(Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS to call for records of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thirupathur in S.C.No.28/2024 dated 26.08.2025, convicting the appellant u/s 366,376B and 302 r/w 201 of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default an imprisonment of 1 year for offence u/s 366, imprisonment of 7 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo 1 year imprisonment for offence u/s 376B, Life imprisonment for an offence u/s 302 along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo 1 year imprisonment, and 3 years simple imprisonment for an offence u/s 201 r/w 302, along with a fine of Rs.5000 and in default to undergo a sentence of 6 months, and set aside the same.)

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Thirupathur has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2025.

2. The appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:

                  

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

                   3.1. The deceased was a college-going girl. According to the prosecution, the deceased and the accused had a love affair and subsequently, without the knowledge and consent of the parents of the deceased, they got married on 16.07.2014 and the marriage was registered on the same day before the Subregistrar, Krishnagiri. Even after the marriage, the deceased continued to reside in her parents' house and attend college.

                   3.2. On 07.11.2014, as usual, she went to the college. At about 09.30 to 10.00 a.m., PW1, the brother of the deceased, received a phone call from PW10 and PW12 informing him that the deceased had met with an accident. Immediately PW1 rushed to Bethesda Hospital, Ambur where the deceased had initially been admitted. Based on the advice of the doctors at Bethesda Hospital, PW1 and his family members took the deceased to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore where she was declared dead on 08.11.2014.

                   3.3.It is the case of PW1 that, after four days after the death of the deceased, he enquired with one Rajagopal, who informed him that the accused had taken the deceased in an auto to the dilapidated TANSI Godown on 07.11.2014 based on which PW1 lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). PW10, an auto driver, has stated that while he was driving his auto about 100 feet behind accused's auto on Vaniyambadi - Ambur Road, he saw a girl falling down from the accused's auto. The accused immediately stopped his auto and PW10 also stopped his auto and helped the accused to take the injured to the hospital viz., Bethesda Hospital. PW10 further states that there were two other passengers in his auto and that he asked one Umapathy to take the auto. Thereafter, PW10 informed PW1 and his family members about the accident.

                   3.4.PW12 was also known to the deceased. According to PW12, he stood as a witness to the marriage between the deceased and the accused at the Sub- Registrar Office, Krishnagiri along with PW17. The Sub-Registrar (PW19) issued Ex.P13, the marriage certificate. PW12 further stated that on 07.11.2024, when he was standing near the TANSI bus stand, he saw the deceased falling from the auto and he also accompanied PW10 and the accused while taking the deceased to Bethesda Hospital where she was admitted. Thereafter, based on the advice of the doctors at Bethesda Hospital, the deceased was taken to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore.

                   3.5.PW18, who is also an auto-driver and known to the accused, on coming to know about the accident, went to Bethesda Hospital and on the instruction of the doctors at Bethesda Hospital, informed PW1 about the incident. PW24, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registered the case in Crime No.448 of 2014 on 08.11.2024 under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and forwarded the FIR to the Court and sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Adukamparai for postmortem. Later PW24 went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (ExP2) and rough sketch (Ex.P18) in the presence of PWs 7 and 8.

                   3.6. PW9, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Adukamparrai conducted autopsy over the deceased and found the following injuries:

                   "1. Contused abrasions (R) side of the forehead, back of shoulder (R) side, back of both elbows, back of (R) thigh.

                   2. Sutured lacerated wound back of scalp (more on the (R) Side) 4 cm length * bone deep (The above injuries are about 36 to 48 hrs old)

                   3. The skin on the front and sides of neck is chaffed with irregular scratch abrasions and contusions on both sides of adam's apple.

                   4. The inner aspect of upper part of both thighs show irregular scratch abrasions and contusions

                   5. On examination of the genitalia, hymen is ruptured, 3, 9, 12 'o' clock positions with contusion and bleeding of vaginal mucosa. On dissection of neck:

                   The soft tissues show contusion with extravasations of blood in the superficial and deeper planes. There is periosteal hemorrhage surrounding the hyoid bore. Hyoid bone intact. The soft tissues surrounding the laryngeal cartilage contused with extravasations of blood.

                   On dissection of the scalp, skull and dura:

                   Sub scalpal contusion in the back of parietal and occipital regions. Fracture of valut of skull, posterior part of (R) parietal region. Marked subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage (R) cerebral hemisphere. Peritoneal and pleural cavities: Empty. Heart: normal. All chambers contain a few cc of fluid blood.

                   Coronaries:Patent. Lungs: Congested. Stomach: Contains 60 ml gray coloured fluid with normal smell.

                   Mucosa: Normal. Small intestine; Nil Specific. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Congested. Bladder: Empty. Uterus: Cavity Empty."

