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) 3054

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. Jayachandran, Poornima, JJ.
Kalarani - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station - Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 225 of 2020
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. Vishnu, S. Vinayak
For the Respondents: E. Antony Sahaya Prabhakar, J.A. Prabhakaran, H. Thayumanaswamy, M.P. Senthil, K. Veilmuthu

The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 302, 506(ii) - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Section 3(1) - Acquittal of accused in homicide case - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - Witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradictory - Trial Court's findings upheld. (Paras 2, 9, 39)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Standard of proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 9, 39)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, sister-in-law of the deceased, challenged the acquittal of accused in a homicide case involving property disputes. The trial Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable and contradictory. (Paras 2, 9)

Findings of Court:
The trial Court acquitted all accused due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Paras 9, 39)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses and whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial Court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution's failure to provide reliable evidence warranted acquittal. (Paras 9, 39)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is preferred by one Kalarani examined as PW1 in S.C.No.170 of 2015 on the file of the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused tried for the offence in connection with homicide death of one Mahadevan.

2. The appellant is the sister-in-law of the deceased Mahadevan. The investigation of the crime been set into motion on the complaint given by this appellant. The Thanjavur Town South Police registered a case in Crime No.43 of 2014 on 18.02.2014 at 14.00 hours for offence under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 323, 324, 302, 506(ii) r/w 147 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 as against 6 named accused and few others. Based on the final report, laid by the Investigating Officer, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Thanjavur as against 11 persons. Specific charges were framed against each of the accused and on their plea of not guilty, they were subjected for trial. To prove the charges 24 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In support 21 Exhibits and 13 Material Objects were marked. The trial Court on cumulative assessment of the evidence placed before it, held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused.

3. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the trial Court failed to lay the evidence on the probability of the accused under proper perspective. Though the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is consistent and corroborative to each other with minor contradictions, which is natural in any case. The trial Court erred in disbelieving their evidence. Thereby the conclusion of the trial Court suffers perversity.

4. The substances of the prosecution case is that there was property dispute between the family members of the deceased and the family members of the accused who shared common ancestors. On 18.02.2014 at about 10.00 a.m in the disputed land, the descendants of Sengamalam namely, Ramalingam (A10) and Siva (A11) were fixing boundary stones for laying plots. That was objected by Mahalingam, Mahadevan, Ganesan (all brothers of Mahalingam) and Iyyappan. Infuriated by that, Ramalingam challenged Mahadevan and his brothers to be there and will come with his men and finish them all.

5. After this incident, members of both group have returned to their respective home. Mahadevan (deceased) went to the shop to buy medicine for his child. At about 11.00 a.m Ramalingam (A10), Siva (A11), Karthick (A1), Kumaran (A2), Rajam (A5), Subba (A4), Nagalakshmi (A6), Azagarasan (A9), Kumar (A8), Jeyanthi (A7) and Rajendiran (A3) all went to the house of Mahalingam ransacked his house and knowing that Mahadevan is not in the house, threatened his wives namely, Kavitha and Lalitha. Mahadevan who came to know about these incident hearing danger to his life and his family members, wanted to leave the village. Meanwhilethe gang lead by Ramalingam had attacked Iyyappan and Ganesan when they were about to give complaint to the police about the incident. The accused Karthick, Kumaran, Rajendiran, Suba, Rajam, Naglakshmi caught Mahadevan and Kumaran attacked Mahadevan with wooden log; Karthick attacked with knife; Rajendiran kicked him and also Suba, Rajam, Nagalakshmi stamped with their legs. Mahadevan died instantly on the spot. In this regard, a written complaint was given by Kalarani and received by the Sub Inspector of Police on 18.02.2014 at 14.00 hours. In the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that A10-Ramalingam and A11-Siva alias Sivakumar instigated and conspired to commit the offence. Therefore, included them as A10 and A11 and also altered the charges and filed alteration report.

6. The Sessions Court framed the following charges:

6.1. Charge 1: For the offence under Section 120(b) IPC.

Karthick @ Karthikeyan (A1), Kumaran @ Muthukumaran (A2), Rajendiran (A3), Suba (A4), Ramalingam (A10), Siva @ Si

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