BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Crl.A(MD)No.1339 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.19657 of 2025 Sakthivel ... Appellant/Sole Accused Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Edaiyakottai Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.99 of 2022). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 and 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records from the lower Court in S.C.No.114 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani and set aside the Judgment dated 18.08.2025 by acquitting the accused and by allowing the appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.114 of 2023, dated 18.08.2025, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section

302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and P.W.2 are relatives. P.W.2 owned agricultural land, which was managed by the deceased. When the accused offered to maintain the land owned by P.W.2, the offer was refused by P.W.2. Therefore, the accused had a motive to do away with the life of the deceased in order to maintain the agricultural land owned by P.W.2. While being so, on

23.12.2022, at about 04:45 p.m., the accused assaulted the deceased on the head with a hammer. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.99 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court. 4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Exs.P1 to P28. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.17. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six year Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.12.2022 at about 04.45 p.m. However, it was reported to the police only at about 21.30 hours, and the F.I.R. also reached the Court belatedly. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay in registering the F.I.R. and forwarding the same to the Court.

7.It is a case based on circumstantial evidence; however, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Nevertheless, the Trial Court convicted the accused based on the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. A statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for the purpose of contradiction. Except the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., there is no evidence available to support the case of the prosecution. Even then, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that, although the eyewitnesses turned hostile, the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is very clear and can be used for both corroboration and contradiction. The object of recording a stateme