Ramachandar @ Ramachandran vs State Rep By

Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.10.2025

CORAM :

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JOTHIRAMAN

Criminal Appeal Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018 and Criminal R.C.No.831 of 2023

Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018 :

Ramachandar @ Ramachandran .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.612 of 2018

1.Marimuthu @ Mani @ Karuvamani 2.Subramani 3.Thamarai @ Manju @ Manjunathan .. Appellants in Crl.A.No.760 of 2018

Shanmugam @ Siva .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.761 of 2018

Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District-637 301. (Crime No.799 of 2014) .. Respondents in all Criminal Appeals

1/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 :

S.Kanakavalli .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.

2.Ramachandar @ Ramachandran 3.Shanmugam @ Siva 4.Marimuthu @ Mani @ Karuvamani 5.Subramani 6.Thamarai @ Manju @ Manjunathan .. Respondents

These Criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction an sentence dated 23.08.2018 passed in S.C.No.101 of 2015 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and thus render justice.

The Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 has been filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking for enhancement of the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused persons by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.101 of 2015 dated 23.08.2018 and to allow this revision petition considering the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice.

2/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

For Appellants : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate for Ms.Aruna Elango in Crl.A.No.612 of 2018 Mr.B.Mohan in Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 Mr.T.Muruganantham in Crl.A.No.761 of 2018 For Petitioner in Crl.R.C. : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate for Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, in Crl.Appeals and Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1 in Crl.R.C. assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem For RR2 to 6 in Crl.R.C. : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Advocate for Ms.Aruna Elango for R-2 Mr.T.Muruganantham for R-3 Mr.B.Mohan for RR4 to 6

----

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 :

3/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

Accused Conviction Sentence A1 to A5 Section 120B read Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to with Section 302 IPC 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 To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a section 120B IPC 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 Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to Section 34 IPC pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment. A1 Section 302 read with To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a Section 120B IPC fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment. A-2, A-3 and Section 404 IPC Each to undergo three years Rigorous A-5 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 Each to undergo Seven years Rigorous Section 302 IPC 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:

4/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

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

5/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

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 language.

2.3.P.W.3, Mohan, who owns a hotel nearby has deposed that on

17.12.2024 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was standing in the Sankari main

road, he saw the deceased proceeding in his two wheeler and following

him a omni van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 was proceeding.

The same was driven by A-2, who is the driver of A-1, and A-3 to A-5

were sitting on the back side. Later, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house

and returned back on next day. On seeing the crowd in front of the house

of P.W.1, he went there. P.W.1 informed him that her husband was

missing. He informed P.W.1 that he saw the deceased on the previous

day. When the police came to the house of P.W.1, P.W.3 informed the

police about the same. The police has prepared Ex.P.2, observation

mahazar, in his presence. The car driven by A-2 is M.O.5 and the two

wheeler of the deceased was marked as M.O.4.

6/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

2.4.P.W.2 who is the daughter of deceased and P.W.1, is also

aware of the purchase of the property and the dispute between the

deceased and A1. In the meanwhile, when P.W.4, Rajendran who was the

Village Administrative Officer of Sankari, was in his office along with

his assistant on 19.12.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., A-2 appeared before him

and gave an extra judicial confession voluntarily and the same was

recorded by P.W.4, who obtained the signature of A-2 and the said extra

judicial confession is Ex.P-3. Later, P.W.4 handed over A-2 to the police

with a special report which is Ex.P.4. At about 09.00 p.m., the police

arrested A-2 and recorded his confession in the presence of P.W.4 and

his assistant. Thereafter, pursuant to the confession of A-2, they

proceeded to the house of A-1 and the Inspector of Police arrested all

other accused. Thereafter, the confession statement of A-1 was recorded

in the police station at 12.30 a.m., on 20.12.2014 and at 01.30 a.m., the

Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-3, at about 02.45 a.m.,

the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-4 and at about 04.00

a.m., the confession statement of A-5 was recorded. In pursuance of

confession of A-3 to A-5, the place where the dead body of the deceased

was thrown in the Cauvery river was identified by the accused which is

7/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

near Kumarapalayam Kalaimagal street and with the help of P.Ws.7 to 9,

fishermen, three pieces of body parts, namely, head, two hands with

middle portion of the body and other part below the hip were recovered

under a separate seizure mahazars in the presence of P.W.4 and his

assistant. Thereafter, in the presence of P.W.4, a knife was recovered

from the house of A-4 Subramani under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter a

about 02.00 p.m., a knife and gold chain were recovered from the house

of A-3 under mahazar and at about 02.45 p.m., a gold ring of the

deceased was recovered from A-5 under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter at

3.15 p.m. the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 was

recovered as identified by A-5 under a cover of a seizure mahazar.

Thereafter, at about 04.15 p.m., the omni van having registration No.TN

30 AT 7192, as identified by A-3, was seized by the police in the

presence of P.W.4 and his assistant. On the same day at about 05.00 p.m.,

two sim cards and a Samsung mobile phone of the deceased were

recovered from A-2 under mahazar. Thereafter, at 06.00 p.m., in the

presence of P.W.4 and his assistant, the Inspector of Police prepared

observation mahazar at a place where the deceased was kidnapped. The

signature of P.W.4 in the confession statement of A-1 is marked as

8/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

Ex.P.5 and the admitted portion of the confession statement of A-2 is

Ex.P.6 and the seizure mahazar prepared in the house of A-2 is Ex.P.7.

The seized cell phone is marked as M.O.3. The admitted portion of the

confession statement of A-3 is Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 is the seizure mahazar

prepared in the house of A-3. M.O.1 is the gold chain and M.O.6 is the

knife recovered from A-3. The admitted portion of the confession

statement of A-4 is Ex.P.10 and M.O.7 knife is seized and the seizure

mahazar prepared in his house is marked as Ex.P.11. The admitted

portion of the confession of A-5 is marked as Ex.P.12 and M.O.2 is the

gold ring which is seized under Ex.P.13, seizure mahazar. The bike of the

deceased is marked as M.O.4 and the same was seized under Ex.P.14,

seizure mahazar. M.O.5 is the omni van bearing registration number TN

30 AT 7192 which was recovered from the house of P.W.5 and the

seizure mahazar is Ex.P.15. The body parts of the deceased, namely head,

middle portion and lower portion of the body, were recovered under

seizure mahazars, namely Ex.P.16 to P.18. The observation mahazar

prepared on 20.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m is marked as Ex.P.19.

2.5.P.W.11 Ganesamoorthy, while proceeding to a temple via

Mavelipalayam, in his motor cycle, on 17.12.2014, near the railway

9/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

bridge, a omni car bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192, came in a

rash manner to hit against his motor cycle and when P.W.11 immediately

questioned the omni van driver, he found that the same was driven by A2

and he saw the deceased sitting in the center and in both sides of the

deceased, A-3 and A-4 were sitting. Following the omni van, A-5 was

driving the motor cycle of the deceased. He was under the impression

that all of them are going for the purpose of real estate business. Later, he

went to the temple and returned back on 20.12.2014 and thereafter, he

came to know about the death of the deceased. On 21.12.2014 around

07.30 a.m., when P.W.11 was proceeding for his work via police station,

on hearing that the accused were arrested, he went to the police station

and saw that the accused were there and informed the police about what

he has seen on 17.12.2014.

