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) 862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
Rajeeb Dhathi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.330 of 2021
Decided On : 02-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.Vijayaraghavan
For the Respondent: Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms. M. Arifa Thasneem

Conviction in criminal cases requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of credible evidence can lead to reversal of such convictions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(3) - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of material evidence from the deceased - FIR registered with delay raises doubts on the case's integrity. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 8, 19)

(B) Prosecution Evidence - Reliability of eyewitness testimonies challenged due to lack of identification procedures and contradictory statements among witnesses - Non-examination of key individuals further undermines the prosecution case. (Paras 3, 9, 11, 12)

(C) Legal Standard - A conviction should be based on incontrovertible evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The absence of corroborative evidence can lead to a reversal of conviction on appeal. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased following a prior dispute over a monetary issue. Eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence were contested during the trial, and contradictions emerged in witness statements. The FIR was filed post the deceased’s hospitalization, leading to concerns regarding timely reporting.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was found unsustainable due to significant doubts about the prosecution's evidence and procedural shortcomings.

Issues: The key issues addressed were the credibility of the witness testimonies, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the overall burden of proof on the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the requirement for reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and prosecution evidence. (Para 2 , 5)
2. defense arguments regarding prosecution's failure to prove case. (Para 3)
3. counterarguments from the prosecution supporting conviction. (Para 4)
4. court’s analysis highlighting contradictions and inconsistencies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final acquittal of the appellant based on evidentiary failures. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

M.Jothiraman, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant / sole accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.07.2019 made in S.C.No.200 of 2017 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in and by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. PW1- Ramesh deposed that he is working as Security Filed Officer in the Anna Salai Metro Station of L&T and he knows the accused, who had been working as security under him. The deceased Arunkumar Katchap was also a security under him. On 06.12.2016 early morning, when he was on patrol, he saw the deceased and the accused standing near Anna Salai, Hindu Office and fighting with each other. He called both of them and compromised them. Again at early morning 5’0 Clock, he saw the deceased lying near the sub-way unconscious with blood stained head injuries and he took him in an auto to the Government Hospital. PW1 further deposed that already there was dispute between the deceased and the accused in respect of money transaction.

2.2. PW1 enquired the deceased regarding the injuries and he told him that the accused had hit him on his head with stone and he sustained head injury. On 07.12.2016, PW1 gave complaint under Ex.P1 and on 09.12.2016, when he had gone to see the deceased in the hospital, he saw the Sub Inspector of Police enquiring him and the deceased explained the incident in Hindi and he translated the same to the Sub Inspector of Police. On 14.12.2016, he got the information that the deceased died at around 5.40 p.m. in the hospital.

2.3. PW14- Mr.G.N.Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 07.12.2016 he received a complaint from PW1, based on which he registered an F.I.R. in Cr.No.1385 / 2016 under Sections 324 and 506(ii) IPC . The F.I.R. is Ex.P15. PW14 went to the occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P16 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P17 in the presence of PW4 – Tr.Gopalakannan and PW5- Tr.Kumar. PW14 arrested the accused on 08.12.2016 near Anna Salai Simson bus stand and obtained confession statement and the same has been recorded in the presence of one Vikram and PW6-Murali. In pursuance of the confession statement, the accused took them to a place near Anna Salai, Hindu Office near the sub-way and identified M.O.1-Black Stone jelly and handed over the same to PW14 and the same has been recorded under Mahazar – Ex.P3. The accused was sent to judicial custody. PW14 received information that the deceased died despite treatment and hence, he altered the Section to 302 . The alteration report is Ex.P18.

2.4. PW20- Sivamani, Inspector of Police, who has taken up further investigation has deposed that he had gone to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital on 15.12.2016 and in the presence of Panchayatdars, he conducted inquest over the body and prepared the Inquest Report Ex.P19. He sent a requisition through Head Constable – Mr.Prabha Sankar for conducting postmortem of the body of the deceased and seized blood stained dress of the deceased under Form 95 – Ex.P20. He recorded the statement of the postmortem doctor and witnesses and filed a petition for police custody and took the accused under police custody on 21.12.2016. During investigation, the accused voluntarily gave confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of PW7- Tr.Dillibabu and one Jiyavudeen. On the

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