                   3.7. PW9 issued Post Mortem Certificate (Ex.P3) opining that the deceased appear to have died of compression of neck structures and evidence of sexual assault noted in the external genitalia.

                   3.9.PW23-Consultant Neuro-surgeon at CMC Hospital, Vellore stated that the injured was initially brought to the hospital on 07.11.2014 and was treated for severe head injuries, right frontal parietal skull fracture, diffused global oedema and issued Ex.P16-Death summary and opined that cause of death is due to severe head injury and haemorrhage in the brain.

                   3.10.Later on 14.12.2024, on receipt of the post-mortem certificate from the Government Hospital, Adukamparai and on seeing that the deceased suffered injuries in her genitalia region, nail injuries and injuries in and around the neck and that she had been subjected to sexual assault and strangulation, PW24 altered the section of law to Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. In continuation of the investigation, he arrested the accused and recorded his confession in the presence of PW14 and PW15 and he recovered MOs 1 to 4. The admissible portion of the confession is Ex.P8. After the completion of the investigation, PW24 laid a final report.

4. The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 376, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Of Harassment Of Women Act, 1998 .

5. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. He denied all the incriminating circumstances as false. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded.

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 24 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and Material Objects MO1 to MO4 were marked.

7. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, by judgment dated 26.08.2025, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 366, 376(B), 302, 201 r/w.302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has convicted the accused without there being any evidence against him. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the accused caused any injury. The testimonies of PW1 to PW6, who are relatives of the deceased show that they were unhappy with the fact that the deceased had married the accused. In fact, the family of the deceased had opposed the marriage, and therefore, it is submitted that since the deceased and the accused were moving together despite their objection, taking advantage of the accident involving the deceased, they falsely implicated the accused. It is his further contention that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused caused homicidal violence. It is argued that the evidence of PW10 and PW12 clinchingly establishes that they saw the deceased falling from the auto and that immediately PW10 helped the accused to take the deceased to the hospital and PW10 and PW12 also accompanied the accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of PW1 also clearly indicates that only after receiving the call from PW10, he rushed to the hospital. It is also the evidence of PW1 that as the injuries were severe in nature, the doctors of Bethesda Hospital, Ambur referred the deceased to the CMC Hospital and hence, PW1 and other family members took the deceased to the CMC Hospital, Vellore. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused committed homicidal violence on the deceased.

9. Admittedly, the deceased and the accused were married on 16.07.2014. The evidence of PW10, and PW19, the Sub-Registrar and the Investigating Officer (PW24) clearly establishes that the accused and the deceased were already married. Therefore, merely because the postmortem certificate indicates that the hymen was not intact, the same cannot be a ground to infer that the deceased had been subjected to sexual assault prior to her death. The testimony of PW23 and Ex.P16 clearly show that the deceased was given continuous treatment. In fact, she was monitored at CMC Hospital. Therefore, the possibility of treatment related injuries also cannot be ruled out. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence connecting the accused with the injuries sustained by the deceased.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the medical evidence clinchingly establishes the homicidal death. The post-mortem certificate clearly shows that there were fresh injuries on the private part of the deceased and the deceased was last seen with the accused and there is no explanation offered by the deceased for the same. Hence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

11. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

12. Originally the investigation commenced on the basis of complaint lodged by PW1 under Ex.P1 for the death of his sister. The deceased is the daughter of PW5 and PW6. A careful perusal of PW1's evidence clearly shows that the deceased as usual went to college on 07.11.2014 and that, at about 09.30-10.00am, he received a call from PW10 and PW12 that his sister met with an accident and admitted in Bethesda Hospital, Ambur. PW1 also rushed to the hospital along with his family members and found that the deceased sustained head injuries. Thereafter, as per the advice of doctors at Bethesda Hospital, Ambur, the deceased was taken to the CMC Hospital, Vellore, but she died on 08.11.2014. Though initially Ex.P1 was filed as a case of accidental death, later the witnesses took a different stand stating that the deceased was subjected to sexual assault and done to death. This fact surfaced only after the Post-mortem and issuance of the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P3).

13. PW9 is the postmortem doctor at Adukamparai Government Hospital, Vellore. He has conducted the autopsy and issued Ex.P3. According to the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy, the deceased appeared to have died due to compression of neck structures and there was evidence of sexual assault noted on the external genitalia.

14. It is relevant to note that the deceased was originally admitted to Bethesda Hospital, Ambur by PW10 and PW12 and accused. It is the specific evidence of PW10 and PW12 that the deceased fell down from the running auto and immediately thereafter, they took her to the hospital along with the accused. PW10 further gone to the extent of saying that he stopped his auto and as there were two passengers in his auto, he called his friend Umapathi to take the auto from the said place and PW10 drew the auto of the accused and the accused held the deceased in the back seat of the auto and admitted in the hospital. It is his further evidence that they immediately informed PW1 over phone. PW1 also asserts in his evidence that he received the information only through PW10 and PW12 and on receiving the information, he along with his family members rushed to Bethesda Hospital, Ambur and thereafter, on the instructions of the doctors at Bethesda Hospital, he took the deceased to CMC, Vellore on the same day and there also, they gave a statement to the effect that the deceased suffered injury in the accident.

