Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
Madhesh – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Nagarasampatti Police Station - Respondent
Crl.A.No.561 of 2019
Decided On : 26-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the trial and convictions. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 2) |
| 2. arguments related to fir delay and evidence suppression. (Para 4 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. laws on witness testimony and corroboration. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. motive and eyewitness testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. relevance of single eyewitness testimony. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. inferences drawn from evidence and events. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. recovery evidence supports the prosecution case. (Para 21) |
| 8. medical evidence aligns with witness accounts of murder. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. analysis of contradictions in witness statements. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 10. comprehensive proof of the prosecution case. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 11. final judgment and implications for the accused. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The appellants / accused have preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 31.07.2019 made in S.C.No.262 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District, in and by which they were convicted and sentenced as under:
| Rank of the Accused | Conviction under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment |
|---|---|---|
| A1 and A3 | 302 r/w 34 IPC | Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment |
| A2 | 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment |
| A1 to A3 | 506(ii) IPC | 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. |
The Trial Court further directed that out of the total fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357 (1) CrPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. PW1 – Tmt.Chandra is the wife of the deceased Ramajayam and mother of the deceased Illayaraja. She deposed that for the past 20 years, enmity existed between the family of the accused and PW1’s family. The accused quarreled with PW1’s family when they were constructing the house and also there is enmity with regard to getting fish tender. One Dhanakodi S/o. M.R.Raja, M.R.Raja, Kalaivani / A2 / wife of Dhanakodi, Madhesh @ Raja / A1 S/o.Dhanakodi, Prema / A3 D/o.Dhanakodi and one Juvenile Accused S/o.Dhanakodi belong to the same family.
2.2. Prior to the occurrence, one day the said Dhanakodi came and informed to PW1’s husband / deceased Ramajayam that no one giving food to him and asked to help him. The deceased Ramajayam and the deceased Illayaraja decided to purchase the land belonging to M.R.Raja to an extent of 31 cents for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and to that effect, a sale agreement was entered into between M.R.Raja and the deceased / Ramajayam and the agreement was entered into in the name of the deceased Illayaraja and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given as advance sale consideration.
2.3. On 24.06.2010, PW1’s family gone to the said land belongs to M.R.Raja for performing pooja, since the possession of the land was given to PW1’s family on the previous day itself. On that day, PW1, the deceased Ramajayam, deceased Illayaraja, PW6-Tr.Sivalingam, PW2- Tr.Govindaraj, PW3- Tr.Krishnan, PW4-Tr.Mani, PW5- Tr.Sekar went to that agricultural land for performing pooja. When they were performing pooja in the agricultural land, after 15 minutes, accused / A1 to A3 and the Juvenile Accused came there and questioned them, why all of them have gathered there. The deceased Ramajayam replied that they had entered into a sale agreement with M.R.Raja and Rs.1,00,000/- advance was paid for 31 cents and balance sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- will be paid afterwards. At that time, all the accused picked up quarrel. PW1’s son stated to A1 that if he has any record, to bring the same and not to disturb. While so, A1 to A3 stated that how dare he can ask evidence from them and stated to stop everything. A2 and A3 instructed A1 to chop him.
2.4. A1 assaulted the deceased Illayaraja on his neck with billhook. Immediately PW1 and the deceased Ramaja
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
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 must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Injured eyewitness evidence stands on higher pedestal; reliable without corroboration unless improbable. Delay in FIR, hostile witnesses' partial support, and medical/forensic corroboration sustain c....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
