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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5473

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Ramesh - Appellant
Versus 
State, through, The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.572 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Indrachithu
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had intentionally inflicted fatal injuries, leading to the conviction under multiple sections of the IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 326, and 324 - Appellant convicted for the murder of Ramar and injuries to the complainant and her family - Prosecution established charge beyond reasonable doubt based on eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence - Conviction supported by sufficient motive and premeditated act of the accused. (Paras 18, 34, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, Ramesh, suspected the fidelity of his wife Mageshwari and after a series of disputes, attacked her, her mother, and her grandfather Ramar, resulting in Ramar's death and injuries to others. The incident occurred after Ramesh refused to hand over their children to Mageshwari. (Paras 2, 23)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, establishing the motive and identifying Ramesh as the assailant based on consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. (Paras 34, 38)

Issues: The primary issues included the establishment of motive, the timeline of the attack, and the identification of the accused, particularly in the context of alleged police procedural lapses and the claim of a possible power cut during the incident. (Paras 17, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, coupled with medical reports confirming the injuries, sufficiently established the prosecution's case, and that the defence theories presented were not credible or supported by evidence. (Paras 34, 36)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, in S.C.No.114 of 2017, dated 08/06/2022 and consequently to acquit the appellant.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Ramesh and the complainant Mageshwari are husband and wife. They are blessed with two female children. The accused suspected the fidelity of the complainant. Due to which, there was misunderstanding between the couple. The complainant was living separately from the accused for the past six months. Both the children were living with the accused. Three months back, the accused contracted second marriage, the complainant requested the accused to hand over the two female children to her. However, the accused refused. So, she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Kodaikanal. On 12.04.2016 at about 06.00 am, with the consent of the accused two female children were handed over to the complainant. On the same day at about 09.00 pm, while the complainant, her mother, grand-mother and grand-father (deceased Ramar) along with the children were taking food in their house, the accused came there armed with a knife and demanded that the children be handed to him. When the grand-mother Pachiammal refused to hand over the children, the accused shouted alleging she was the reason for separating the children. Thereafter the accused took out a knife and stabbed on her neck and cheek, lower jaw and left hand indiscriminately. Immediately all the inmates raised hue and cry. The deceased Ramar attempted to intervene and prevent the accused, at that time the accused attacked him indiscriminately, causing stab injuries on his left rib, chest and stomach. The mother of the complainant also attempted to restrain the accused, where upon he stabbed her left chest and inflicted injury. When the complainant raised hue and cry the accused chased her and stabbed on her left forehand with the same knife. Thereafter, the neighbours who witnessed the occurrence rushed to the place of occurrence. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with knife. Subsequently all the injured persons were taken to Kodaikanal Government Hospital in a vehicle for treatment.

3. The complaint (Ex.P1) was received by P.W.16- Nagarajan from the complainant (P.W.1), while she was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Kodaikanal and registered FIR (Ex.P11) in Crime No.158 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 307 IPC and sent the original complaint and FIR to the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and the copies to the higher officials for reference and to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

4. After receipt of the FIR, Thiru.Muruganantham, (P.W.17) the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal took the case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence at 00.30 hours, on 13.04.2016 and prepared observation Mahazar under Ex.P2 and rough sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of the witnesses Saiman Kumar and Rajkumar and also recovered blood-stained earth and ordinary earth (M.O.3 and M.O.4) in the Athachi (Ex.P3). Thereafter, he examined the witnesses Saimen Kumar and Rajkumar and recorded their statement. He examined the injured witnesses Mageswari, Pachiammal, Ramar (deceased) and Palaniammal and recorded their statement and also examined the witnesses Muniammal, Pawn Thai and Merryammal and recorded their statements. Thereafter, at 07.00 am, he arrested the accused on the Kodaikanal- Perumal Malai road Zion school junction in the presence of Mr. Susendran, Village Administrative Officer and Gunasekaran, Village Assistant and recorded the confession statement of the accused in Ex.P4 and recovered blood stained pink colour shirt (M.O.2) from the accused through recovery mahazar (Ex.P5). He also recovered the bloodstained knife (M.O.1) through mahazar (Ex.P6) in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter, he sent th

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