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
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


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.
Selective appreciation of indivisible eyewitness testimony to convict specific co-accused after acquitting others on the same evidence is impermissible. Furthermore, failure to confront the accused w....
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
The appellate court affirmed that collective participation in unlawful assembly under IPC Section 149 holds all members culpable for resulting violent acts, despite minor evidential discrepancies.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.