Madras High Court
Gunasekaran vs The State Rep. By on 27 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
2025:MHC:533
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.02.2025
Pronounced on : 27.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
Gunasekaran ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Andipatty Police Station,
Theni District.
(in Cr.No.204 of 2015) ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment
in S.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni, dated 25.11.2019 and set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
1/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated
25.11.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Theni, in S.C.No.4 of 2016 by convicting and sentencing
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The complainant is the sister of the deceased
Suriyakumari. Her sister was married to one Kannan 10 years back and
out of the said wedlock, two children were born. Her sister Suriyakumari
borrowed money from the accused Gunasekaran and thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
2/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020developed illegal intimacy. The wife of the accused Gunasekaran
complained about the illegal relationship to the police. Both of them
were summoned before Batlagundu Police Station. The complainant, his
mother, deceased had gone to the police station and assured them that
they would pay the money to the accused and her sister would not have
any relationship.
(b) In the meantime, accused Gunasekaran, requested
Suriyakumari to accompany him to Mumbai, and the same was refused
by Suriyakumari stating that she wanted to look after her children. Her
husband after knowing the affair with the accused, sent her sister to her
parental house, he took his children with him and left the matrimonial
house. Therefore, her sister has been staying in her mother’s house for the
past 14 days.
(c) On 23.04.2015 at about noon, her sister, deceased
Suriyakumari informed the complainant that the accused continuously
troubling her. The complainant stated that time was not good so they
decided to meet an astrologer.
(d) On, 23.04.15 at about 8.15 p.m., both the complainant
and her sister were on their way to Om Shakti Astrology Centre located
on the first floor of Muthu Kannan complex near the Andipatti bus stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
3/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
At that time, the accused approached them from the opposite direction
and requested the complainant’s sister to immediately come to Mumbai,
in response, both the complainant and her sister ignored him and left,
proceeding to the astrology centre upstairs. The astrologer Kannan was
present in the centre. He stepped up outside upon receiving a phone call.
The complainant and her sister were sitting in a chair. The accused who
had followed them abused her sister “Vz;o vd; Tl Kk;ikgf;F
thd;dh eP tukhl;nl’;fPw vd;ndhl thHtuhj eP ,dpnky;
capnuhL ,Uf;fTlhJ vd brhy;yp…..” and then took out a hidden
knife, stabbed her below the left side of her chest. When the complainant
tried to stop him, he attempted to attack her. Her sister defended with her
hand and protected her. The accused inflicted injuries, on the left side
face, and the right side neck of Suriyakumari. When both raised an
alarm, the astrologer upon hearing the alarm rushed to the scene of the
occurrence and tried to catch the accused, but he fled away with a knife.
(e) The complainant and Thiru.Kannan, Astrologer took the
victim in an auto to Dr.Murali for treatment, he had asked them to take
her to Ka. Vilakku Government Hospital. At that time, the Police came to
the place and she took her sister in the Police ambulance and admitted
her in Ka.Vilakku Government Hospital. The Doctor examined her and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
4/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
declared as brought dead. Her statement was recorded by the police.
Hence, prayed for action against the accused.
(f) The complaint statement Ex.P1 was recorded by P.W.33,
Tmt.Pandiyammal, Sub Inspector of Police on 23.04.2015 at about 21.45
hours and then went to Andipatti Police Station and registered a case in
FIR No.204/2015, under Ex.P15 for the offence under section 302 IPC.
She had sent the complaint statement and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate,
Andipatti and copies to other officials. She handed over the case file to
P.W.34 Thiru.Nallu for investigation and assisted him with the
investigation.
(g) P.W.34 Thiru.Nallu, Inspector of Police received the FIR
at about 02.00 hours went to the place of occurrence on 24.04.2015 at
about 02.30 hours and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P5 and rough
sketch Ex.P16 in the presence of witness Kannaayiram and Jeyakumar.
On the same day, at about 3.45 hours, recovered blood-stained (earth)
pieces M.O.9, ordinary earth (cement) M.O.10, blood stains found in the
blue colour plastic chair were collected in cotton swabs in two numbers
M.O.13 under recovery mahazar Ex.P4.
