Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
The State, Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore Range, Thalavady Police Station – Appellant
Versus
Maran @ Senguttavan @ Manivannan @ Mullaivalavan @ Kannaiyan, S/o. Singaram – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 388 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial overview of charges laid. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions put forth by the state. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from defense counsel. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. nature of evidence presented. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. significance of extra-judicial confessions. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. court's final ruling on acquittal. (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Jothiraman J.
The State has preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 made in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in and by which the respondents / Accused 1 to 8 and 10 are acquitted for the offences as under:
| Rank of the Accused | Charges framed under Sections |
|---|---|
| A1, A2 and A5 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC |
| A3 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 |
| A4 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 |
| A6 and A7 | 120(B), 365 r/w. 109, 364 r/w.109 IPC, 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 |
| A8 to A10 | 120(B), 364(A) r/w. 109, 365 r/w.109 IPC. |
2. Brief case of the prosecution as per the prosecution witness:
2.1. PW1-Tr.Gopalan- Village Administrative Officer deposed that he came to know about the kidnapping of actor Dr.Rajkumar. He went to the house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and enquired the same. On enquiry, he came to know that the deceased accused Veerappan and his associates at gun point they kidnapped the said actor Dr.Rajkumar. PW2-Tr.Nagappa and PW3- Tr.Govindaraj were also kidnapped. Since no one lodged complaint in this regard, he lodged Ex.P1- complaint before PW45. Thereafter, PW45 visited the occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar - Ex.P2.
2.2. PW2 – Tr.Nagappan deposed that on 30.07.2000 at 8.30 p.m., after having dinner, actor Dr.Rajkumar was watching TV in his old house. PW2, PW3-Tr.Govindaraj, PW10- Tr.Ravi and PW5-Tr.Nagaraj while they were proceeding to new house, at that time, suddenly 9 persons have arrived and tried to assault them at gun point. At that time, A1, A3, A5 and A4 asked them to sit. Thereafter, the deceased accused Veerappan, A1, A4 and A3 gone to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and they took him from his house. They threatened them by saying not to disclose to anyone. They also gave a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma / wife of actor Dr.Rajkumar and asked her to handover the said cassette to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. They kidnapped 4 persons. After some time, PW2 took them to the forest. PW2 escaped from the accused and ran through forest and went to Karnataka and met the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. Thereafter, after a lapse of 108 days, one Mr.Nedumaran brought actor Dr.Rajkumar to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. PW2 also deposed that he has participated in the Test Identification Parade and he has also identified A3 and A4 in the Test Identification Parade.
2.3. PW3- Tr.Govindaraj, who is the son-in-law of actor Dr.Rajkumar, deposed that on 30.07.2000, while he was staying with his uncle actor Dr.Rajkumar in his house, PW2 after having dinner, while proceeding to new house to go to bed, at that time 7 or 8 persons have kidnapped him and also abducted PW2- Nagappa, PW4- Nagesh, PW10-Ravi and PW5- Nagaraj. Thereafter, they asked them to sit in the same place and gone to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and brought him. Further he has deposed in similar lines as that of PW2.
2.4. PW4- Nagesh deposed that on 30.07.2000 between 8.00 to 9.00 a.m., when they proceeded from the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar to his new house, at that time the deceased and his close associates restrained them and the accused have gone to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and brought him. At that time, they made certain demands to the Government of Karnataka. Thereafter, the accused took them to forest. PW2 – Nagappa escaped from the forest. PW3 accompanied one Nedumaran and after 108 days, said Nedumaran brought acto
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory evidence and lack of credible eyewitness accounts.
Long delay in holding test identification parade will weaken prosecution case.
The court affirmed that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for actions taken in support of their common objective, showcasing the interplay between direct and circumstantial evidence in e....
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The court established that intent in inflicting fatal injuries was insufficient for murder under Section 302, leading to classification as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
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
