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) 1377

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Suresh @ Vazhakkai Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) Nos. 174, 249, 860 of 2023, Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 6379 of 2026
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : A. Ramesh, K. Althaf Sheriff, N. Anandha Padmanaban, S. Srikanth, T. Lajapathy Roy, G. Anto Prince
For the Respondents: E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, inconsistencies, and procedural irregularities in FIR registration.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 120B, 147, 148, 341, 307 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Court acquitted accused due to lack of reliable eyewitness testimony, unexplained delay in FIR registration, and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Eyewitness Credibility - Eyewitness accounts deemed unreliable due to material inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration - Testimony of related witnesses doubted especially given the absence of physical corroboration. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Right to Fair Trial - The prosecution failed to positively establish the presence of the accused at the scene or to satisfactorily link the injuries to the accused. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The conviction was based on the allegation that the accused conspired and executed a brutal attack resulting in the death of the deceased following prior enmity. The incident occurred during a festival on 24.08.2012. The prosecution argued that the accused attacked the deceased using deadly weapons. Issues raised included the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the integrity of the investigation process, particularly concerning the registration of the FIR.

Findings of Court:
The court found substantial inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly related to the eyewitnesses' accounts and the timeline leading to their testimonies, leading to a conclusion that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, even when strong, cannot take the place of proof, validating the principle that a prosecution case must rely on legally admissible evidence.

Result: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants against the following conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against them vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.2022 in S.C. No. 136 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2012, during a festival at Ashtakaliamman temple, the deceased Vijayakumar started dancing by sneaking into the group of women and A1 is said to have objected the same and it led to a quarrel between A1 and the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that A6 had a love affair with the daughter of the maternal aunt of the deceased and the same was questioned by the deceased and as a result, there was a previous enmity between A6 and the deceased. On account of this previous enmity, it is alleged that on 24.08.2012, at about 7.30 p.m., A1 to A14 assembled in front of Bay Watch Audio Shop run by A6 and had conspired to murder the deceased and his family members.

2.2. In furtherance of this conspiracy, on 24.08.2012, at about 9.45 p.m., all the accused unlawfully assembled near the house of the deceased with deadly weapons. A9 to A11 stood guard on the eastern side of the house, while A12 to A14 stood guard on the western side. A7 and A8 restrained the deceased and prevented his movement. Thereafter A1 attacked the deceased with aruval on his right shoulder, right elbow and right wrist. A2 attacked with aruval on the fingers of the right hand and right fore-arm. A3 attacked with aruval on the right hip and right thigh. A4 attacked with aruval on the left hand little finger, left wrist and right side of the abdomen, chest and below the naval. A6 attacked with aruval on the right side of the head, rear portion (occipital region) of the head, right cheek and left side of the neck. Consequent to this indiscriminate attack on the deceased, he succumbed to the injuries at the scene of occurrence.

2.3. During the attack, when the father of the deceased (PW1) intervened, it is alleged that A1 attacked him with aruval and caused injuries on his left palm.

2.4. P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.25 on 25.08.2022 at about 12:30 a.m. Upon receipt of the said complaint, P.W.25 registered a case in Crime No.1315 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 IPC. The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P32 and the copy of the same was forwarded to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 27. P.W.27, on receipt of the FIR at about 2:00 a.m., proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses, with the aid of street light. The Rough Sketch was marked as Ex.P34 and the Observation Mahazar as Ex.P35. He examined P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.11 and other witnesses. At about 3:00 a.m., he recovered blood-stained earth and sample (unstained) earth from the place of occurrence under Mahazar, marked as Ex.P36. Subsequently, at about 3:25 p.m., he recovered a vehicle allegedly left behind by the accused under Ex.P37. At about 3:45 p.m., he recovered another vehicle used by another accused. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at about 7:00 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars. The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P39. He also recovered the blood-stained clothes of the deceased under Ex.P40.

2.5. During the course of investigation, he examined several witnesses and on 26.08.2012 altered the case by including Sections 120B, 302 read with 34, 148, 341, 307 and 302 read with 149 of IPC along with the existing offences, and under Alteration Report was marked as Ex.P41, which was duly forwarded to the Court. On 29.08.2012 at about 10:30 a.m., he arrested the accused persons, namely Suresh @ Vazhakai Suresh Kumar (A1), Varun Kumar (A5), Vinod (A6), Anand (A7) and Ajay (A8) at Sottavala Beach. Base

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