15. A careful perusal of Ex.P16-death summary issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore and marked through PW23, reveals that the deceased had suffered a serious head injury. Since she became hypotensive, she was managed with fluid resuscitation and inotropic supports. She subsequently developed high urine output, suggestive of diabetes insipidus, for which she was treated with vasopressin infusion. The report also clearly shows that she was brought to the causality after being intubated outside. The very fact that she had been intubated outside before being admitted to the causality indicates that she was already on ventilatory support and that, she had thereafter received intensive treatment. The evidence of PW22 shows that she died in their hospital on 08.11.2015 at 01.45 pm due to the severe head injury and bleeding in the brain. Nowhere in the evidence of PW22 it is stated that any serious injury was noted on the vagina and it is the definite case of the Medical Officer attached to CMC Hospital, Vellore, that the deceased died solely due to the head injury and bleeding in the brain. Ex.P16, as discussed above, clearly indicates that before she was brought to the hospital, she had been intubated and was on artificial support. The post-mortem doctor noticed some abrasions around the neck, which may be attributable to the treatment provided to the deceased. However, post-mortem report appears to suggest that the deceased died solely due to compression of the neck.

16. Ex.P16 indicates that there are no other injuries were found on the body of the deceased, whereas the post-mortem was conducted after the body had been shifted to the Government Hospital. According to the Post-mortem doctor, there were some injuries around the neck, which in our opinion, may have been treatment related injuries. Admittedly, the deceased had also been intubated at CMC Hospital and excessive urine output was subsequently noticed, for which she was treated.

17. Therefore, merely because there were contusions and bleeding in the vaginal region, it cannot be concluded that the deceased died due to compression of neck or that the injuries constituted evidence of sexual assault.

18. It is relevant to note that Ex.P16 clearly indicates that the deceased was treated in their hospital for the excessive urination and she had high urine output suggestive of diabetes and was treated with vasopressin infusion. All these facts clearly show that the contusion would have occurred due to treatment.

19. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased and the accused were married. The same has been spoken to by Pws 10,12 and 17. PW19, the Sub- Registrar has also substantiated the same. The Investigating Officer, in his evidence, also admitted that the accused and deceased were married and that their marriage was registered on 16.07.2014. The testimonies of PWs1 to 6 also clearly show that they were not happy with the accused having married the deceased. In fact, PW1 denied the alleged marriage between the deceased and the accused. PW1 went to the extent of stating that marriage certificate had been fabricated by the accused. These facts show that PWs 1 to 6 are not happy with the marriage of the accused with the deceased. Therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinized with utmost care.

20. The only incriminating evidence available against the accused is Ex.P3. Merely on the basis of treatment related injuries which led to the Medical officer giving his opinion by the Medical Officer, cannot be a ground to hold that the accused has only caused the homicidal death. Further, absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the accused took away the deceased to the godown where the alleged occurrence took place.

21. It is the evidence of PW1 that as he came to know about the said fact only through one Rajagopal whereas the evidence of PW24 clearly indicates that PW1 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that he came to know about the said fact only through some other person and not through Rajagopal. These facts clearly show that PW1 and his family members bent upon implicating the accused in one way or the other since he married the deceased and ultimately she died when she was with the deceased travelling in an auto. These facts triggered the family members to take revenge on the accused to fix him in a grave crime particularly taking advantage of the postmortem certificate issued later that too after treatment.

22. Further, the evidence of PW9 and Ex.P13 cannot be given much importance for the simple reason that when brain death is caused due to severe injury as noted in Ex.P16. PW9 has opined as if the deceased died only due to the injuries surrounding the neck. He never stated that head injuries is the route cause of death. This also creates some doubt about his opinion. The injuries around the neck may be due to treatment, which the deceased had undergone including ventilation support. Therefore, we are of the view that the homicidal death has not been established whereas the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PWs10 and 12 clearly show that they are eye witnesses and their evidence remains intact and the prosecution has also relied their evidence.

23. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the charges against the accused have not been proved in the manner known to law. The trial Court, in fact, had convicted the accused without sufficient legal evidence. The charge cannot be proved merely on the basis of inference. There must be cogent and concrete evidence on the side of the prosecution. The trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and has mechanically convicted. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to set aside.

24. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 26.08.2025 made in S.C.No.28 of 2024 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand discharged. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.