(h) At about 6.00 a.m., he has gone to Ka.Vilakku
Government Hospital conducted an inquest on the dead body in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
5/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
presence of witnesses Jeeva, Chandra, Kannan and Panchayatars and
prepared an inquest report Ex.P17.
(i) He examined the witnesses Jeeva, Chandra and Kannan
and recorded their statements. He recovered the saree- M.O.2, blouse
M.O.3 from the witness P.W.1-Jeeva under Form-95. At about 8.00 a.m.,
he completed the inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem through
Grade-I Constable 1490 Thiru.Virumandi along with a requisition letter.
(j) P.W.19 Dr Juliana Jeyanti conducted a postmortem on the
dead body, and found the following injuries :
“The following antemortem injuries were noted
over the body:
1. An oblique red-coloured stab injury of size 2cms
x 1cm x 8cms depth was seen over on the left 5th
intercostal space in the midclavicular line. Margin were
regular one end pointed and the other end rounded.
On dissection: The wound passes inwards arid and
upwards. A red-coloured oblique stab injury of size
2.5cmsx1.5cmsxcavity depth was seen on the left side of
the rib cage. The left rile was cut through and through
the medial to mid-clavicular line. The margin was
regular. A red-coloured oblique stab injury of size
2cmsx1cmxcavith depth was seen on the pericardium
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
6/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
margin was regular. A red-coloured oblique stab injury of
size 2cmsx1cmxcavith depth was seen on the apex of the
heart (Left ventricle) Margin were regular. Pericardium
contained 200ml of blood with clots. The left pleural
cavity contained 2000 ml of blood with clots.
2. An oblique red-coloured stab injury of size 1.5
cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was seen over on the left side of the
lower cheek. Margin were regular one end pointed and
the other end rounded with the surrounding bruise
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves.
3. Red-coloured incised wound of size 2.5 cm x
0.25 cm x 0.25 cm seen above injury No. 02. with the
surrounding braise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels and nerves.
4. An oblique red-coloured stab injury of size 2ems
x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was seen over the right side of the
neck. Margin were regular one end pointed and the other
end rounded with the surrounding bruise injuring the
underlying muscles, vessels and nerves.
5. Red-coloured incised wounds of sizes 2.5 cm x
0.25 cm x 0.25 cm seen above injury No. 04. with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels and nerves.
6. Red-coloured punctured wounds of sizes
0.25cms x 0.25cms x 0.25cms.. 2.5cms x 0.25cms x
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
7/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
0.25cms were seen left side lower chest and left
upper abdomen respectively, with!: the surrounding
bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and
nerves.
7. Red coloured curved incised wound of
length 6cmsx0.25cmsx 0.25cms was seen over the
front and middle of the neck, with the surrounding
bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and
nerves.”
and in final opinion Ex.P.10, she has stated as follows :
“Final Opinion :
The deceased would appear to have died of shock
and haemorrhage due to injury No.01 and its
complication thereof. 15 hrs. to 19 hrs. prior to
autopsy.”
(k) He examined the witnesses Kannan, and Azhagarsamy
and recorded their statements. He recovered a full-sleeve shirt -M.O6
from witness Thiru.Kannan, under form 95.
(l) On 24.04.2015, after receipt of secret information, he
arrested the accused near Vijayalakshmi Clinic, who was identified by
witness Jeeva at about 15:30 hours in the presence of P.W.6 Thiru.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
8/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
Pararasuram, Village Administrative Officer, Yesuraja and recorded
confession statement, recovered blood-stained folding knife M.O.1,
blood stained black striped white shirt – M.O.7, blue colour checked
lungi M.O.8, under a recovery mahazar Ex.P.4 and then gone to the
station at about 19.00 hours along with accused and the material objects
and handed over the accused for remand.
(m) He examined the witnesses P.W.7 Kannayiram, P.W.8
Jeyakumar, P.W.33 Tmt. Pandiammal, Sub Inspector of Police, recorded
their statements. On 26.04.2015, he examined one Yoga and recorded his
statement. On 07.05.2015, he sent the material objects under form 95 to
the Court.
