P.W.1 suspected something cynical about the visit of these persons to her field. She got panic and started calling her husband. They were not able to find him in the field. His cell phone was switched off. They came back to village crying P.W.1 informed it her son-in-law Maharaja, Sankaraammal, wife of murugan, Senthil Ganesh, Son of Isakki Muthu and the Ward Councillor Essakimalli. Gathering the villagers she again went to the field in search of Swaminathan. At about 5.00 p.m, in the Sahib Meeran land on the South-west corner found Swaminathan dead with cut injuries on his neck head partially severed and cut injuries on his head.
6. Thereafter, P.W.1(wife of the deceased Swaminathan) along with her son-in-law Anandaraj went to the police station and gave the complaint for taking necessary action. After registering the FIR at 17.30 hours, in Cr.No: 297 of 2016, the investigation was taken up by Jeen Kumar, the Inspector of police, Thalaiyuthu P.S/(PW-23). The Investigati
