Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Ramachandar @ Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.612 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal Nos.760 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal Nos.761 of 2018 | Criminal R.C.No.831 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate for Ms.Aruna Elango, Mr.B.Mohan, Mr.T.Muruganantham
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem, Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate for Ms.Aruna Elango, Mr.T.Muruganantham, Mr.B.Mohan

The court emphasized the necessity of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, highlighting flaws in the prosecution's case leading to reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404, and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 374(2) and 397 - Conviction and sentence regarding conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen theory, extra judicial confession, and recoveries made. The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case, leading to reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. (Paras 1-50)

(B) The prosecution claimed motive based on a property dispute, supported by testimonies of relatives indicating enmity. (Paras 21-22)

(C) The last seen theory relied on by witnesses lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and procedural failures in the investigation, notably the absence of identification parades. (Paras 23-27)

(D) The extra judicial confession was found to be unreliable due to differing signatures and discrepancies in the accounts of its recording. (Paras 29-36) (E) The prosecution failed to collect crucial forensic evidence and call data from the deceased's cellphone, undermining its case. (Paras 47-49)

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case (Para 2)
2. defensive arguments against prosecution (Para 8 , 9)
3. prosecution arguments supporting guilt (Para 11 , 12)
4. initial court observations on evidence (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. analysis of extra judicial confession (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
6. final observations on prosecution's burden (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
7. conclusion and acquittal (Para 50)

COMMON JUDGEMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 23.08.2018 made in S.C.No.101 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, A-1 has filed Crl.A.No.612 of 2018, A-3 to A-5 have filed Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 and A-2 has filed Crl.A.No.761 of 2018. The appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows :

Accused	Conviction	Sentence
A1 to A5	Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC	Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
A2 to A5	Section 341 IPC	Each to undergo Simple imprisonment for one month.
A2 to A5	Section 364 IPC	Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
A1	Section 364 read with section 120B IPC	To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A3 and A4	Section 302 IPC	Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A2 and A5	Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC	Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A1	Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC	To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment.
A-2, A-3 and A-5	Section 404 IPC	Each to undergo three years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for six months.
A1 to A5	Section 201 read with Section 302 IPC	Each to undergo Seven years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for six months.
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently

Facts of the prosecution case :

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

2.1.The deceased Duraisamy is the husband of P.W.1, Kanagavalli and the father of P.W.2, Meena. He was doing real estate business. Normally, the deceased used to leave home to office at 7.00 a.m. in the morning and come back for lunch and again leave to office at 03.00 p.m. and return home back at 07.30 p.m. He used to go in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949. On 17.12.2014, as usual, the deceased left the house at 03.00 p.m. and thereafter, he did not come back. When P.W.1 tried to contact him over his cellphone number 9842952663, the same was switched off and not reachable. Therefore, P.W.1 informed this to his relatives and her daughters and they all reached her house. Despite search, they could not find the deceased. Later, they went to Sankari Police Station and gave Ex.P.1, complaint on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 a.m.

2.2.The deposition of P.W.1 states that the deceased and his friends one Selvam (P.W.10) and Marimuthu have jointly purchased a land from A1. After the sale of the property, A1 filed a case through his mother and sisters. During the pendency of the said suit, A1 also made an attempt to sell the property. The deceased and P.W.10 thwarted the attempt which resulted in a quarrel between them. With regard to the same, A1 gave a complaint before Sankari Police Station against the deceased and P.W.10. The police enquired and directed the parties to settle the issue in a civil Court. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the deceased went to the house of A1 and demanded either the property or money. According to her, her husband informed her that he scolded A1 in filthy langua

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64306

The court emphasized the necessity of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, highlighting flaws in the prosecution's case leading to reasonable doubt.

Cases Referred (6)