(n) On 13.05.2015 once again recorded the statement of
Jeeva. He examined Manivel, Murugesan, Kumar, Koodalswamy,
Muthupandi, Mr Ravi, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ravi, and the Medical
Officer and recorded their statements. On 18.05.2015 he examined the
witnesses Gunasekaran, Muthu Venkatakrishnan, and Anandan and
recorded their statements.
(o) On 08.06.2015 he examined Dr.Juliana Jeyanti and
recorded her statement. On 16.06.2015 he received the biological report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
9/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
and recorded the statement of witnesses Alagar Raja, Muralidharan, and
Meenakshi. On 17.06.2025 he examined all the witnesses and recorded
their statements.
(p) After completion of the investigation, on 21.10.2015 he
filed a final report against the accused for the offence under Section
302 IPC.
3. On receipt of the records, the Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi took up the case in P.R.C.No.16 of 2015 and issued
summons to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of
the entire records were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207
Cr.P.C.
4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, under Section 209(A)
Cr.P.C. for further action.
5. The Principal District Judge, Theni received the case
records, numbered it as S.C.No.4 of 2016 and made over to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
10/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni, for
disposal according to law.
6. After receipt of the case records, the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Theni framed charges against the accused
under Section 302 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
Therefore, the case was posted for trial.
7. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.34 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to
M.O.12 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was
examined.
8. After a full trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in default,
to undergo two years simple imprisonment against which, the present
Criminal Appeal has been filed on the following among other grounds :-
a. That the trial Court ought to have considered that the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
11/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020of P.W.1 was not supported by any of the eyewitnesses.
b. That the trial Court ought to have considered that according to
the prosecution case on the receipt of the intimation from Government
Hospital, Kaana Vilakku received the statement at about 10:45 hrs from
P.W.1 by P.W.33 Sub Inspector of Police. But per contra, P.W.1 himself
admitted that occurrence date (23-03-2015) night itself, P.W.1 went to the
Police Station and lodged the complaint. The prosecution suppressed the
earlier complaint given by P.W.1.
c. That the Trial Court failed to note that the accused was arrested
on 24-04-2015 at about 3:30 P.M. near Andipatti Vijayalakshmi Private
Hospital in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8. Per contra, P.W.1 admitted
that on the date of occurrence, at about 10:30 P.M., the police brought the
accused. So, the arrest and recovery are falsified by the defence.
d. That the Trial Court ought to have considered that the evidence
of P.W.3 Kannan, Astrologer categorically admits that on the occurrence
date at about 11:00 P.M., he only saw the accused in the Police Station.
Before that P.W.3 admits he did not see the accused in the alleged
occurrence spot as alleged by the prosecution.
e. That the Trial Court failed to note that P.W.9 one Manivel also
admitted that the next day to the occurrence around 11:00 A.M. he went
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
12/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020along with P.W.5 one Kannan and saw the accused in the Police Station.
It is pertinent to note that he admitted the defence side’s suggestion that
P.W.9 along with P.W.5 went to the Police Station around 11:00 a.m. The
next day to the occurrence and saw the accused in the Police Station.
f. That the trial Court failed to consider that P.W.5 one Kannan
(husband of deceased) also admitted that at about 3:35 A.M. on
24-05-2015 he saw the accused in the Police Station.
g. That the trial Court failed to note that P.W.4 Muthu
Venkatakrishnan, who is the owner of Muthukannan Complex admitted
that the Police came at about 09.00 A.M., and the Police Officials
directed not to clean blood at the scene of the occurrence.
