Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, allowed multiple criminal appeals filed by the accused and dismissed the appeals preferred by the State. The Bench set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court in connection with charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the appellants. The Court further directed refund of fine amounts paid and cancellation of bail bonds. The appeals filed by the State challenging acquittals were dismissed.

The prosecution originated from a complaint lodged on 15 July 2003 by Sankar, a garlic dealer, alleging that his son Kuppusamy and one Sundarajan were attacked and killed by a group of persons led by Natesan (A1). According to the complaint, Sundarajan had earlier confronted Natesan over repeated complaints, leading to a violent attack near Veeranam bus stand. Following this, the accused allegedly pursued Kuppusamy, who attempted to flee, but was caught and fatally injured near the residence of Anai Gounder. Sundarajan, who was initially assaulted, was later taken in an auto-rickshaw to the Mariamman Temple at Pallikoodathanur, where he was allegedly done to death.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Witness Protection Scheme Not Substitute For Bail Cancellation | Allahabad High Court’s Cyclostyled Orders Deprec­ated | Matter Remanded For Fresh Decision

The investigation was conducted by Inspector Sundarajan (PW24) and later by Deputy Superintendent Palanivelu (PW25). Material objects including blood-stained stones, logs, and earth samples were seized from the crime scenes. Two inquests were conducted for the deceased, followed by post-mortem examinations. The police filed an initial charge sheet against 24 accused under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC, which was later supplemented with charges under Section 120B. The prosecution contended that longstanding enmity between the deceased and the accused, particularly linked to political and local temple disputes, had motivated the assault.

At trial, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses (PW1–PW25), marking exhibits Ex.P1–P44 and producing material objects MO1–MO16. The defence examined 11 witnesses (DW1–DW11) and introduced documents including Ex.D1–D5, notably a report by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Ex.D2) suggesting alternative circumstances to the incident. The trial court, however, convicted several accused under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment with fines, while acquitting others.

The Court recorded its observations with reference to the RDO report (Ex. D2): “When a defence document had been produced, it is the duty of the trial court to refer to the same and either accept or reject it. It is not open to the court to ignore the document altogether. Perhaps, if these documents had been analysed by the trial court, the conclusion might have been different. Ignoring the same totally cannot be treated as an acceptable form of disposal.”

On contradictions among witnesses, the Court cited Supreme Court precedents, observing: “Trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict the accused persons. At the same time, the evidence given by even half a dozen or more number of witnesses, who are untrustworthy, are not enough to sustain conviction.” The Bench stated that it was necessary to weigh the evidence and not count it.

Examining the ocular evidence, the Bench noted inconsistencies. Regarding PW1 to PW5, the Court observed contradictions on crucial aspects such as whether Sundarajan died on PW1’s lap, whether knives and stones were placed near his body, and the number of persons present at the scene. “Looking at them in isolation, the evidence might have a ring of truth to them. However, when looked at cumulatively and taking into consideration that PW1 to PW5 are the close relatives of the deceased, Sundarajan, the ocular evidence do not corroborate each other, but as pointed out above, they are also contradictory.”

On PW6 and PW7’s evidence relating to Kuppusamy, the Bench recorded that there were contradictions on whether Selvaraj (A12) or Thiyagarajan (A11) attacked PW6 with a cycle chain, and that no recovery of cycle chain or medical records was made. The Court also noted delays in forwarding Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements to the Magistrate, absence of independent witnesses despite many villagers being present, and inconsistencies about sequence of events at the three alleged crime scenes.

Regarding recoveries, the Bench stated: “Though PW1 to PW5 and PW6 to PW10 stated that Sundarajan and Kuppusamy were done to death in front of Mariamman temple and near Anai Gounder’s house respectively, the seizure mahazar filed under Ex. P5 and Ex. P7 do not reflect any seizure of weapons. The prosecution had examined PW19, the Police photographer in support of their case. In his evidence, he categorically deposed that no blood stained weapons were found in the Veemanur bus stand at 11.30 pm on 15.07.2003, when he arrived there to take photographs.”

The Court also recorded that despite allegations of rain on the night of occurrence, blood-stained earth was claimed to have been seized, which raised doubts. “If that be the factual position, it is highly improbable that the material object with blood stains could have been recovered thereafter. This is more so because the serology report does not conclude the blood grouping of the alleged objects with that of the deceased.”

On appeals against acquittals, the Bench referred to Supreme Court jurisprudence and stated: “The finding of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court can be interfered with by the High Court only if the judgment of the acquittal suffers from patent perversity or is based on misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record or when two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and unreliable. “After overall analysis of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the evidence of the witnesses are ridden with contradictions. Since it is not supported by any independent witnesses, there is not only insufficiency of evidence but we are not able to come to a conclusion of the trustworthiness of the evidence marched by the prosecution.”

Also Read: Madras High Court | NCLT Cannot Disregard Applicant’s Proposed IRP Under Section 16(2) IBC Absent Disciplinary Proceedings | Tribunal’s Substitution Set Aside

The Bench recorded its final directions: “In criminal jurisprudence, when a doubt is created in the case of the prosecution by the accused, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. That being the position, we are constrained to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.”

 “Consequently, the appeals preferred by the accused viz., Crl.A.No.298 of 2018, Crl.A.No.299 of 2018, Crl.A.No.340 of 2018, Crl.A.No.422 of 2018, Crl.A.No.426 of 2018, Crl.A.No.560 of 2018 and Crl.A.No.654 of 2018 are allowed and the appeals preferred by the State in Crl.A.No.1227 of 2022 and Crl.A.No.1228 of 2022 are dismissed. The order of the trial court under Section 149 read with 302 is set aside. The appellants... are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid will be refunded to them.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. R. Marudhachalamurthy, Mr. A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr. G. Pugazhenthi, Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, Mr. S. Jeyakumar.

For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: Dharmalingam (A13) & Ors. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem District

Case Number: Crl.A.No.298, 299, 340, 422, 426, 560, 654 of 2018 & Crl.A.Nos.1227 & 1228 of 2022

Bench: Justice M.S. Ramesh, Justice V. Lakshminarayanan