(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records of the impugned judgment made in S.C.No.117 of 2022 dated 13.12.2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – III, Tirunelveli, and to set aside the same.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records of the impugned judgment made in S.C.No.292 of 2022 dated 28.11.2025, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and to set aside the same and acquit the appellant/sole accused from all the charges levelled against him.)

Common Judgment:

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by A1 to A3. Insofar as A1 and A2 are concerned, they have filed Crl.A.(MD) No.43 of 2024 assailing the judgment of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C. No.117 of 2022, dated 13.12.2023. Insofar as A3 is concerned, he has filed Crl.A. (MD) No.1388 of 2025 assailing the judgment of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C.No.292 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025. All the three accused persons have been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Esakkimuthu, was residing at Pillayar Koil Street, Rajavallipuram. The accused persons are also the residents of the same place. One Mayandi, who is the relative of the deceased was arrested by the police for illegally selling liquor. A1 is said to have given an impression to the people in the village that the deceased was also an aide to the said Mayandi for the illegal sale of liquor. There was a quarrel in this regard between A1, A2 and the deceased. Accordingly, they developed enmity and on 07.05.2020 at about 7.00 p.m., PW1, A1 to A3 were talking near Valarthiamman Temple and the father of the deceased (PW1), came there along with the deceased and questioned A1 as to why he is talking to the people in the village as if the deceased was selling liquor. The accused persons are said to have abused the deceased in a filthy language. Thereafter, A2 and A3 attacked the deceased with wooden stick indiscriminately and A1 attacked the deceased with stone. Thereafter, all the accused fled from the scene of crime. PW1 is said to have taken the deceased along with PW2 and PW3 to the Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, in a car. However, he was informed that the deceased was brought dead.

3. PW1 gave a complaint (Exhibit P1) to PW11 on 07.05.2020 at about 23.45 hours and based on the same, an FIR (Exhibit P17) came to be registered in Crime No.128 of 2020 for offence under Setions 294(b) and 302 of IPC. The express FIR was taken by PW7 and it reached the Court on 08.05.2020 at 2.35 a.m.

4. The investigation was taken up by PW12 who went to the scene of crime on 18.05.2020 at 01.00 a.m., and prepared Observation Mahazar (Exhibit P6) and Rough Sketch (Exhibit P18) in the presence of PW6 and one Suresh. PW12 recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. PW12 recovered MO4, MO12 and MO13 under seizure mahazar (Exhibit P7) in the presence of the same witnesses. On the same day, the inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased from 07.00 a.m to 09.00 a.m., in the presence of panchayathars and witnesses and the inquest report (Exhibit P19), was prepared.

5. PW12 sent a requisition letter for conducting postmortem through PW10/constable and the postmortem was conducted by PW9 who issued the autopsy report (Exhibit P12) by noting the following injuries:

               “THE FOLLOWING ANTEMORTEM INJURIES WERE NOTED:

               1) Abraded contusion of size: 2 x 1cm over right side of forehead, 3 x 2cm over left side of forehead, 6 x 4cm over left cheek, 5 x 4cm over left side of chin, 10 x 8cm over front of left side of chest, 10 x 4cm over back of right forearm.

               2) Scratch abrasion of size 10cm over front of right leg.

               3) Laceration of size 13 x 8cm x cavity deep seen over right side of forehead, underlying right fronto temporal bone found fractured into multiple pieces.

               4) Laceration of size 15 x 6cm x cavity deep over left temporal region, underlying temporal bone found fractured in to multiple pieces and underlying brain found lacerated.

               5) Laceration of size 6 x 2cm x Bone deep over left side of chin.

               On opening Thorax & Abdomen: Left side ribs 3rd to oth found fractured in its outer aspect with surrounding contusion.

               On opening Head: Diffuse scalp contusion seen. Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage seen over surface of brain. Base of skull found fractured in to multiple pieces.

               OTHER FINDINGS:

               Peritoneal cavity: No free fluid.

               Pleural cavities: No free fluid.

               Heart: Appears to be normal and coronary vessels patent.

               Hyoid bone: Intact.

               Stomach: Contains about 250gms of partially digested rice particles with blood stain with fruity

               odour and mucosa pale.

