BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Neethirajan - Appellant
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station - Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) Nos. 288, 293, 457, 786, 807, 832 of 2022, 159 of 2023
Decided On : 17-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case facts and initial investigation. (Para 1) |
| 2. initial complaint leading to investigation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of trial and charges (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments presented by appellants (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. court's observations on witness credibility. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 6. principles regarding criminal conspiracy (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. discussion on conspiracy and the requisite proof. (Para 40) |
| 8. confirmation of trial court's judgment (Para 62 , 63) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The batch of seven Criminal Appeals are against the judgment dated 22.03.2022 rendered in S.C.No.361 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Court at Madurai.
Brief facts:
2. V. Muthuramalingam (PW-1), gave a complaint to the Therkuvasal Police on 08.06.2014 at about 21.30 hrs reporting that while he along with his daughter Dhanalakshmi and his son-in-law Alagarsami were waiting at Keelveli Veedhi Mission Hospital Bus Stop, at about 21.00 hrs, a gang of 7 known and few unknown persons armed with arruval and iron pipe came in a Auto. On seeing them his son in law tried to fled from the place, but he was surrounded by the members of the gang in front of Vetrivel Medicals few feet away from the bus stop and they attacked his son-in-law Alzagarsami with aruval and iron pipe, causing instant death. The complaint was scribed by Manikandan (PW-10) who was also an witness to the occurrence.
3. Maruthalakshmi (PW-6) the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Therkuvasal Police received the complaint(Ex.P-1) from PW-1 and registered the FIR in Cr.No.336 of 2014 under sections 147, 148, 341and 302 IPC and forwarded the copy of the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate through Panaraj(PW-7). She also placed the FIR for the perusal of Inspector of Police.
4. Ganesan (PW-24), the Inspector of Police, on getting intimation about the crime went to the place of crime and found the body of Alagarsami severely wounded over his chest, limbs and head. After taking photographs of the body and scene of crime he sent the body to Rajaji Government Hospital for post mortem. From the scene of crime he collected suspected evidences, prepared rough sketch, observation mahazar and recorded statements of witnesses. In the course of investigation gathered information that one of the assailant by name Niranjan sustained injuries at the hands of co assailant by name Nithiyananth (A-2) and died two days later in the hospital. From the confession of the accused persons, the weapons and the vehicle used by them for the crime were recovered.
5. After arrest of the accused persons , recovery of suspected materials used for committing the crime, recording the statements of the doctors who conducted post mortems of Alagarsami and Niranjan, Doctor who recorded the accident register for Niranjan, P.W.24 completed the investigation and filed the filed his final report before the Magistrate court as against 9 persons and case against a juvenile was sent to Juvenile Justice Board.
6. The Judicial Magistrate after serving the copies to the accused persons, committed the matter to the court of sessions at Madurai. The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai to whom the case was made over, framed charges under sections 120B, 148. 341 and 302 IPC. Later, in the course of the trial, the 4th charge under sections 302 IPC against A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A-9) was altered to 302 r/w 149 IPC.
7. The accused were put to trial for the charges as below:-
| S. No. | Name of the Accused | Charges |
| 1 | Vijayalingam | 120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 2 | Nithyanandh | 120B, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 304 (ii) IPC |
| 3 | Solairaja | 120B, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 4 | Ramasamy | 120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 5 | Alexpandian s/o Mookian | 120B, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 6 | Neethirajan | 120B IPC |
| 7 | Alexpandian s/o Pandi @ Thadipandi. | 120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 8 | Muniyasamy @ Sendu Muniyasami | 120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
| 9 | Ranjith kumar. | 120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC |
8. To prove the above charges, 24 witnesses, 26 documents and 18 material obj
Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Bhagwan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana
Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin vs. State of Maharashtra
V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.)
AI
The court affirmed that involvement in an unlawful assembly and conspiracy to commit murder can establish liability, requiring only shared intent, not active participation in the crime.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly – Common object - No doubt section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object various circu....
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, inconsistencies, and procedural irregularities in FIR registration.
The prosecution must establish a common object for unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC; absence of motive and specific allegations can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove specific overt acts of each accused in a murder case; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.