2.6.P.W.5 has deposed that A-3 and A-2 have approached P.W.5

on 17.12.2014 at about 12.30 noon and took his omni van bearing

registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 on rent of Rs.1000/-. On the next day

when P.W.5 was not in his house, both the accused A-2 and A-3 came

and left the omni van in his house. A-2 and A-3 informed P.W.5 over

phone and P.W.5 asked them to hand over the key to his neighbour

10/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

P.W.6 Muthusamy. They handed over the key and the money of

Rs.1000/- to P.W.6. P.W.6 received the same and handed over them to

P.W.5. Later on 20.12.2014, the police came and seized the omni van

M.O.5.

2.7.P.W.10 is the partner of the deceased in the real estate

business. He along with deceased and one Marimuthu have purchased

2.46 acres of land for sum of Rs.40 lakhs from A-1. After the purchase,

A-1 has filed a case through his mother and sisters. Though P.W.10 and

deceased requested for settlement, the matter has prolonged. When the

matter stood thus, A-1 tried to sell his share which was objected to by

deceased and P.W.10 which resulted in a police complaint and finally,

the police directed them to settle the issue in a civil court. 10 days prior

to the incident, the deceased went to A-1 and demanded either money to

be returned or the property to be given and the deceased also scolded A1.

2.8.P.W.12 Elamparuthi is running a transport. On 13.12.2014 at

about 12.30 p.m., while he was proceeding to his aunt's house along with

his friend in a motorcycle, near the Mavelipalayam railway bridge, he

saw A-1 and other accused were discussing something and thereafter, he

proceeded and later, on coming to know about the incident, had given a

11/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

statement to the police above the gathering of the accused.

2.9.P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement

of P.W.5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.14 is the person in whose

presence the two wheeler M.O.8 bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298,

was handed over by P.W.16, Sankarbabu, in the police station. P.W.15 is

the sister of A-1. According to her, her brother (A-1) sold 2.10 acres of

ancestral land without their knowledge and therefore, they challenged the

same by way of a civil suit. P.W.16 is running a hardware shop. On

18.12.2014, A-1 came there and left the Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler

bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298. Later, P.W.16 handed over the

bike to the police and the same was seized and forwarded to the Judicial

Magistrate under Form 91 which is marked as Ex.P.26.

2.10.P.W.17 who is the photographer, in his deposition, has stated

that at the instructions of the police, he took photographs Ex.P.21 and

Ex.P.27 series. The medical officer who had conducted postmortem was

examined as P.W.19. According to him, the dead body was in

decomposed stage and rigor mortis is absent. He found the following

external injuries while doing postmortem:

12/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

'Injuries:- 1.A stab injury seen on front of the left shoulder M -4 CMS x 3 CMS x 6 CMS. 2.A Stab injury seen on the outer aspect of center of left arm M- 3 CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep. 3.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of left hand A)The upper M- 3 CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep, B) 1 CMS below another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep. C) 1 CMS below the another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, D)1 CMS below the another cut injury M 3 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep. E) 2 CMS below the another cut injury M 5 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, F) 1 CMS below another cut injury M 2 CMS x 0.5 CMS x Muscle deep. 4.A stab injury seen on the outer aspect of the left side chest M 3 CMS x 1 CM x Cavity deep, with underlying cut fracture of 4th and 5th Ribs over the anterior axillary line. 5.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of right hand A)The outer M-4 CMS x 1.5 CMS x bone deep, B)1 CMS inner another cut injury M- 10 CMS x 2 CMS x bone deep. C) 1 CM inner another cut injury M- 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, D) 2 CMS inner another cut injury M -2 CMS x 1 CMS x muscle deep, (In all above stab and cut injuries, there is extravasation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues – Antemortem). 6.Crush injury of right side of face extending from the inner aspect of the left eye along the right cheek and right ear up to the upper aspect of the right side of the neck, exposing underlying compound communitted fracture of the right side cheek bones,

13/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

soft tissues with liquefied brain seen over the roof or right side orbit, along with fracture dislocation of right side of lower jaw with no extrvasation of blood postmortem. 7.Complete transection of the the neck at the level of C2, and C3, all the structures at that level completely severed with no extravasation of blood over the transected end surfaces. - Postmortem. The edges of the transected ends are clean cut. The transected head with portion of neck reciprocally aligns with the neck portion of the trunk at the vertebral level. 8.Postmortem transection of thoracic and abdominal cavity anteriorly with devoid of internal organs of thorax and abdomen with no extravasation of blood over the transected edges. 9.Complete transection of abdomen at the level 1 CM below the umbilicus with corresponding transection of lumbar vertebra with no extravsation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues – Postmortem, the transected portion of the abdomen reciprocally aligns with the distal pelvis at the vertebra level. The colour and contour of the transected the segments matches with the each other.' The internal injuries are as follows:

'Internal Examination: O/D Head:- Scalp- Contusion seen over the frontal region M- 2 CMS x 1 CMS x 0.5 CMS and occipital region M- 8x4x0.5 CMS. Cranial vault – Compound comminutted fracture of right side frontal bone along with crush injury of anterior and middle cranial fossa. Brain- Portion of liquefied brain present.

14/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

O/D Neck:- Vide injury column, on dissection of Hyoid bone there is a fracture at the junction of right greater horn with the body and fracture at the junction of left greater horn with the body with surrounding soft tissue contusion. O/D Thorax – Vide external examination. O/D Abdomen :- Vide external examination, Pelvis – Pelvic cavity intact.' P.W.19 opined that the deceased died due to strangulation and also due

to multiple incised wounds and cut into three parts after dead. He issued

Ex.P.29 postmortem certificate.

2.11.P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police has received the alteration

report in Crime No.799 of 2014 and handed over it to the Judicial

Magistrate Court. P.W.21 who is the Sub Inspector of Police has

deposed that he received the request from the Inspector of Police and

handed over the same to the Duty Doctor of Government Mohan

Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. He accompanied the

Doctor and identified the dead body. During the process of postmortem,

he was with the Doctor and after postmortem, he handed over the dead

body to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased.

2.12.P.W.22, who is the Head Constable, in his deposition has

stated that he had typed all the statement of witnesses and the

15/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

confessions of accused in a laptop during the investigation. P.W.23 was

the Sub Inspector of Police. While he was incharge of the police station,

on 08.08.2014 at about 09.30 a.m., A-1 Ramachandran gave a complaint

against the deceased and P.W.10 in respect of a land dispute and based

on his complaint, CSR No.197 of 2014 was registered and both sides

were summoned to the police station and both agreed to settle the issue

before the civil court. The complaint given by A-1 is Ex.P.30 and the

CSR Receipt is Ex.P.31. Exs.P.32 and P.33 are statement of parties.

