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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
Dillibabu - Appellant 
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms. M. Arifa Thasneem Mr. A.R. Suresh

The testimonial weight of an injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence and consistent eyewitness accounts, warrants conviction, overriding the trial court's acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341 r/w. 34, 323 r/w. 34, and 302 r/w. 34 - Acquittal in trial court - Appeal by defacto complainant for reversal - The prosecution's evidence, including eye witness testimonies, established participation and specific overt acts of accused in the assault leading to the death of victim, resulting in conviction - The appellate court highlighted inconsistencies and failures in proving charges beyond reasonable doubt, but re-evaluated evidence and found sufficient grounds to overturn the acquittal. (Paras 8, 9, 30, and 31)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Gopinath, was attacked by the accused during a dispute between their families. The assault occurred on 29.08.2016, leading to severe injuries and ultimately the death of Gopinath on 31.08.2016 after medical treatment. (Paras 2.1 to 2.28)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's evidence was deemed credible, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal by the trial court was set aside, and the accused were found guilty of the offences. (Paras 30 and 31)

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite credible eyewitness accounts and medical evidence corroborating the prosecution's case. (Para 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court addressed that the evidence of the injured witness carries strong weight, and when corroborated by medical and eyewitness accounts, it necessitates conviction. Inconsistencies highlighted by the trial court were resolved through re-appreciation of the evidence. (Paras 12, 28, and 30)

Result: Appeal allowed; accused convicted of charges. (Para 30)

Table of Content
1. description of the incident and initial investigation. (Para 2)
2. arguments made by counsel for both sides. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's reconsideration of trial court's findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. examination of evidence from injured witnesses. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. discussion of case corroboration through medical evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. court's final judgment of acquittal overturned. (Para 30)
7. next steps following the court's decision. (Para 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. The defacto complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2018 made in S.C.No.189/2017 passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, in and by which the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents 2 to 4 / A1 to A3 from the charges under Sections 341 r/w. 34 IPC , 323 r/w. 34 and 302 r/w. 34 .

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1 is the father of the deceased Gopinath. He deposed that on 29.08.2016 at about 06.15 p.m. PW1 and the deceased were proceeding from the house to their shop. On the way, the accused waylaid them in front of their house bearing Door No.13/41, abused them in filthy language and attacked repeatedly with wooden logs – MO1 and stones – MO2. PW1 sustained injuries on his shoulder and leg. The deceased fell down. While so, A1 took big stone and thrown on the deceased head, saying that he should die now itself.

2.2. PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW5 is the younger son of PW1. PW3 is the PW1's brother’s son. The deceased was unconscious with blood injuries. PW4 to PW8 took PW1 to KMC Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, PW1 was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for further treatment. The Doctors conducted surgery to the deceased at 10.45 PM in the night and subsequently the deceased died on 31.09.2016 without responding to the treatment.

2.3. PW20 – Mr.V.Murali, Sub Inspector of Police, on information, rushed to the hospital and examined PW1. PW1 was admitted as inpatient at Ward No.201 and the deceased was in ICU. PW20 recorded statement (Ex.P1) from PW1. PW1 identified M.O.1 -wooden log.

2.4. PW20, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P1 from PW1, he registered a case in Crime No.743 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341 , 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC . Ex.P12 is the FIR. He forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, PW20 went to the occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P13 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P14 in the presence of PW11 – Tr.Suresh and PW12 – Tr.Arumugam. On 30.08.2016, at about 12.45 hours, on receiving the information, he arrested A2 near Rohini theater. On enquiry, A2 voluntarily gave confession statement and the same has been recorded in the presence of PW11 and PW12. The admissible portion of confession statement of A2 is Ex.P15. In pursuance to the confession statement, A2 took them to his house and handed over M.O.1 – wooden log from his house and the same has been recovered under seizure mahazar – Ex.P16. Then PW20 took A2 to the police station and subjected A2 to judicial custody and thereafter, he has handed over the case records to PW21 – Tr.Krishnakumar for further investigation.

2.5. PW21 deposed that on 31.08.2016 at about 23.35 hours, he received death message of the deceased Gopinath from the hospital and altered the Sections to 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 302 IPC . The Alteration Report is Ex.P17. On 01.09.2016, PW21 had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at 06.00 a.m. to 08.00 a.m. in the mortuary in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses. The Inquest Report is Ex.P18. He handed over the body of the deceased through PW15- Tr.Selvamani for conducting postmortem.

2.6. In continuation of his investigation, on the same day at about 09.00 a.m. PW21 received information that A1 and A3 were indulged in robbery, caught hold by the public and handed ov

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