SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2700

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : G. Karuppasamy Pandiyan, B. Ashok
For the Respondents: A. Thiruvadikumar, G. Thalaimutharasu

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 148, 341, and 302 r/w 149 - Conspiracy to commit murder - Conviction upheld for seven appellants involved in the murder of Alagarsami, resulting from prior enmity. Charge altered to include unintentional death of co-assailant - The court emphasized that mere presence in an unlawful assembly with shared intent can incur liability - Clear evidence established a conspiracy involving multiple accused. (Paras 9, 10, 30, 61)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of close relatives, despite being interested witnesses, was deemed credible and sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and minor discrepancies were highlighted as inconsequential to the core facts of the case. (Paras 60, 27)

Facts of the case:
On 8th August 2014, a gang attacked Alagarsami near a bus stop, leading to his death. The assailants included the appellants who were charged with conspiracy and murder, with evidence from various witnesses including relatives of the deceased (Paras 2-3).

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conclusions were upheld, confirming that charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and sentences were ordered to run concurrently with prior imprisonment accounted for (Paras 11, 62).

Issues: The court addressed the implications of conspiracy, the credibility of witness testimony, the admissibility of confessions, and the significance of pre-existing animosity (Paras 44, 61).

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that in conspiracy cases, direct evidence of agreement is not essential; circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish shared unlawful intent (Paras 30, 31).

Result: Appeals dismissed with conviction confirmed (Para 63).

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 AccusedCharges
1Vijayalingam120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
2Nithyanandh120B, 148, 302 r/w 149 and 304 (ii) IPC
3Solairaja120B, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
4Ramasamy120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
5Alexpandian s/o Mookian120B, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
6Neethirajan120B IPC
7Alexpandian s/o Pandi @ Thadipandi.120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
8Muniyasamy @ Sendu Muniyasami120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC
9Ranjith kumar.120B, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC

8. To prove the above charges, 24 witnesses, 26 documents and 18 material obj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top