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) 431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, M. Jothiraman, JJ.
Amutha W/o. Baskar - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No. 427 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Suresh
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem, Mr.B.Kumarasamy for Mr.N.Elumalai

The appellate court affirmed that collective participation in unlawful assembly under IPC Section 149 holds all members culpable for resulting violent acts, despite minor evidential discrepancies.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372 read with 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 294(b), 341, 302, 323, 352, 324 and 302 read with 149 - Acquittal challenged by de-facto complainant - The trial court found accused not guilty due to doubts in the prosecution case, despite eyewitness testimonies and corroborative evidence - Court highlighted the importance of evidence consistency and motive in establishing guilt. (Paras 1, 25, 30)

(B) Evidence - Standards - The absence of immediate FIR does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly when the circumstances of the case provide reasonable explanations for delays. (Paras 23, 24)

(C) Crime - Common object - The Court emphasized that participation in a common assembly to commit unlawful acts under Section 149 IPC holds all members accountable for actions taken in furtherance of the object. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The case involved the violent murder of a political rival during a temple festival, resulting from prior enmity related to Panchayat elections. The de-facto complainant filed a complaint after the incident, leading to the investigation and trial of multiple accused. (Paras 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's evidence was deemed credible, with established motives and clear roles of the accused, leading to a reversal of acquittal and convictions secured against multiple defendants. (Paras 30, 32)

Issues: The key issues included the adequacy of evidence in light of the accused's acquittal, the validity of witness testimonies, and the implications of delay in lodging the FIR on the prosecution's case. (Paras 22, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court established that even with some inconsistencies, if the core of the prosecution's case retains integrity and is corroborated by various evidences, convictions can follow, contradicting the trial court’s earlier reasoning. (Paras 30, 31)

Result: Acquittal set aside, guilty verdicts against multiple accused for relevant charges issued by the trial court. (Para 32)

Table of Content
1. factual background of prior enmity. (Para 3)
2. arguments challenging trial court's acquittal. (Para 6 , 7)
3. prosecution's case supported by testimonies. (Para 11 , 12 , 20 , 21)
4. delay in fir does not negate prosecution. (Para 22 , 23)
5. principles for reversing an acquittal. (Para 29)
6. conclusion of conviction and sentencing. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.04.2017 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in S.C.No.247 of 2015, whereby the accused (A1 to A23) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 , 294(b), 341, 302, 323, 352, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The appellant herein is the de-facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court and respondents 2 to 24 are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 23. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in accordance with their ranking before the Court below.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-

(i) The de-facto complainant (P.W.1) is the wife of the deceased Baskar. There existed prior enmity between the deceased Baskar and the first accused, Krishnaveni, in connection with Panchayat election-related activities. In the said election, the deceased had worked for one Vilvamani, the former President of Kiliyanur Panchayat.

(ii) On 29.05.2013, the deceased conducted a function at the Mariamman Temple of the village along with the former Village President Vilvamani. After the temple function, the deceased returned home with his wife Amudha, the de-facto complainant. On 30.05.2013 at about 00.30 hours, the first accused, along with the other named accused, allegedly assembled in front of the house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapons, with the intention of murdering the deceased. On hearing the commotion, the de-facto complainant came out of the house. At that time, the first accused questioned the de-facto complainant about the whereabouts of her husband/Baskar. On hearing the noise, the deceased came out of the house and attempted to escape. Thereupon, all the accused chased him. It is alleged that the fifth accused caught hold of the deceased opposite to the house of one Arumugam and stabbed him on the stomach with a knife; the fourth accused inflicted a cut injury on his neck; the second accused cut his right wrist; the third accused caused an injury on the front portion of the neck; the eighteenth accused assaulted the deceased on the back of his head; and the seventh accused attacked him with an iron pipe on his right shoulder. It is also alleged that the first accused pulled the hair of the de- facto complainant and assaulted her. Due to the said attack, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was taken to PIMS Hospital, Puducherry, in an ambulance by the Head Constable Kalaimani/P.W.15.

(iii) Subsequently, the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint, pursuant to which, the Sub Inspector of Police/P.W.14, Kiliyanur Police Station registered an F.I.R/Ex.P.32 in Crime No.173 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324 and 302 IPC, which were subsequently altered into Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 352, 323, 324, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Thereafter, FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional Court and also to the higher officials.

(iv) P.W.16, Inspector of Police took up the investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence on 30.05.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses Venkatesan and Nagaraj, and recorded the statements of material witnesses. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem through P.W.15, Head Constable. Further, on 30.05.2013, the Inspector of Police recorded the confession statements of A5, A4, A3 and A7 and, pursuan

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