2.13.P.W.24, who was the Sub Inspector of police during the

relevant point of time deposed that on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 a.m., he

received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered Crime No.799 of 2014

for man missing and registered FIR is Ex.P.34. He forwarded the FIR to

the court and copies to higher officials. P.W.25, Inspector of Police, took

up the initial investigation and went to the house of the deceased and

prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P.35. He has

prepared notices with the photograph of the deceased with his

identification marks and he has also done arrangements to make a

publication in the daily newspaper. Ex.P.36 is the said notice. He had

also formed a special team. On 19.12.2014, P.W.4 VAO along with his

16/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

assistant handed over A-2 with the special report. Thereafter, he altered

the crime from man missing to Sections 147, 148, 120B, 341, 364, 302

and 201 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.37. He arrested A-2 and

recorded his confession and in pursuant to the same, he had also arrested

A-1, A3 to A-5 and recorded their confessions separately. Pursuant to the

confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered with the help of

fishermen P.W.7 to P.W.9 and the dead body was identified. Thereafter,

he conducted inquest on the three pieces and the whole body of the

deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest reports

Exs.P.38 to P.41. He had also requested the medical officer to conduct

autopsy on the dead body. Pursuant to the confession of A-4, he seized

40-1/2 cm length of sharp knife under seizure mahazar. In pursuance of

the confession of A-3 Karuvamani, he seized a long knife and also a gold

chain weighing 37.300 grams under seizure mahazar. Pursuant to the

confession of A-5, P.W.25 seized a gold ring weighing about 15.700

grams and he had also recovered a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle

bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 pursuant to the confession of A-5.

In pursuance of confession of A-3, he seized the omni van bearing

registration No. TN 30 AT 7192. Thereafter, in pursuance of confession

17/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

of A-2, he seized a Samsung cell phone with two sim cards. He had also

prepared Observation mahazar and rough sketch from the place where

the deceased was taken. Thereafter, P.W.25 sent the accused to judicial

custody and the material objects were also sent to Court. After

completing the investigation, he has filed the final report against all the

accused under Sections 120B, 341, 341 read with 120B, 364, 364 read

with 120B, 302, 302 read with 34, 302 read with 120B, 404 read with

120B and 201 read with 302 IPC.

2.14.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207

Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of

Session in S.C.No.101 of 2015 and was made over to the II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Salem for trial.

Charges against the accused :

3.The trial Court framed the following charges against the

accused:

Accused Charges A1 Sections 120B, 341 r/w 120B, 364 r/w 120B, 302 r/w 120B, 404 r/w 120B and 201 r/w 302 IPC A2 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and

18/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

201 r/w 302 IPC A3 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC A4 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 r/w 120B and 201 r/w 302 IPC A5 Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 25

witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked 48 documents, namely

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and produced 8 material objections, namely M.O.1 to

M.O.8. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the deceased were also marked

as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2.

5.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the

accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the

incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced

by the prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating

circumstances. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded and

no documents were marked.

6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 23.08.2018, found

all the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and

19/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

sentenced them to undergo imprisonments as stated above.

7.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.612 of 2018

is filed by A1, Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 is filed by A3, A4 and A5 and

Crl.A.No.761 of 2018 is filed by A2. Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 is filed by

the wife of the deceased (who is the defacto complainant) for

enhancement of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Submissions on the side of Appellants :

8.It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel and counsel

appearing for appellants that though the prosecution has relied on seven

circumstances, as far as motive is concerned, the evidence of witnesses,

namely P.Ws.1,2 and 10 are highly improbable. In order to show that a

civil case filed by A-1 before the civil court is pending, no materials have

been placed. The evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate that though

there were some disputes with regard to the land purchased by the

deceased and P.W.10 and they were asked to approach the civil court for

settling their dispute, such being the position, the same cannot be taken

as motive to commit such a grave crime. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and

10 are highly improbable with regard to motive. The evidence of P.Ws.3

and 11 who have allegedly last seen the accused with the deceased is also

20/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

highly improbable. The last seen theory relied on by the prosecution is

also highly improbable. There is a long time gap between the point of

time when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the dead

body of the deceased was found. Their evidence is highly artificial in

nature.

9.The learned senior counsel further contended that the extra

judicial confession of A-2 relied on by the prosecution is highly

improbable which creates a serious doubt. Such confession of A-2 suffers

from serious defect as the signature of A-2 found in Ex.P.3 and the

signature of A-2 obtained by the police on the same day differs with each

other on bare comparison by the Court. It is the further contention that

though the extra judicial confession was said to have been recorded by

P.W.4 on 19.12.2014, it was not recorded as per the procedure to be

followed. Further, the extra judicial confession was sent to the Court

only on 21.12.2014 with an inordinate delay. This clearly creates a doubt

about the very extra judicial confession. The difference in the signatures

of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and before the police creates a

strong doubt about the very extra judicial confession. Further, there is

absolutely no evidence to show that there is conspiracy. Though P.W.12

21/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

has stated as if all the accused were seen together on 13.12.2014 and

were discussing, his evidence does not even show that there was

conspiracy. Therefore, his evidence is in no way helpful to show that

there was conspiracy. The recovery of gold jewels from A-3 and A-5 is

also highly doubtful and P.Ws.1 and 2 have also not clearly identified the

same and that the description was not given at the earlier point of time.

There is a lot of difference with regard to the weight of jewels. In respect

of the recovery of omni van said to be belonging to P.W5, though P.W.5

has stated as if the vehicle has been hired by A-3 and A-2, the evidence

of P.W.5 clearly indicates that he has purchased the vehicle from one

agent but the fact remains that the vehicle has been registered in the

name of his wife and the R.C. book has not been produced. Whereas the

report of R.T.O clearly shows that the vehicle is a diesel vehicle. This

fact clearly shows that the evidence of P.W.5 is also highly doubtful with

regard to the use of omni van.