h. That the prosecution failed to establish the case against the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the judgment of the
trial Court is liable to be set aside.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
10. Now this court has to decide whether the judgement
rendered by the trial Court is proper or liable to be set aside ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
13/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
11. On careful perusal of the entire records, the prosecution
case that unfolds from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.34 are as follows:
(i) PW1 in chief examination deposed about the affair
between the accused and the deceased, a Police complaint filed by the
wife of the accused and an enquiry was conducted by Police Officer, she
further stated that the accused often called her sister to accompany him to
Mumbai, but she refused. On 23.04.2015, at about 8.15 hours while she
and her sister were on the way to meet the astrologer, the accused
intercepted and created problem. She cautioned him and then met the
astrologer Kannan and sitting in his office along with her sister. The
Astrologer received a phone call and stepped outside. The accused came
and shouted at her sister that she should not live and took the knife which
he kept hidden with him and stabbed her below the left chest. When she
prevented him, again stabbed her on the right side neck and face and
inflicted injuries. The blood oozed from her body hit on her dresses viz.,
saree and blouse, both raised alarm and the astrologer came inside and
assaulted the accused, he left the place. Both she and the astrologer took
her sister in an auto to Dr.Murali. Dr.Murali, asked them to take her to
Ka.Vilakku Government Hospital. Therefore, she took her sister in the
police ambulance and admitted to the Ka.Vilakku Government Hospital.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
14/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
The Doctor examined her and informed her that her sister was dead, after
that she informed the same to her husband and mother and lodged the
complaint.
(ii) P.W.2, mother of the deceased and the complainant, who
is a hear-say witness deposed that P.W.1 informed about the death of her
daughter and she had gone to the hospital and saw the dead body.
(iii) P.W.3, Thiru. Kannan Astrologer deposed that he was
running Om Shakti Astrology Centre. P.W.1 approached him to have her
horoscope read and he asked her to return after two months. One and half
months back while he was in his shop, the witness Jeeva called him and
enquired about her horoscope. She also mentioned that she needed to see
her sister’s horoscope read. Therefore, he asked her to come to his office
at about 8.15 hours, both the complainant and the deceased Suriyakumari
came to his office. At that time, he received a call from his friend,
Gunasekaran regarding a Temple festival. Therefore, he asked the
complainant and the deceased to wait, while he was speaking with his
friend next to his shop, during that time, he heard a noise coming from
the shop. Immediately, he rushed inside the shop and saw the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
15/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
hurriedly running with a knife, upon entering, he saw Suriyakumari
injured. He and PW1 carried her down and sent her in an auto to the
Doctor for treatment. He received information from the hospital that
Suriyakumari had died. The blood of the deceased hit in his shirt while
he departed her into the auto and the same was handed over to the police.
(iv) P.W.4, Thiru. Alagarsamy, husband of PW1 deposed
about the Motive for the occurrence. He stated that both the accused and
the deceased had an illegal affair. The wife of the accused complained
about it to the Police and all agreed on the accused should not trouble the
deceased. He also stated that on the date of occurrence, PW1 called him
and informed him that the accused stabbed Suriyakumari and she died
due to the injury sustained by her.
(v) P.W.5, Thiru. Kannan, husband of the deceased also
spoke about the illegal relationship of his wife had with the accused and
therefore, he left his wife in his mother-in-law’s house.
(vi) P.W.6, Thiru. Parasuraman, the Village Administrative
Officer, spoke about the arrest, confession of the accused and recovery of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
16/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
the weapon
(vii) P.W.7 Thiru. Kannayiram spoke about the preparation
of observation Mahazar and the rough sketch by the Investigation
Officer.
(viii) P.W.8 Thiru. Jeyakumar, one of the witnesses in the
observation mahazar and rough sketch, did not support the prosecution
case, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public
Prosecutor.
(ix) P.W.10 Thiru. Murugesan deposed that the accused
attempted to commit suicide one week before the occurrence and was
admitted to the hospital, on enquiry, he stated that due to family
problems, he consumed poison.
(x) P.W.11 and P.W.12 turned hostile, not supporting the
prosecution case.
(xi) P.W.13 Selvi. Yoga, daughter of PW1 deposed about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
17/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
problem between the deceased and accused before the occurrence.
(xii) P.W.14 Thiru. Muthu Venkatakrishnan, owner of the
building in which the deceased was killed, deposed that on the date of
occurrence at about 9.00 hours P.W.3 informed him that the accused
killed the deceased.
(xiii) P.W.15, P.W.16 and P.W.17 are hearsay witnesses.
