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) 1618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ. 
Hari @ Harikrishnan - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
CRL A Nos. 679 & 699 of 2019 
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Parthiban For Mr..R.Chakkaravarthy Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Conviction requires not just evidence of guilt but also an established motive and reliable eyewitness accounts; procedural inaccuracies can compromise the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) - Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for murder - The appellants alleged to have conspired to murder the deceased due to an illicit relationship - Prosecution failed to establish motive for murder and reliability of eyewitnesses despite evidence presented; key contradictions and procedural issues raised - Conviction set aside. (Paras 1-14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, involving a husband, wife pair, were accused of murdering the wife’s husband due to her alleged illicit relationship with the second appellant. The murder was carried out with the help of minor accomplices. Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent, raising questions on reliability.

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by eyewitnesses was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence; procedural lapses in arrest and failure to present crucial call details contributed to a doubt over the prosecution's claims.

Issues: The reliability of eyewitness testimonies and establishment of a motive for the murder were the key issues. The prosecution's failure to properly establish the evidence and procedural correctness raised significant doubts about the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without a credible motive and reliable eyewitness evidence, conviction could not be sustained, reaffirming the principle that doubts benefit the accused. The prosecution's failure to follow proper procedures undermined its case.

Result: Appeals allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside.

Judgment :

Sunder Mohan J.

These Criminal Appeals have been filed by A1 and A2, challenging the judgment dated 26.08.2019 in S.C.No.171 of 2015, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2 (i) Crl.A.No.699 of 2019, has been filed by A1, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (no fine amount was imposed).

(ii) Crl.A.No.679 of 2019, has been filed by A2 who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced as follows:

3(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that A1-Jeyabharathi @ Bharathi @ Jeba [appellant in Crl.A.No.699 of 2019] was the wife of the deceased Karthik; that she had an illicit relationship with A2-Hari @ Harikrishnan [appellant in Crl.A.No.679 of 2019]; that since the deceased objected to the said relationship, A1 and A2 decided to do away with the deceased with the help of two other accused who were juveniles at the time of the occurrence; that on 30.09.2014, A1 called the deceased to the Marina Beach opposite to Vivekanandar Illam; that she had also called A2, who in turn called his friends, the juvenile accused; that at about 7.15 p.m., A1 pretended to have a heated conversation with the deceased; that she signalled to the other accused; that A2 and the juvenile accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on the neck and chest indiscriminately; and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the mother [PW1] of the deceased, an FIR [Ex.P20] in Cr.No.2322 of 2014 was registered by PW24, the Inspector of Police, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC on the same date at about 9.30 p.m. In the meanwhile, according to the investigating officer [PW24], he received information at about 7.15p.m. that a person aged about 28 years was found dead with injuries on his body. PW24 went to the place of occurrence and found a NOKIA mobile phone near the dead body and found that the deceased had last received a call from A1; that when PW24 attempted to call the said number, the phone was switched off; that thereafter, he called a person by the name Raja, whose name was stored in the mobile phone; and that the said Raja happened to be the brother of the deceased, who was staying in Trichy, who in turn furnished the address and phone numbers of the parents of the deceased.

(iii) PW24, thereafter summoned a constable [PW16], to the occurrence place and directed him to inform the parents. The parents of the deceased [PW1 & PW2] came to the place of occurrence at 9.15 p.m., identified the body of the deceased and thereafter, PW1 lodged the complaint as stated above.

(iv) After registration of the complaint, PW24 had examined Bakkiyam [PW1] and Dhanabal [PW2], the parents of the deceased and examined PW3, PW4, Mani and Durai, who, according to him, were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. At about 10.30 p.m., he prepared the rough sketch [Ex.P21] and observation mahazar [Ex.P22]. He seized the NOKIA mobile phone [M.O.5], bloodstained earth [M.O.10], earth which was not bloodstained [M.O.11], and a pair of slippers [M.O.12] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P23].

(v) On 01.10.2014 between 7.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., he conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P26]. Thereafter, PW24 made a request for conducting a postmortem. After the postmortem was conducted, he seized the dress materials of the deceased [M.O.1 to M.O.3] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P27]. On 04.10.2014, at about 12.30 p.m., PW24 arrested A1 and seized her mobile phone [M.O.13], besides a love letter, said to have been written by A2 to her, under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P29]. He thereafter arrested A2 on 04.10.2014 at about 2.30 p.m. and on his confession, seized a scooter bearing Regn.No.TN02 AQ 5554, a bloodstained knife, blue-coloured jeans pant [M.O.7] and a shirt [M.O.8] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P31]. He examined the witnesses and after obtaini

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