10.It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that

though the prosecution has alleged that the dead body was admittedly

recovered from the river, the evidence of P.W.17, photographer clearly

shows that while he has taken photograph, the head of the deceased was

22/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

floating. Therefore, it cannot be said that only on the basis of the

confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered and hence, the

recovery is also highly doubtful. Therefore, the circumstances relied on

by the prosecution is doubtful and every witnesses are highly interested

and their version is improved at every stage. P.W.4 having allegedly

recorded the extra judicial confession, he was the witness for all the

confessions continuously made by all the accused and also the recovery,

which is highly improbable and attached with artificiality. The recovery

of gold articles though allegedly recovered on 20.12.2024, they were

sent to Court only on 21.12.2024 and in the complaint, the description of

jewels was not mentioned. It is contended by learned senior counsel that

in order to show that P.Ws.5 and 6 had conversation with regard to

handing over of omni van by A-2 and A-3, the prosecution has not made

any attempt to get the call details from the mobile phone. Further,

Ex.P.47 clearly shows that the omni van was registered in the name of

Manimekalai which has been suppressed by P.W.5, whereas he has stated

as if after the purchase of the vehicle from the agent, he has not changed

name. This fact clearly shows that his evidence is doubtful. Hence the

circumstances relied on by the prosecution are highly doubtful and the

23/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

entire edifice of the prosecution case on the so-called extra judicial

confession, on the face of it, creates serious doubt. Therefore, the

prosecution case is highly doubtful and the witnesses P.Ws.3 and 11 who

have allegedly last seen the accused in the car have not identified the

accused properly as the identification parade has also not been

conducted. Hence the learned senior counsel submitted that the entire

prosecution case is highly doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit

of doubt.

Submissions of respondent in Criminal Appeals:

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand

would submit that P.Ws.1,2,10 and 23 have clearly spoken about the

civil dispute between the parties. Exs.P.30 to P.33 proved the fact that

there was an earlier complaint between the parties in respect of the

property purchased by the deceased from A-1. Their evidence has clearly

proved the motive aspect. P.Ws.3 and 11 have spoken about seeing the

deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014. Therefore, the prosecution

has clearly established the last seen theory also. The evidence of P.W.4

has clearly proved the extra judicial confession given by A-2. In fact, A-

2 has appeared voluntarily and has given the extra judicial confession

24/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

which has been recorded by P.W.4 and the same has been marked as

Ex.P.3. Thereafter, P.W.4 had handed over A-2 to the police and then,

the Investigating Officer P.W.25 has recorded the confession of all the

accused and effected seizures. Further, P.W.1 has also clearly identified

the jewels worn by the deceased. The recovery aspect has also been

clearly established and that the evidence of P.W.5 has clearly spoken

about the fact that he has given the car to A-3 and A-2 and that the car

has been handed over by the accused the next day, which fact has also

been spoken by the other witness, namely P.W.6. P.W.16 has also spoken

about the handing over of bike of A-1 in the police station. P.W.12 has

spoken about the conspiracy theory.

12.It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that the corpse has been recovered at the instance of the

accused. The confession made by the accused led to the recovery of the

dead body from the Cauvery river. According to the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, it is the clinching evidence to prove the prosecution

case. P.Ws.7 to 9 fishermen have also spoken about the retrieve of body

from the river. All the above facts have clearly established the chain of

link and therefore, the prosecution has clearly established all the

25/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

circumstances connecting to the crime.

13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of his

submissions, has relied on the following case laws:

(i)State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180; (ii)Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 10 SCC 604; (iii)Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610; (iv)Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 5 SCC 534; (v)Baban Shankar Daphal Vs. The State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 97]; (vi)K.P.Tamilmaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958; (vii)Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2025) 9 SCC 31.

14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on Raja

Ram case to say that the extra judicial confession if voluntary and true

and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court and that

the value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence

26/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. If

the evidence is found to be credible, it can solely form the basis of

conviction. Sansar Chand case has been relied on to say that there is no

absolutely rule that the extra judicial confession can never be the basis of

a conviction although ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be

corroborated by some other materials.

15.Satpal case has been relied on by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor in regard to the circumstantial evidence and the last seen

theory and the explanation to be given by the accused under section 106

of the Evidence Act and on non compliance, the conviction can be

sustained on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and Ram Gopal

case has also been relied on for the very same proposition. The

prosecution has relied on Chetan case to argue that where the

circumstantial evidence is the basis for any case, where no eyewitness

account is available and when the incriminating circumstances are put to

the accused, if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers the

explanation that is found to be false, it provides an additional link to the

chain of circumstances.

27/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

16.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied on

K.P.Tamilmaran case to point out that the related witnesses are not

necessarily interested witnesses and merely because the witnesses are

interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their

testimony. Baban Shankar Daphal case has been relied on as to how the

evidence of a related witness has to be evaluated and that the court

should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony.

Submissions on the side of revision petitioner :

17.Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel appearing for

the revision petitioner would submit that the motive has been clearly

spoken by the witnesses and the same has been clearly established. The

evidence of P.W.3 lends corroboration to show that the accused was

following the deceased in a car and the recovery of jewels also has been

clearly established. P.W.1 has identified the jewels. P.W.1, the wife of

the deceased who is the best person to narrate the occurrence, in Ex.P.1

has narrated about the jewels. The recovery of dead body at the instance

of the accused is also another clinching circumstances and factor to

prove the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused. The learned

Senior counsel, hence, submitted that the prosecution has clearly

28/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

established all the circumstances leading to the crime committed by the

accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the trial court requires no interference

and the same be sustained.

Discussions and Findings :

18.We have perused the entire materials and paid anxious

consideration to the submissions made by both sides. We have also

perused the charges framed by the trial court against the accused which

has been extracted supra.

19.Though the learned senior counsel for the appellants has

submitted that the charges are superflous and have not been framed

properly by the trial court, however, the appellants have not raised any

prejudice and their arguments have been made only with regard to the

merits of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution is based

on circumstantial evidence. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 had

sold his property to the deceased, P.W.10 and one Marimuthu. A-1,

having received Rs.40 Lakhs, had later set up his mother and sisters to

file a partition suit. Therefore, there arose a dispute between the deceased

and A-1. When the case is pending before the civil court, A-1 tried to sell

29/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

the property to one third party, which was objected by the deceased and

P.W.10 which had resulted in a quarrel between them, as a result of

which a complaint came to be filed before P.W.23 and a CSR has been

registered. Thereafter, both sides have agreed to settle the dispute in a

civil court and gave an undertaking Exs.P.32 and 33. 10 days prior to the

occurrence, the deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded either

the property to be given or the money be returned back. He had also

scolded A-1 in filthy language. This was the motive for the occurrence.

A-2 was the driver of A-1 and they engaged A-3 to A-5. Therefore, all

the accused conspired together. On 17.12.2014, they kidnapped the

deceased in M.O.5, a silver colour Maruti van which was owned by

P.W.5 and thereafter, A-2 to A-5 killed the deceased in the van and went

to Kamarapalayam Bhavani Cauvery river and A-1 also came there and

gave instruction to all the accused to cut the deceased into pieces and to

throw him in the river and after a thorough investigation, the final report

has been laid.

20.The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial

evidence and the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances

to prove their case, namely, motive, last seen theory, extra judicial

30/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

confession, conspiracy among the accused, recovery of jewels from A-3

and A-5, recovery of omni van from P.W.5 and the recovery of dead

body of the deceased pursuant to the confession made by the accused

persons.

21.As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is well

settled that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave

any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence

of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must

have been done by the accused. Once the above condition has been

satisfied, the circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for the

conviction. In the light of the above well settled proposition, this Court

has dealt with all the circumstances one by one.