(xiv) P.W.19 deposed that the viscera of the deceased were
subjected to chemical analysis and revealed that there were no poison
substances in the viscera. The viscera report was marked as Ex.P8. P.W.
19 Doctor Juliana Jeyanthi spoke about the postmortem, injuries
sustained by the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to
have died due to the injuries sustained by her in serial No.1.
(xv) P.W.20 Dr.Muralidharan, deposed that the deceased
Suriyakumari was brought by her sister P.W.1 at about 8:30 hours. On
examination, he found injuries on her left chest, right neck left cheek, she
was very serious, and he had requested them to take her to Ka. Vilakku
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
18/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
Government Hospital for further treatment.
(xvi) P.W.21, Tmt.Chellam, the wife of the accused said that
her husband consumed poison and was admitted to the hospital, when
she enquired with him, he stated that he incurred loss in his business. She
further stated that her husband was involved in a money-lending
business. A complaint was pending at Batlagundu Police, her father
preferred the complaint.
(xvii) P.W. 22 Thiru. Ashokpandi, deposed about handing
over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.23 Thiru. Virumandi spoke
about the receipt of the dead body for postmortem and handed over the
dead body for final rituals.
(xviii) P.W.25 Thiru. Udayakumar spoke about the receipt of
material objects from the Andipatti Police Station.
(xix) P.W.26, Thiru. Prasath took photographs of
Suriyakumari, the deceased, and the place of occurrence and handed over
to the Inspector of Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
19/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
(xx) P.W.27 and P.W28, deposed that they had typed the
statement of witnesses as per the instruction instructions given by the
Inspector of Police.
(xxi) P.W.29 Thiru. Vijayendiran, Scientific Officer, Madurai
Forensic Science Department, deposed about the receipt of M.O.1 to
M.O.13 and found that blood stains in M.O.1, M.O.3 to M.O.13, and the
blood group found in all the items belonging to ‘A’ group. Biological
Report was marked as Ex.P13 and Serology Report was marked as
Ex.P14.
(xxii) P.W.30 Thiru.Ravi, Sub Inspector of Police deposed
about the receipt of complaint No.185/15 from the Chellam wife of the
accused, Gunasekaran and issued C.S.R.No.185/15. He also stated that
he summoned the deceased Suriyakumari, her mother Chandra, her sister
Jeeva (PW1.), and complainant Chellam and made an enquiry and the
opposite party agreed to settle the money and made a written
endorsement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
20/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
(xxiii) P.W.33 Mrs Pandiyammal, Sub Inspector of Police,
spoke about the registration of FIR on 24.04.2015 at about 1.00 hours
and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Office and other officers.
(xxiv) P.W.34, Thiru. Nallu, Inspector of Police, spoke about
the investigation, preparation of observation mahazar, rough sketch,
arrest, confession, recovery and recording statement of witnesses, after
completion of the investigation, filing the charge sheet.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State argued that PW1 an eye witness to the occurrence, clearly
described the occurrence. P.W.3 in whose office the incident took place
stated that soon after the occurrence, he saw the accused with a weapon
in the place of occurrence and sent the victim to the hospital. The motive
for the occurrence was established by the prosecution by examining the
witness. On the weapon recovered from the accused, the dresses worn
by the accused were collected by the Investigating Officer and sent for
chemical analysis, found blood stains in all the material objects and also
found the same group viz., ‘A’ blood group. The arrest, confession of the
accused and recovery of weapon from the accused were proved. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
21/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence. There is no
extraordinary delay in filing FIR. The prosecution proved the case
beyond all reasonable doubt. He submitted that there was no need to
interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and prayed for the dismissal
of the Criminal Appeal.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that one
Thiru. Kaviarasu, Police Constable admitted the deceased in Ka. Vilakku
Government Hospital. The Investigating Officer failed to examine the
Police Constable, the prosecution purposely suppressed the AR entry. It
is proved that even before the existence of Ex.P1, the police came to the
scene of the occurrence and admitted the deceased to the hospital.
