BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
M.Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)Nos.545, 586, 587, 590, 591, 605, 634, 635, 699, 700, 800 & 860 of 2022, 497 of 2023, 36, 50, 52 & 67 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of case background and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. overview of arguments by appellants. (Para 6) |
| 3. examination of key facts and witness testimonies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal interpretations and application of law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. final decision and order of the court. (Para 57 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
These appeals have been preferred as against the Judgment passed in Special Sessions Case No.65 of 2018, dated 05.08.2022 on the file of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b) read with 302 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 148 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 302 I.P.C read with 149 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act (3 counts), 307 read with 149 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act (3 counts), 324 I.P.C read with 149 of I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act (2 counts), 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 452 of I.P.C, 3 of TNPPDL Act and 294(b) of I.P.C.
2.THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2.1.Katchnatham Village of Palayanur Police Station limit is a small rural settlement comprising of 35 Scheduled Caste families and 2 Agamudaiyar families, with the local Karuppar Temple function as the cultural focal point of the community. While the village had witnessed occasional disputes in the past over precedence in temple honors, tensions escalated sharply in May 2018.
2.2.On 25.05.2018, during annual “Saami Aattam” festival at the Karuppar Temple, ceremonial honors were accorded exclusively to the scheduled caste residents, excluding the Agamudaiyar families. This decision deeply offended certain Agamudaiyar members, particularly A3, who perceived it as a public humiliation. On the next day, i.e., on 26.05.2018, during the day time, the Scheduled Caste Community in the same village organized a feast at the temple following the slaughter of a goat. On that day, Shanmuganathan (deceased), a resident of Katchanatham was standing on the Katchnatham Vilakku Road when A3 came there and on seeing Shanmuganathan, A3 had abused him using filthy language and question him as to why he wasn’t shown any respect during the festival. At that time, police personnel from Thiruppachethi Police Station with Sub-Inspector, who happened to be passing by, took A3 to Thiruppachethi Police Station. There, on 26.05.2018, they registered a case against him in Crime No.55 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC and released him on bail.
2.3.Consumed by resentment and determined to retaliate, A3 conspired with like-minded associates from nearby villages, gathering 32 individuals, many armed with sickle, swords, and other deadly weapons. On the night of 28.05.2018, at around 21:00 hrs, this armed mob entered Katchanatham with the deliberate intent to target members of the Scheduled Caste community. In the ensuing attack, three residents D1-Arumugam, D2-Shanmuganathan and D3- Chandrasekar were brutally murdered, and five others namely Maheswaran (PW1), Devendran (PW2), Sukumaran (PW6), Malaisamy (PW9) and Dhanasekaran (later Died) sustained grievous injuries.
3.Based on a written complaint from P.W.1, a complaint was registered in Crime No.32 of 2018 on 29.05.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 302, 379(NH) IPC, Section 3(3) of the TNPPDL (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 read with 149 IPC. Pursuant to the same, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
4.To bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.31, produced documentary evidenc




















Muthu Naicker v. State of Tamil Nadu
Membership in an unlawful assembly incurs liability for crimes committed in furtherance of a common object, regardless of specific overt acts attributed to each member.
The court considered the petitioner's entitlement to bail based on the intermediate quantity of the contraband, the petitioner's judicial custody, and lack of criminal antecedents.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Lack of sufficient evidence to prove communal motive and unreliable witness testimonies led to modification of death sentences to life imprisonment.
Selective appreciation of indivisible eyewitness testimony to convict specific co-accused after acquitting others on the same evidence is impermissible. Furthermore, failure to confront the accused w....
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
Common object – When charge is under Section 149 of IPC, presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly itself is sufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.