Motive:

22.Insofar as the motive aspect is concerned, P.W.1, the wife of

the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased, P.W.10

[Selvam] and one Marimuthu have purchased a property from A-1 and

later, A-1 tried to sell the property to a third party, namely Marimuthu.

The deceased and P.W.10 had objected to the same, as a result of which

31/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

A-1 lodged a complaint before P.W.23. In the police station, all of them

have agreed to settle the matter before the civil court. According to the

evidence of P.W.1, a few days prior to the date of occurrence, her

husband, namely deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded back

either the land or money and had also scolded the A-1 in filthy language.

The purchase of land from A-1 by the deceased and P.W.10 has been

spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.10. The suit filed in respect of the same

land by the mother and sisters of A-1 for partition was also spoken to by

them. P.W.10 in his evidence has clearly stated that the purchase was

made in the year 2008 and thereafter, the suit came to be filed. P.W.15,

the sister of A-1 in her evidence has also stated that they filed a civil suit.

The above evidences clearly indicate that after the sale of the property

by A-1 to deceased and P.W.10 and subsequently, when A-1 attempted to

sell the property to one Marimuthu, there arose some quarrel and dispute

between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1 which resulted in a complaint

being lodged by A-1 under Ex.P.30. In fact, A-1 has given the complaint

against the deceased and P.W.10. In the said complaint, A-1 has clearly

stated that in respect of the purchase of the property, there was dispute

between the parties over the sale of the property. To be noted, the sale

32/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

was made in the year 2008 and that the dispute was simmering between

the parties till 2014 which resulted in a complaint and CSR being

registered by P.W.23 in CSR No.197 of 2014. When both the parties

were enquired by the police, they agreed to settle the matter in a civil

court. The above facts and the evidence in this regard clearly indicates

that there was some previous enmity existing between the deceased and

A-1 in respect of the land. However, it is to be noted that the motive is a

double edged weapon and it may either be used by the accused or

deceased's family members to implicate them it cannot also be ruled

out. Be that as it may. Therefore, insofar as the motive aspect as

projected by the prosecution is concerned, from the evidence of the

above witnesses, it has been clearly established that there exist motive

with regard to the dispute between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1.

Last seen theory :

23.The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last

seen theory. According to the prosecution, the deceased left his house as

per the evidence of P.W.1, at about 03.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 as usual

and never returned home. Immediately, P.W.1 called P.W.2 her daughter

and other relatives and they all have made a search in the entire night to

33/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

find out the deceased. Since they could not locate him, the next day, i.e.,

on 18.12.2014, P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 in the police station. In

the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 had never whispered anything about the

accused. In her evidence, though P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had

left the house at 03.00 p.m., in Ex.P.1 complaint, she never stated as to

when the deceased left the house but she had stated that her husband was

wearing 5 sovereign gold chain and 1-1/2 sovereign gold ring. Further

apart from giving details about the mobile phone and two mobile

numbers, no other description whatsoever was given with regard to

jewels worn by the deceased. Be that as it may.

24.According to the evidence of P.W.3 who was running a hotel in

the nearby place, on 17.12.2014at 06.00 p.m., while he was standing in

the Sankari main road, his neighbour Duraisamy was proceeding in

Vadugapatti road in a two wheeler. At that time, a omni car bearing

registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 has followed the two wheeler of the

deceased. The said car was driven by A-1 and the other three accused,

namely A-3 to A-5 were sitting in the back seat of the car. It is relevant

to note that the accused Nos.3 to 5 were not known to P.W.3 prior to the

same. Though it is stated that he had identified them in the Court, no

34/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

identification parade was conducted. After seeing the deceased travelling

in the motor cycle, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house and returned back

to his place the next day morning. According to his evidence, as there

was crowd in front of the house of the deceased, he came to know about

the missing of deceased. It is clear from his evidence that he has not seen

the deceased and accused travelling together. The evidence of P.W.3

would show the fact that TN 30 AT 7192, omni car was driven by A-2 at

the relevant point of time and three of the accused were sitting in the

back. Though his evidence lends some support to show that he has seen

the accused at Vadugapatti road at about 06.00 p.m., it is relevant to note

that P.W.1 in her evidence has categorically stated that she tried calling

her husband in his cellphone but his mobile was switched off and was

not reachable. Though the evidence of P.W.1 is that she tried to contact

her husband till evening, whereas P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in

her cross examination has stated that she had spoken to her father in the

evening. The evidence of Investigating Officer if seen carefully, he has

admitted that at 05.55 p.m., the deceased called her daughter and it

shows the tower location in nearby Shanmuga Complex where the office

of the deceased is located. P.W.25, Investigating Officer, in his cross

35/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

examination has clearly admitted that he has ascertained that the

deceased was around the Shanmuga Complex at 05.55 p.m. The relevant

part of his evidence reads as follows:

'17/12/2014 md;W khiy 05/55 kzpf;F. filrpahf. m/rh/2 kPdht[ld; Jiurhkp ngrpa[s;shh;/ r';ffphp. g[J vlg;gho nuhL. rz;Kf fhk;g;sf;rpy; cs;s lth; gFjpapypUe;J ngrpa[s;shh;/ nkw;go miHg;g[ gl;oay; go Jiurhkp. filrpahf r';ffphp g[J vlg;gho nuhL gFjpapy; ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;W cWjpg; gLj;jpf;bfhz;nlhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/'

25.The fact remains that having ascertained that at 05.55 p.m., the

deceased was available in Sankari New Edapadi road, the call details

obtained by the Investigating Officer has not been exhibited for the

reasons best known to him. Be that as it may. The Shanmuga Complex is

situated in Edpadi Road. P.W.3, in his evidence has stated as if he saw

the deceased riding his bike in Vadugpatti road which is in the other

direction. The fact as to how the deceased had reached the other place

within five minutes also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court.

36/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

Even assuming that P.W.3 's evidence lends some support to corroborate

the fact that the deceased was followed by so-called accused, he has also

indicated that the accused 3 to 5 are unknown to P.W.3 and he has seen

them while they were travelling in the car. But, No identification parade

in this regard was conducted thereafter to identify the accused and P.W.3

has not identified them. This aspect of the matter was not explained by

the prosecution.