14. He further argued that the presence of PW1 is highly
doubtful and she is a chance witness. She has not witnessed the
occurrence. Therefore, her evidence has to be eschewed. He further
argued that the evidence of PW1 was not supported by any of the
independent witnesses. The trial Court failed to appreciate the landmark
judgement in the Vadivel Thevar case reported in AIR 1957, page 614.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
22/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
15. On scrutiny of entire records and evidence, it is admitted
by the Investigation Officer that, one Kaviarasan accompanied the dead
body. PW1, in her evidence clearly stated that soon after the occurrence,
her sister was taken to Dr.Murali, for treatment who had examined her
sister requested her to take the victim to Ka.Vilaku Government Hospital.
Thereafter, she took her sister in a police ambulance to Ka.Vilaku
Government Hospital. The evidence of PW1 also corroborated with
evidence of P.W.20, Dr Muralidharan, who first attended the deceased.
He clearly stated that at about 8:30 PM, PW1, brought her sister,
Suriyakumari with injuries, after examination, he found that the patient
was very serious and requested P.W.1 to take her immediately to the
Government Hospital. The prosecution does not dispute that soon after
the occurrence the victim Suriyakumari was taken to Dr.Muralidharan
P.W.20 for first-aid by P.W.1. Since she had sustained grievous injuries,
the Doctor found her to be in serious condition and advised PW1 to
transfer her to a Government Hospital for treatment. Following the
Doctor’s advise, PW1 took her sister in a police ambulance to the
Government Hospital Although the prosecution does not concede that
the victim was transferred in a Police ambulance, but not examined the
Head Constable. The failure to examine the Constable is not fatal to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
23/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
prosecution case.
16. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the
Appellant is that the presence of PW1 is doubtful is not correct, as the
presence of PW1 was spoken by PW3, the astrologer, Thiru.Kannan. He
clearly stated that both PW1 and the deceased came to his astrology
centre for consultation. At that time, he received a call and went outside,
both PW1 and the deceased raised alarm, when he entered his office, he
saw the accused run with a knife. Immediately, himself and PW1 took her
through the staircase to the hospital. The blood-stained sandal and
maroon checked saree M.O.2, rose colour blouse M.O.3 were seized
from the PW1, by the Investigating Officer, which is evident from
form-91 dated 24.4.2015 and the property was received by the Judicial
Magistrate Court in RPR.No.91/15 which forms part of the record of the
trial Court. The blood stains found in the place of occurrence and the
blood stain found in the dresses handed over by PW1, match the blood
stain found in the dresses worn by the deceased., Though the learned
counsel for the appellant argued that the presence of PW1 is doubtful,
however, in their cross-examination suggested that PW1 and the
deceased had a quarrel over a money transaction, during which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
24/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
deceased attempted to commit suicide and PW1 tried to prevent her. In
the scuffle, the deceased sustained injury and died, indicating that the
defence counsel admitted the presence of PW1.
17. In Vadivel Thevar’s case reported in AIR 1957-page 614,
this Court had gone into the controversy and divided the estimate of the
witness into three categories, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was observed that
“In the first category of proof, the Court
should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion
either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony
of a single witness if it is found to be above reproach or
suspicion of interested-ness, incompetence or
subordination.
In the second category, the Court equally
has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion
It is in the third category of cases, that the
Court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material evidence by reliable testimony,
direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in
insisting on a plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the
quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts
were to insist on the plurality of witnesses in proof of any
fact, they would be indirectly, encouraging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
25/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
subornation of witnesses.”
18. On scrutiny, it revealed that the presence of PW1 was
supported by P.W.3, Thiru.Kannan, Astrologer, P.W.20
Dr.Muralidharan supported the version of P.W.1. P.W.20 by clearly
stating that within a short span of the incident, P.W.1 brought the victim
for treatment. The dresses worn by PW1 were handed over to the
Investigating Officer. P.W.3 who had taken the victim with PW1 from
the place of occurrence had also handed over his shirt with blood stains.
The dresses of P.W.1 and P.W.3 tallied with blood stains found in the
place of occurrence and dresses worn by the deceased.
