Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 274
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, R. Poornima, JJ.
Periyakaruppan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.157 of 2026 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.2286 of 2026
Decided On : 10-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when two viable theories exist. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Two children allegedly killed and disposed of by the accused, with a dismissed prior conviction based on weak and unreliable witness testimonies—specifically, key witnesses turned hostile, and no independent evidence was provided.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was overturned due to lack of evidential support and established motive. The medical examiner's findings indicated death by asphyxia, not drowning, contradicting the prosecution's narrative.
Issues: Main issues involved whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the charges and if the prosecution sufficiently proved their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a ruling in favor of the accused.
Result: Conviction set aside; the appellant is acquitted of all charges.
For the Appellant : Mr. C. Suresh Kannan
For the Respondent: Mr. R.M. Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on evidence of deceased children's murder (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. doubt over prosecution witnesses' reliability (Para 5 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. medical evidence contradicts drowning theory (Para 6 , 11 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt (Para 7 , 13 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. appeal allowed; conviction set aside (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.332 of 2012 dated 20.08.2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C (2 counts) and also under Section 201 r/w 302 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of P.W.1. After their marriage, they were blessed with two children. Thereafter, the first accused developed an illicit intimacy with the third accused. While being so, on 08.04.2012 at about 02.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was washing clothes, the first accused came there in an auto and took the two children along with him. Thereafter, they did not return home and as such, P.W.1 along with her mother searched for the children. Ultimately, she found that near the garden of one Ayothi, accused Nos.1 to 3 had taken the children towards a well and dropped them in the well belonging to Ayothi. After hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, PW.2 and P.W.3, who were working in the nearby field, also witnessed the occurrence. Both the children were taken out from the well and were found dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent police registered an F.I.R in Crime No.130 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Exs.P1 to P23. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.
4.During trial, the first accused died. The trial Court found A.2 and A.3 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C (2 counts) and under Section 201 r/w of I.P.C. They were sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for each count and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under I.P.C (2 counts) and also sentenced them to undergo three years Simple Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under r/w I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the second accused as appellant has preferred the present appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellant solely based on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who had turned hostile and are interested witnesses. In fact, the complaint itself is doubtful, since the same was lodged by P.W.1 without even mentioning the names of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Though P.W.1 to P.W.3 turned hostile, the Trial Court convicted the appellant by relying upon their evidence. He further submitted that P.W.1 deposed out of enmity, since the first accused had illicit intimacy with the third accused. Even according to the chief examination of P.W.1, she had no personal knowledge regarding the alleged illicit intimacy between the first accused and the third accused, and she had seen the third accused for the first time in the Court. The prosecution also failed to conduct a test identification parade to identify the accused. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges and even then, the Trial Court erroneously convicted the appellant.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