26.The other key witness is P.W.11, Ganesamoorthy, who was

working with the deceased. According to him, on 17.12.2014, he and his

friend one Srinivasan were proceeding to Kalipatti Murugan temple via

Mavelipalayam. At that time, under the railway bridge, one omni van

came in a rash and negligence manner as if dashing against his two

wheeler and the same was questioned by P.W.11. At that time, he found

that the van was driven by A-2 and the deceased was seated back in the

omni van and both A-3 and A-4 were sitting on either side of the

deceased in the van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192. On a careful

perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.11 indicates that P.W.11, in his

evidence has clearly stated that he was earlier working with the deceased

20 years before and he has stated that immediately after seeing the

37/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

accused and deceased together, he left for Murugan Temple and

thereafter, went to Sabarimala temple and he later reached his place only

on 20.12.2014 and on reaching only he came to know that the deceased

was murdered. Thereafter, on 21.12.2014, as usual when he was going

for his job, he was going in front of the police station and on seeing the

crowd in the police station, he entered the police station and informed the

fact of seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van on

17.12.2014. It is relevant to note that the explanation given by P.W.11

for delayed information to the police that he went to Sabarimala temple

and on return on 20.12.2014, he came to know about the occurrence is

nothing but a clear improvement made during his examination. P.W.25,

Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has clearly stated that P.W.11 has

not stated in his statement that he went to Sabarimala temple on

17.12.2014 and returned back on 20.12.2014.

27.The evidence of P.W.11 is clearly unbelievable. It is clearly

seen from the analysis of the evidence that the explanation given by

P.W.11 is only to strengthen the prosecution case. Even assuming that

the evidence of P.W.11 is true that he went to Sabarimala temple and

38/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

came back on 20.12.2014 to his place, his immediate reaction and

conduct should be that on coming to know about the death of deceased

with whom he was earlier working, he should have informed the fact of

seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van, to the police

or at least to the relatives of the deceased. He has clearly stated in his

evidence that on 20.12.2014, he returned back from the temple and was

aware of the brutal murder of the deceased but he did not inform the fact

of seeing the deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014 to any one.

However, casually on the next day, he left for the job and at that time, on

seeing the crowd in the police station, he went there and informed the

above said fact. This conduct of P.W.11, in our mind, is against the

normal human behaviour and this aspect cannot be ignored altogether. It

is further to be noted that even assuming that he has given the statement

only on 21.12.2014, his statement has reached the Judicial Magistrate

court only on 20.03.2015. This fact creates some doubt about the very

fairness in the investigation. If really the statement of P.W.11 was

recorded on 21.12.2014, that statement should have been reached the

court on the same day or at least the next day but the statement of the

witness was sent to court only on 20.03.2015. The delay in despatching

39/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

section 161 Cr.P.C statement to the Court has also not been explained

properly by the prosecution.

28.It is further to be noted that according to P.W.11, he saw the

deceased alive in the company of A-2 to A-4 under the railway bridge at

Mavelipalayam. On looking at his entire evidence, it is clear that he has

not even whispered anything about when he saw the deceased and

accused together. Even assuming the evidence of P.W.11 to be true and

lends some support to the prosecution case of the last seen theory aspect,

it is to be noted that the time gap between the point of time when the

accused and deceased were seen together and the deceased was alive at

that time and when the deceased was found dead, is too long.

Extra Judicial Confession and other circumstances :

29.The prosecution has mainly relied on Ex.P.3, the so-called extra

judicial confession given by A2 before P.W.4 (Village Administrative

Officer) and the same was recorded by P.W.4. In his evidence, P.W.4 has

never stated as to what is the nature of the statement given by A4 but has

stated that A4 appeared before him and gave the statement, which was

40/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

recorded and thereafter, with the special report, A4 was handed over to

the police. The extra judicial confession, if it is given to a person who is

responsible person and if it does not suffer from any infirmity, no doubt,

can be the sole basis for conviction and the same can also be taken as

substantive evidence.

30.The Hon'ble Supreme Court on various occasions considered

and laid down the principles governing the evidentiary value of an extra

judicial confession and the circumstance under which such extra judicial

confession can be made as a sole basis for conviction. Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

(2025) 3 SCC 565, in paragraphs 24 and 25, has dealt with the aspect of

extra judicial confession and when the evidence regarding the same can

be considered and paragraphs 24 and 25 read as follows:

'24.Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was again

examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was based on extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall

41/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However, the confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. 25.This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such evidence should not be considered. This Court held as follows : (Sahadevan case [Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1839] , SCC p. 410, para 14) “14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If,

42/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.”

31.In the case on hand, in the extra judicial confession relied on by

the prosecution, it is recorded as if the accused had kidnapped the

deceased near Uppupalayam Mariamman temple. The extra judicial

confession also shows that to reach the Mariamman temple, a railway

bridge has to be crossed, whereas P.W.11 evidence shows as if he saw

the accused under the railway bridge. Therefore, it also creates some

doubt in his evidence. If the entire extra judicial confession as recorded

by P.W.4, is scanned would show that it is handwritten and the signature

of A2 was obtained. The signature obtained in the extra judicial

confession Ex.P.3 would clearly show that all the contents have been

accommodated just above the signature. This clearly indicates that the

contents of the extra judicial confession have been written after the

signature was obtained. As already indicated, if the extra judicial

43/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

confession is free from any infirmity or doubt, the same can be the basis

for conviction but when the extra judicial confession suffers from some

infirmities which have not been explained properly, then it is unsafe to

rely on the same. It is relevant to note the signature of A2 found in the

so-called extra judicial confession and the scanned reproduction of the

same is as follows:

32.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that immediately after the

confession of A2 is recorded, he handed over A2 to the police.

Thereafter, all the other accused have been arrested one by one and the

Investigating Officer has recorded the confession of the accused in the

presence of P.W.4 and the other witness and in pursuance of the same, all

recoveries have been made. The confession of A-2 has also been

recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day in the police

44/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

station, wherein the signature of A2 was also obtained. The signature of

A-2 in the said confession statement is also scanned and reproduced

below:

33.Though this Court cannot assume the role of the expert in

comparing the signatures found in the documents, on bare perusal of both

the signatures of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and the confession

recorded by the Investigating Officer would indicate that there is a lot of

difference in both the signatures. The letter 'r' and the other letters in

Ex.P.3 is totally different from the signature found in the confession of

A2 given by the Investigating Officer which is marked as Ex.P.6. This

fact creates a serious doubt about the alleged extra judicial confession.

Though the prosecution has also relied on the entire recovery said to

have been made pursuant to the confession made by the accused [namely

recovery from A2 under Ex.P.7 seizure mahazar and recovery from A3

45/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

under Ex.P.9 seizure mahazar], they were all recovered in the presence of

P.W.4 and the other witness. The dead body was also recovered at the

instance of the accused from the Cauvery river. It is relevant to note that

the so-called extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.4 has been

handed over to the Investigating Officer and it is only on the basis of the

same, the Investigating Officer P.W.25 recorded further confessions of

accused and effected all the recoveries of Material Objects and also the

dead body in three pieces.

34.On careful perusal of the so-called extra judicial confession of

A2, it is seen that A2 has stated that he was driving the omni van and the

other accused were sitting in the back seat and they kidnapped the

deceased. While proceeding in the car, near Bhavani, A4 Subramani

caught hold both the legs of the deceased and A3 Marimuthu @

Karuvamani strangulated the deceased and when the same was thwarted

by the deceased, A4 Subramani stabbed him on the left chest, shoulder

and left hand and killed him. Thereafter, they removed gold chain and

ring and cell phone of the deceased. Thereafter, when they were going in

the same car along with the dead body and were waiting in the Cauvery

new bridge, at that time, A1 came there and informed them that since the

46/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

deceased insulted him, he should be cut into pieces and be thrown into

the river. Accordingly, the accused took the dead body from the car, got

into the river, kept the body in the Coracle and took the body to the

center of the river and kept the same on the rock and cut the dead body

into three pieces and have thrown into the river. Having come to know

that the deceased was murdered in the car and the dead body was carried

in the car and later, the dead body was cut into pieces after keeping the

body on the rock, no investigation whatsoever was made by the

Investigating Officer to find out any bloodstains or the other traces found

in the car.

35.M.O.5, omni van was allegedly owned by P.W.5 and hired by

A2 and the other accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on

the next day, i.e., on 18.12.2014, the car was left in the place of P.W.5

and the key was handed over to P.W.6 as P.W.5 contacted P.W.6 and

asked him to receive the key of the van. Thereafter, the omni van was

seized by the police. It is relevant to note that in the evidence of P.W.5,

he has stated that he had purchased the same from one agent and

therefore, he has not changed the name of the omni van but he has

suppressed the fact that the omni van has already been registered in the

47/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

name of his wife. The fact that M.O.5, van belonged to the wife of P.W.5

has also been established under Ex.P.47 but the said fact has been

suppressed by P.W.5. Be that as it may. The evidence of P.W.5 would

clearly indicate that his wife has filed a petition for return of the vehicle.

In the evidence, P.W.5 has clearly admitted that the petition was filed

before the Judicial Magistrate Court to the effect that they have no

knowledge about the crime and only after the police seized their vehicle,

they came to know that their vehicle was used for the crime and

therefore, they filed the petition for return of property and got back the

same. This fact has clearly been admitted by P.W.5 himself during the

cross examination, whereas in the chief examination, he has deposed that

he had never transferred the car into his wife's name since he has

purchased it from the agent. This aspect also creates some doubt in the

evidence of P.W.5. Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.5 is

believable and it also lends some help to the prosecution case, having

come to know the fact of the murder committed in the omni van and the

dead body was carried in the said vehicle and having seized the same

from P.W.5, no attempts whatsoever have been made to find out any

bloodstains in the omni van. It is not the case of the prosecution that the

48/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

vehicle was washed and handed over to P.W.5. As per the version of the

prosecution, the deceased was stabbed in the omni van itself and in such

a case, the blood would have been scattered and bloodstains would have

been found in the seat and even if the van was washed, some bloodstains

in the seat would remain there and would not go. But P.W.25

Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to verify this aspect of the

matter. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 also does not inspire the

confidence of the Court.

36.The prosecution has also relied on the other circumstance,

namely recovery of jewels [M.O.1 and M.O.2] and M.O.3, cellphone.

M.O.1, gold chain recovery from A3 under Ex.P.9 and M.O.2, gold ring

from A5 under Ex.P.13 weighing about 15.700 grams. Though P.W.1

would say that these jewels were worn by her husband, while giving the

complaint, no description has been given. Further, the weight of the gold

ring is also not tallying. P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in her

evidence has stated that she has not identified these jewels in the police

station. Be that as it may. Merely on the basis of some identification of

these jewels by P.W.1, we are of the view that the same cannot be a

ground to hold that the prosecution has proved the entire case beyond all

49/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

reasonable doubt, for the reason that the very edifice of the prosecution

case, namely the extra judicial confession, the two signatures of A2 and

the manner in which P.W.4 was made as a witness in all recoveries create

a strong doubt.

37.It is also pertinent to note that though the knife said to have

been used by one of the accused, namely A4 was also seized under

Ex.P.11 and one knife from A3 under Ex.P.9, no attempt whatsoever was

made by the Investigating Officer to find out if there is any bloodstains

found in the weapon. There is no biology report or serology report

obtained. This also creates some doubt in the prosecution case.

Admittedly, according to the prosecution, the seized items, namely knife

recovered from the house of one of the accused and the jewels said to

have been worn by the deceased also do not contain any bloodstain and

there was no attempt whatsoever made by the prosecution to unearth the

truth. Be that as it may.

38.The main circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the

corpse, as according to the prosecution, pursuant to the confessions of

the accused, the body parts were fished out from the river near

Kumarapalayam in the morning of 20.12.2014. P.W.7 to P.W.9, in their

50/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

evidence, have stated that they retrieved the dead body at the place

pointed out by the accused persons. The photographer [P.W.17] in his

evidence in the cross examination, has stated that the head was floating

at the time when he was taking photograph. Therefore, when the dead

body was thrown into the river near Kumarapalayam, the floating of the

head part could have been noticed by many people. Though P.W.7 to

P.W.9 have stated in one voice that they retrieved the corpse from the

place pointed out by all the five accused, it is relevant to note that A-1

pointing out such a place is highly improbable, as according to the

prosecution case, A-1 gave instructions to the other accused to cut the

dead body into pieces and to throw it into the river. Therefore, the other

accused persons took the body in a Coracle for some distance and kept

the body on the rock and cut the same into three pieces. But, no attempt

whatsoever was made to seize the Coracle which was available near the

river to find out any bloodstains. Further, having known the fact from the

confessions of the accused that the dead body was kept in the rock and

cut into pieces, the Investigating Officer had not even made any attempt

to find out any bloodstains in the particular rock, for the reasons best

known to him.

51/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

39.In the normal circumstances, the recovery of corpse pursuant to

the confession statements of the accused persons itself is sufficient to

base the conviction but the prosecution story as projected was based on

the extra judicial confession. A perusal of the extra judicial confession

Ex.P.3 indicates that the murder was committed in the omni van and the

dead body was carried in the same, but no attempt whatsoever was made

to examine the said omni van to find out any bloodstains and equally, no

attempt was made to find out any bloodstains in the rock where the dead

body was allegedly cut into pieces. No doubt, the evidence of

Postmortem doctor would clearly indicate that the dead body was cut into

pieces and such thing could have been done after the dead of the person

and that the murder is a ghastly and gruesome one and admittedly, there

is no dispute about the same. But the fact remains that merely on the

basis of some evidence which creates some doubt in the mind of the

court and merely on the basis of the alleged recoveries, we are unable to

accept the entire prosecution case.

40.Yet another important reason is that it is the specific case of the

prosecution that the deceased was done away in the night of 17.12.2014

52/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

and the body was cut into pieces. In the evidence of P.W.25,

Investigating Officer, he has clearly admitted as follows:

'18/12/2014 Mk; njjp. Jiurhkp filrpahf bra;j ,uz;L miHg;g[fs; ahUf;F bra;Js;shh; vd;w tptuj;ij ehd; tprhhpj;J bjhpe;Jbfhz;nldh vd;why;. tprhuiz bra;njd;/ mth; ahh; vd;W jw;nghJ "hgfk; ,y;iy/ ehd; egh;fis tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;. mthplk; thf;FK:yKk; bgw;nwd; vd;Wk;. miyg;ngrp miHg;g[ tptu';fis tprhhpj;jjhf brhd;dhy;. mJ tHf;fpw;F ghjfkhfptpLk; vd;gjhy;. jw;nghJ khw;wp rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ filrp ,uz;L vz;fSf;Fz;lhd chpikahsh;fis ehd; tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;. mg;nghJ gy cz;ikfs; bjhpa te;jJ vd;Wk;. mtw;iw ehd; kiwj;Jtpl;nld; vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ mjdhy;jhd; eP/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; 2Mtz';fis. muR jug;gpy; Mtz';fshf FwpaPL bra;atpy;iybad;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ nkw;go filrp ,uz;L vz;fSk;. m/rh/2 kPdhtpd; bry;nghd; vz;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy;. mij jw;nghJ Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;y KoahJ/'

53/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

41.From the above evidence, it is clear that the cellphone of the

deceased was used on 18.12.2014. Though the Investigating Officer was

aware of the said fact and examined some of the witnesses, he has not

cited them as witnesses for the reasons best known to him. Further, no

investigation has been done in this regard. It is further to be noted that

though the call details for the period upto 17.12.2014 were obtained, the

same has not been filed as prosecution documents, whereas his evidence

would clearly indicate that the Investigating Officer was also aware of

the fact that on 18.12.2014 also, there were two calls made in the

cellphone of the deceased. Despite knowing the said fact, he has not

obtained the call details for 18.12.2014 and that the call details obtained

till 17.12.2014 also has not been filed as prosecution documents. A

perusal of the call details obtained upto 17.12.2014 would indicate that

the deceased was very much alive at 05.55 p.m on 17.12.2014 and he had

spoken through his phone near Shanmuga Complex which is situated in

the other direction. Therefore, the prosecution story that he was

kidnapped near Mavelipalayam is also highly doubtful.

42.With regard to the circumstance relating to conspiracy theory, it

is to be noted that except the evidence of one witness saying that all the

54/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

accused were talking together, there is no other evidence in this regard to

prove that all the accused have conspired and as a result of which they

have committed the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the

conspiracy aspect by producing a valid evidence. There is no evidence at

all in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a circumstance

pointing out the guilt of the accused.

43.The case laws relied on by the prosecution if analysed on case

to case basis, it is not applicable to the case on hand. Each of the case

laws turned on their own peculiar facts and circumstances and if

analysed in proper perspective, it is evident that the ratio therein does not

advance the prosecution case in the present factual matrix of the case and

each decision must be appreciated in the light of its own factual context.

44.In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the

considered view that though the motive aspect of the matter, i.e., there

was previous dispute between the parties, has been established, the other

circumstance relied on by the prosecution is not so complete and suffers

from serious infirmities as discussed above. No doubt, the nature of the

crime is so ghastly and gruesome. However, when the circumstances

relied on by the prosecution is not complete and the evidence relied on

55/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and is doubtful, it is

unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of the above circumstantial

evidence. The prosecution case being based solely on circumstantial

evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a complete and

unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of the

guilt of the accused. However, the circumstances relied on are not proved

beyond reasonable doubt and do not form a complete chain pointing

towards the guilt of the accused. In the absence of such a complete chain,

the court cannot sustain the conviction based on the above circumstantial

evidence. The evidence of the Investigating Officer would clearly

indicate that there were two calls in the cellphone of the deceased on

18.12.2024 but this aspect of the matter has not even been investigated

by the Investigating Officer and the investigation in this regard is

missing. If the investigation has been carried out in the direction of

tracing the place of the phone calls and the location from which the calls

were made and whether such calls have been made by the accused after

the alleged murder, it would have thrown some light on the investigation.

But this aspect has not been investigated at all. All the above points

would clearly create serious doubts in the entire prosecution case. As the

56/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

circumstances brought by the prosecution have not been established and

the chain of circumstances is not so complete, merely on the basis of

some dispute between the deceased and A1 and the motive in this regard,

we are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial court.

45.With regard to the motive aspect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vijay Singh alias Vijay Kr. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024

SCC OnLine SC 2623 has held in paragraph 35 as follows:

'35. As regards motive, we may suffice to say that motive has a

bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. Moreover, the motive in the present matter could operate both ways. The accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same family and the presence of a property related dispute is evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword. We say no more. '

57/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

46.In a recent decision in Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of

Delhi) reported in (2025) 8 SCC 440, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

the consequences relating to the motive and the relevant paragraph in

this regard is paragraph 29 and the same reads as follows:

'29.The declaration in the cited decisions and the decisions relied on therein, is to the effect that if the case is built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal. When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence. ' (Emphasis supplied)

47.In the present case, the cumulative analysis of the evidence of

witnesses would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is complete missing of link in

the chain to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no corroborative

material to prove the last seen theory. It is to be noted that no

58/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

identification parade was conducted. Further, in order to prove the

evidence of witnesses and the recovery of material objects, particularly

the weapon used for the crime by the accused, no scientific analysis or

examination was carried out. Bloodstains from the place of occurrences,

i.e., any bloodstains either from the vehicle where the deceased was said

to have been killed or from the rock where the deceased was alleged to

have been cut into three pieces, have not been recovered in order to send

the same to forensic examination. When the case rests on circumstantial

evidence, the forensic evidence can strength the chain of circumstances,

it will connect the accused with the crime and it will be a corroborative

piece of evidence but no such thing has happened in the case on hand. It

is also pertinent to note that when the prosecution relies on the last seen

evidence, the identification of the accused by the witnesses through test

identification parade adds great weight to the evidence. Therefore, it is

clear that without identification parade, the last seen theory may become

weak.

48.The other piece of evidence, the prosecution has failed to

produce is the call details in the cell phone of the deceased relating to

59/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

18.12.2014. From the evidence of witnesses, namely the witnesses

relating to the last seen theory, the accused and deceased were seen

together in the evening of 17.12.2014 and thereafter, the deceased went

missing and not found. But it is also to be noted that there were two calls

in the mobile of the deceased on 18.12.201. This aspect of the matter has

not even been investigated by the prosecution and the call details

pertaining to 18.12.2014 have not been collected by the prosecution.

49.In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the

prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of

doubt to all the accused.

50.In the light of the above, these three Criminal Appeals are

allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 23.08.2018 made in

S.C.No.101 of 2015 is set aside and all the accused are acquitted of all

the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the

appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the

appellants shall stand discharged. In the light of criminal appeals being

60/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

allowed, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise and

consequently, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 27.10.2025

Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes vvk

To

1.II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem

2.The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District-637 301.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

61/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm ) Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

vvk

Criminal Appeal Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018 and Criminal R.C.No.831 of 2023

27.10.2025

62/62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 09:34:06 pm )