               Right lung: Contused.

               Left lung, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys & Brain: Normal, c/s pale.

               Small Intestine: Contains about 20gms of partially digested rice particles with fruity odour and

               mucosa pale.

               Bladder: 20ml of urine.

               Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.

               OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH:

               THE DECEASED WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE DIED OF SHOCK AND HAEMORRHAGE DUE TO BLUNT INJURY TO THE REGION OF HEAD.”

6. The final opinion was given to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to blunt injuries to the region of head.

7. PW12 arrested A1 to A3 on 08.05.2020 at about 12.00 p.m., in the presence of PW5 and Village Assistant. Based on the voluntary confession and the admissible portion of the confession of A1 (Exhibit P2), A2 (Exhibit P3), MO5 to MO11 were seized under Athatchi Exhibit P5 in the the presence of the same witnesses.

8. The material objects were sent to the Court under Form 95 (Exhibit P21 to Exhibit P24).

9. The investigation was taken over by PW13 who recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He received the various reports (Exhibit P9 to Exhibit P14) and on completion of investigation, final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, taken on file in P.R.C. No.87 of 2020. The copies were served on the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

10. A3 went absconding and therefore, the case against him was split up as P.R.C.No.45 of 2022. Insofar as A1 and A2 are concerned, the case was committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and was made over to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, which was taken on file in S.C. No.117 of 2022. Insofar as A3 is concerned, after he was secured, the case was committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and made over to the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and it was taken on file in S.C. No.292 of 2022.

11. Insofar as the evidence on the side of the prosecution is concerned, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P25 were marked. Insofar as A3 is concerned, the prosecution also marked Exhibits X1 to X4.

12. The incriminating materials and evidence was put to the accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false.

13. Insofar as A1 and A2 are concerned, they did not examine any witnesses nor relied upon any documents.

14. Insofar as A3 is concerned, DW1 to DW3 were examined on the side of the defence but however no documents were marked.

15. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, these two separate appeals have been filed before this Court.

16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.1388 of 2025 raised a preliminary objection regarding the procedure that was followed by the trial Court while conducting the trial for A3. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court had utilised the evidence recorded in chief examination of all the witnesses and the documents marked through them in the trial that was conducted for A1 and A2 and the appellant/A3 was only permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this procedure vitiated the trial.

17. In our considered view, the above objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel is only liable to be rejected by this Court. The procedure adopted by the trial Court in S.C. No.292 of 2022 is perfectly in line with Section 299 of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines given by this Court in H.Aarun Basha v. The State, reported in 2019 (1) LW (Crl) 15. It is also in line with Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019.

18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing in these appeals submitted that PW1 to PW4 were projected as eyewitnesses in this case and that the very presence of the eyewitnesses at the time of occurrence is questionable. It is further submitted that the deceased was found to be fully drunk and which is evident from the viscera report (Exhibit P13) and in an inebriated state, the deceased had created ruckus and there is every possibility of some other person attacking the deceased due to that unruly behaviour. It is therefore submitted that the accused persons were planted in this case without any supporting materials. It is further submitted that for an incident which took place on 07.05.2020 at 19.00 hours, the complaint itself was given only at 23.45 hours and the express FIR reached the Court next day at 2.35 a.m. and there is absolutely no explanation given for the delay. This delay assumes significance since there was a deliberation to fix the accused persons, who had nothing to do with the alleged offence.

19. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that there were three eyewitnesses in this case namely, PW1 to PW3 and their evidence has not been discredited during crossexamination. Stray discrepancies pointed out does not take away the credibility of the witnesses who have cogently described the manner in which the incident took place. In view of the same, it is contended that the judgment passed by the trial Court does not warrant the interference of this Court.

20. PW1 is the father of the deceased. He has given a graphic description about the incident. On the date of occurrence on 07.05.2020, he explains as to how he and the deceased approached A1 to A3 and he questioned A1 to A3 as to why they made false allegation against the deceased. He speaks about the manner in which A2 and A3 attacked the deceased with wooden sticks and A1 attacked with a stone. The evidence of PW1 is very natural and cogent and just because there is some discrepancy in his evidence with regard to the manner in which the complaint (Exhibit P1) was given, that does not take away the credibility of the evidence of PW1.