19. P.W.2, mother of the deceased stated that shortly before
the incident P.W.1 came to her house and took the deceased to an
Astrologer. Later, P.W.1 informed her that the victim Suriyakumari had
been attacked by the accused and had sustained injuries. Immediately,
she went to Ka.Vilaku hospital where she saw the dead body. The Sub
Inspector of Police P.W.33 recorded the complaint statement from the
PW1 at Ka.Vilaku Government Hospital and P.W.2 also attested in the
complaint. Her signature found a place in Ex.P1 complaint. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
26/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
evidence of P.W.2 is also relevant. Further, the evidence of PW1
corroborated with medical evidence, ExP.9 – Postmortem report.
20. Further Section 134 of the Indian Evidence provides that
‘No particular number of witnesses shall in any
case be required for the proof of any fact’.
21. Therefore number of witnesses is not essential to prove
guilt, the quality of evidence, not the quantity is what matters meaning, a
single credible witness can be enough to establish guilt of the accused if
the testimony of a single witness convincing the Court beyond
reasonable doubt.
22. The further point raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the arrest, confession and recovery not properly proved.
As per the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 24.04.2015 at about
3:30 PM near Andipatti Vijayalakshmi Private Hospital in the presence of
PW7 and PW8. But P.W.1 during cross examination admitted that on the
occurrence date night at about 10.30 PM, the Police brought the accused
into the Police Station.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
27/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
23. He further argued that P.W.3 Thiru. Kannan, Astrologer
also admitted that he saw the accused in the Police Station before his
arrest. Likewise PW9 also admitted that he saw the accused at 11.00 AM
in the Police Station. Therefore, arrest and recovery are falsified by the
defence.
24. We carefully scrutinized the entire records. PW1 was
examined on 4.11.2016, she was not cross-examined by the accused
immediately. She was cross-examined on 6.12.2017 after a petition to
recall and cross-examination, P.W.3, Kannan was also examined on
24.11.2016 and was cross-examined on 9.7.2018. The defence counsel
took one year to cross-examine PW1, and one-and-a-half years to cross-
examine PW3, who were the key witnesses. It is to be noted that a long
gap in the cross-examination can significantly increase the chance of a
witness being wonover, meaning that due to the time elapsed between
their initial testimony and cross-examination, they may be influenced to
change their story or become less reliable, potentially benefiting the
opposite party, this is often seen as a concern for fairness in the trial
proceedings as it can cast doubt as the witness credibility.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
28/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
25. We rely upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.906 of 2023 in Selvamani Vs. State, rep.
by Inspector of Police, dated 08.05.2024. In the above judgement, the
Apex Court referred to the judgement reported in Vinodh Kumar Vs.
The State of Punjab, in pargraph No.11, in which it was observed that
“11. In the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab, this Court has observed thus:
51.It is necessary, though painful, to note that
PW7 was examined in chief on 30.09.1999 and was
cross-examined on 25.05.2001, almost after one year
and eight months. The delay in the said cross-
examination, as stated earlier had given enough time
for prevarication due to many reasons. A fair trial is
to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as
well as to the victim. Under the Prevention of
Corruption Act used to be tried with all seriousness,
we failed to appreciate how the learned trial Courts
could exhibit such laxity in granting so much time for
cross-examination in a case of this nature. It would
have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the
learned trial Judge to finish the cross-examination on
the day the said witness was examined. As is evident,
for no reason whatsoever it was deferred and cross-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
29/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
examination took place after 20 months The witness
had all the time in the world to be gained over. We
have already opined that he was declared hostile and
re-examined…..”
26. P.W.1 and P.W.3 during chief examination categorically
supported the prosecution case, their evidence was supported by medical
evidence and forensic evidence. The defence counsel did not chose to
cross-examine the witness immediately after the chief examination. But
as per Section 309 of Cr.P.C a witness should be cross-examined soon
after the chief examination, which was not followed by the defence
counsel.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that
the witnesses admitted that they adduced evidence as per the instruction
of police officials which is against the law and referred judgement in
Manikandan Vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2024 (2)
MLJ (Crl.) 255 (SC).
28. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that
the accused was kept in unlawful custody and recovery made from him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
30/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
has not been proved.
29. The remand report of the accused was perused by this
Court, while remanding the accused he had not complained about the
illegal police custody or torture. The endorsement made by the Judicial
Magistrate while remanding the accused clearly shows that there is no
complaint about the illegal custody by the accused. The material objects.
Viz blood-stained knife, blood-stained black striped white shirt, blood-
stained blue colour checked lungi were recovered from the accused in the
presence of PW6. The above-said material objects, along with the
dresses recovered from the dead body, dresses worn by PW1, PW3, were
sent to the forensic department for biological test as well as group test.
Ex.P13 is the biological test shows that, except ordinary earth, all the
material objects contained blood stains. The serology report under
Ex.P14 shows that in all the above materials, human blood was found
with A-group. If the accused is not available in the place of occurrence
his dress, could not contain the blood Stain and not belong to the same
group of blood which was recovered in the place of occurrence, in the
dresses worn by the deceased.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
31/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
30. The learned defence counsel after the lapse of the long
gap, since the chief examination, won over the witnesses and obtained
few some favourable answers in his cross examination. They now claims
that they were tutored by Police, but we presume that the witness would
have been tutored not by the Police side but by the opposite side.
31. The Apex Court in the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.906
of 2023 in Selvamani Vs. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, dated
08.05.2024, the judgement referred supra indicates what happens if long
adjournments are granted.
“57.2. As has been noticed earlier, in the
instant case the cross-examination has taken place
after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to
pressurise the witness and to gain over him by
adopting all kinds of tactics.
57.3. There is no cavil over the proposition that
there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of
the court while conducting the trial is to be guided by
the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and
above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive
at the truth on the basis of the material brought on
record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on
the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
32/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
The court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is
conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in
this manner it would tantamount to violation of the
rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce.
It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially
abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to
follow the command of the procedure relating to trial
and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant
adjournment for non-acceptable reasons.
57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a
witness for cross-examination after such a long span
of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is
over, the cross-examination should be completed on
the same day. If the examination of a witness
continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to
the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable
in law that the cross-examination should be deferred
for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of
proper and fair trial.
57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not
only the interest of the accused as per law is protected
but also the societal and collective interest is
safeguarded. It is distressing to note that despite
series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting
adjournment, really an ailment, continues…..”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
33/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
32. The above Judgement is squarely applicable to this case
also. The trial Courts are duty bound to curtail such long adjournments so
that, it prevents the defence counsel from winning over witnesses, but
continuing long adjournments will pave the path to miscarriage of
justice.
33. In this case, it is proved that before the occurrence, the
accused and deceased had a money transaction and developed an illegal
affair, regarding which the wife of the accused lodged a complaint
against the deceased before the Batlakundu Police Station. The accused
attempted to commit suicide due to family issues, the wife of accused
spoke about the same. Her evidence was supported by PW4, the husband
of the deceased. In his testimony he had stated that due to the illegal
affair with the accused, he left the deceased in her parent home, took his
children with him and left to his house.
34. P.W.1 clearly stated that thereafter the accused often
pressurised the deceased to accompany him to Mumbai, but she refused.
Despite her refusal, he continued to follow her and insisted that she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
34/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
should come with him, but she refused. Angered by her repeated refusal,
on the date of the incident, he followed the deceased with the weapon
with intention to cause death. Finally, he stabbed her chest, a vital organ,
knowing it would be an imminent danger to her life and sufficient to
cause her death. Thus he had committed the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
35. The prosecution established the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court, after taking into
consideration the materials available on record, held that the accused was
guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Interference with the
judgment of the trial Court is not warranted.
36. On careful perusal of entire records, we conclude that
there is no material available to interfere with the judgment of the trial
Court. The Criminal Appeal has no merit, and hence, the Criminal
Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and
the judgment passed in S.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
35/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni, dated 25.11.2019 is
hereby confirmed.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
27.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
36/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court, Theni.
2.The The Inspector of Police,
Andipatty Police Station,
Theni District.
(in Cr.No.204 of 2015)
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
37/38
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 04:20:17 pm )
38/38
[ad_1]
Source link