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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66678


2025:MHC:1934 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 15.07.2025 Pronounced on 12.08.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Crl.A.No.608 of 2018
1.Thangamani
2.R.Ramachandran ...Appellants Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, K.G.Chavadi Police Station, Coimbatore District. ...Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment dated 20.09.2018 in S.C.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellants : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Sr. Counsel for Mr.J.Antony Jesus For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain to prove guilt; motive alone is insufficient without corroborating evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction of appellants for murder and destruction of evidence - Appellants sentenced to life imprisonment and fines imposed by trial court - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence regarding motive and last seen theory - Prosecution failed to conclusively establish circumstantial links. (Paras 1, 26, 24, 10)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - It must establish a complete chain excluding reasonable doubts to confirm guilt - Motive alone is insufficient without corroborative evidence. (Paras 24, 10)

(C) Last Seen Theory - This requires evidence that the accused and victim were together before the crime; insufficient if not established. (Paras 19, 10)

Facts of the case:
Two brothers accused of murdering their relative due to a perceived illicit relationship. The victim was found dead in his shed; prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.

Findings of Court:
Trial Court's ruling is overturned; insufficient evidence to uphold conviction.

Issues: Were the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony sufficient to confirm guilt beyond doubt?

Ratio Decidendi: The lack of conclusive circumstantial evidence led the court to determine that the benefit of the doubt must favor the accused, resulting in reversal of their conviction.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; accused acquitted and released.

JUDGMENT

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Both the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 , through the judgement of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.35 of 2015, dated 20.09.2018. The said judgment is assailed in the present Criminal Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are addressed according to their ranks in the trial Court.

3.1. The brief case of the prosecution are as follows:-

3.2. The accused 1 and 2 are brothers. The victim Vanniaraj, who is their relative, was in the business of buying and selling old scraps and was staying in a shed belonging to one Manikandan.

3.3. The victim was alleged to have been in an illicit relationship with one Shanmugakani, who is the wife of A1.

3.4. Irked by the same, A1, along with A2, had plotted to murder Vanniaraj.

3.5. Accordingly, on 04.03.2013 at about 11.00 P.M., A1 and A2 went to Vanniaraj's shed, consumed liquor with him and when they started the conversation of his illicit relationship with the wife of A1, a wordy quarrel arose.

3.6. Consequently, A1 strangulated the neck of the victim with a nylon rope and when he fell unconscious, A1, with the help of A2, had hung the deceased in the ceiling resulting in his death.

3.7. The Police, on investigation, had charge sheeted both the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC .

3.8. After committal, the case was taken on file by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, as S.C.No.35 of 2015.

4. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.17) and marked 16 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.16), together with 5 material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.5). On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidences were marked.

5.1. To establish the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court, the following witnesses were examined:-

5.2. P.W.1-Murugesan is the brother of the deceased Vanniaraj. According to him, he and his brother were in the same business of dealing with old scraps. When P.W.1 came to know about the illicit relationship of the deceased with P.W.16, who is the wife of A1, he warned his brother. On 05.03.2013 at about 05.30 P.M., his mother P.W.11-Selvakani had called him to check on the deceased, since he could not be reached. According to P.W.1, he, along with P.W.3-Easwaran and P.W.5- Arumugham, went to the shed of the deceased, wherein they found the doors locked with Television switched on inside. From the window, P.W.1 had seen the deceased hanging from the ceiling and immediately alerted the neighbours. Thereafter, he went K.K.Chavadi Police Station along with P.W.3, P.W.5 and one Dharmalingam and lodged a complaint at 09.00 A.M., which was written by Dharmalingam and signed by P.W.1. The Police then came and broke open the doors of the shed, after which he identified his brother's body and also deposed that there was blood on his face, as well as on the floor.

5.3. P.W.2-Arumuga Nainar is a hearsay witness, who was treated as an hostile witness by the prosecution.

5.4. So also., P.W.3-Eswaran, who is a close relative of the deceased, was treated as an hostile witness.

5.5. P.W.4-Thangaraj is the person who had attested the observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and was a witness to the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer.

5.6. P.W.5-Arumugham corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and deposed that he had accompanied P.W.1 and further spoke about the deceased coming to a nearby shop for buying cigarette and cool drink, during the night of

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