21. PW2 is the cousin of the deceased. He is also an eyewitness in this case. He speaks about the presence of PW1 and PW3. He also speaks about the manner in which the deceased was attacked and how the deceased was thereafter rushed to the Government Hospital.

22. PW3 is also a relative of the deceased. He also talks about the presence of PW1 and PW2 in the scene of crime and the manner in which the deceased was attacked in this case. During his cross-examination in S.C.No.117 of 2022, he perfectly supported the case of the prosecution. However, when the same witness (PW3) was cross-examined in S.C. No. 292 of 2022 on 03.02.2025, he came up with a different version all together as if he was travelling along with PW2 in a car and PW2, on receiving the information, informed PW1. Thus, PW3 completely resiled from his earlier statement before court and gave an impression as if PW1 to PW3 were not in the scene of crime when the incident took place. A re-examination was conducted wherein PW3 clarified that none of these facts were informed by him to the police.

23. The fact that PW3 came up with a completely different version clearly establishes that PW3 has been won over during the interregnum period and therefore, his version in the cross-examination conducted in S.C. No.117 of 2022 has to be eschewed. Useful reference can be made to the judgment in Dharmaraj v. The Inspector of Police, reported in 2015 (2) LW (Crl) 458 and also the judgment in Rasukannu & Ors., v. State, reported in 2018 (1) MLJ (Crl) 306.

24. At this juncture, it is also necessary to take note of the evidence of PW4 who is said to have had a shop near the scene of crime and he speaks about what happened immediately after the incident. When he was cross-examined in S.C. No.117 of 2022, he withstood the questions put to him during cross-examination. However, when the same witness was cross-examined in S.C. No.292 of 2022, he has stated as if only after PW2 and PW3 came to the scene of crime and informed PW1, later PW1 came to the scene of crime. He has further stated that only after getting information about the incident, PW2 and PW3 came to the scene of crime. This Court has to necessarily eschew this version given by PW4 during cross-examination, considering the fact that the cross-examination had taken place on 14.02.2025 and during the interregnum period, PW4 has been won over.

25. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the eyewitness account of PW1 to PW3 sufficiently supports the case of the prosecution regarding the motive and the manner in which the incident had taken place.

26. At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily take into consideration the evidence of the postmortem doctor (PW9), through whom the autopsy report (Exhibit P12) was marked. It is clear from the injuries that have been extracted supra, it is perfectly in line with the eyewitness account regarding the overt act attributed to A1 to A3. PW9 also has specifically stated that such injuries can be caused if a person is attacked with wooden stick and stone.

27. The biological report and the serological report clearly point out the fact that in almost all the material objects, the bloodstains matched with “B” group, which is the blood group of the deceased.

28. The conspectus of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that the ocular evidence perfectly matches the medical evidence and thus the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of the eyewitness account.

29. It is contended on the side of the appellants as if there was a delay in every stage and it has not been properly explained. The incident had taken place on 07.05.2020 at about 19.00 hours. The complaint (Exhibit P1) has been given at 23.45 hours to PW11, who registered the FIR in Crime No.128 of 2020 (Exhibit P17). The express FIR has reached the Court on 08.05.2020 at 2.35 a.m. The statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of PW1 has reached the Court on 08.05.2020 at 7.35 p.m. Similarly, the statement of PW2 has also reached the Court on 08.05.2020 at 7.35 p.m. Insofar as the statements recorded from PW3 and PW4 are concerned, it has reached the Court on 03.06.2020. It is therefore clear that right from the time when the incident took place, there was not any substantial delay as attempted to be projected on the side of the defence. In view of the same, it cannot be held that the accused persons have been planted after deliberations.

30. PW1 and PW2 are natural eyewitnesses and just because they happen to be the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be doubted. This is more so since their evidence has not been discredited in the cross-examination.

31. In the light of the above discussion, there is no difficulty for this Court to reach a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.

32. Having rendered the above finding, it has to be seen on the materials available as to whether the present case will fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

33. As per the viscera report marked as Exhibit P13, the results after examination, are extracted hereunder: