CRL A/1609/2024 of AROCKIYA SUBAS Vs STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 1 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, in S.C.No.118 of 2017, dated 05.02.2020, convicting the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, the accused has filed the above Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

2.1. P.W.1 is the house owner who was residing in the Ground Floor and he rented out the two portions in the First Floor of his house. P.W.2 to P.W.5 were the tenants in one portion of the house. The accused, one Babu (deceased) and one Boopathy were the tenants in the other portion of the house. The said Boopathy and the accused were working in Lucas. Originally, the accused and Boopathy were residing in one portion and thereafter, the deceased came as a tenant through the accused to reside along with them in the same portion.

2.2. While so, on 10.03.2017 between 02.30 and 03.00 a.m., when P.W.1 and his wife were fast asleep, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 knocked the door of his house and informed him that the accused was stabbing the deceased. When he went upstairs, the accused informed that he has stabbed the deceased and

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

whatever they want to do, they can do and dropped down the knife (M.O.1). When P.W.1 went inside, he saw the deceased with his neck cut and intestine protruding, lying in a pool of blood. When he enquired the accused as to why did he so, the accused informed him that the deceased always suspected him for having stolen his chain. Immediately, P.W.1 called his friend P.W.6. Then, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the respondent Police, which is marked as Ex.P1.

3. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 (eye-witnesses) are also the tenants of P.W.1 who were residing in the portion opposite to the portion where the deceased and the accused were staying. They have, in one voice, stated that, on 10.03.2017 at about 03.00 a.m., on hearing the sound from the opposite portion where the deceased and accused were staying, they went there and saw the accused repeatedly stabbing the deceased with knife (M.O.1). Immediately, they rushed to the house owner (P.W.1) and informed him about the same. When P.W.1 also came there, the accused came out of his portion and said that the deceased always suspected him for stealing his chain and therefore, he stabbed him.

4. P.W.4, who is also one of the tenants along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, has stated that, on 10.03.2017 at about 03.00 a.m., after P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 went to Ground Floor to inform P.W.1, he saw the accused stabbing the deceased on his stomach.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

5. P.W.6 (friend of P.W.1) has stated that, on 10.03.2017 at about 04.00 a.m., P.W.1 called him over phone and informed him that the accused had stabbed the deceased. Immediately, he reached the spot and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood.

6. P.W.7 is the father of the deceased. P.W.8 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. They have stated that the deceased was always wearing a gold chain. A week prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased had removed his gold chain before taking bath and the accused was also there at that time. The next day, the chain was missing. Later, the deceased informed them that the accused has only stolen his chain. When they asked the deceased to lodge a complaint in this regard, the deceased informed them that the accused is from a humble background and hence, he does not want to lodge any complaint. Therefore, they advised the deceased to vacate the room.

7. On receipt of complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1, P.W.14 (Inspector of Police) registered an FIR in Crime No.616 of 2017 on 10.03.2017 at 03.15 a.m. for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against the accused. The FIR is marked as Ex.P7.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

8. After registration of the FIR (Ex.P7), P.W.14 went to the place of occurrence at 03.40 a.m. and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P8) in the presence of witnesses P.W.6 and one Manoharan. Then, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars between 04.00 a.m. and 05.45 a.m. and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P9). Thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem through Head Constable (P.W.11).

9. P.W.12 (Medical Officer attached to the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital) conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and noted the following injuries : “Injuries : I. Reddish brown abrasion seen over the following areas

1. 3 small irregular abrasions ranging from 0.5 - 1 x 0.2 - 0.5 cms over the front of left shoulder 1 cm apart.

2. A linear abrasion 4 x 0.5 cms over the front of upper one-third of right side of chest.

3. 2 linear abrasions 4 x 0.1 cms, 2.5 x 0.1 cms over the inner aspect of right arm 4 cms apart.

4. 3 linear abrasions ranging from 2 - 4 x 0.2 cms one below the other over the inner aspect of right fore-arm.

II. Stab wounds are seen in the following areas

1. A horizontal stab wound 14 x 4 x 3 cms deep over the front of

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

lower one-third of neck. Lower border 2 cms above the sterna notch, upper border 13.5 cms from the chin.

2. An oblique stab wound 3 x 2 cm x cavity deep over the right side of neck, 8 cms from the right border of injury no. 1. O/D the stab wound penetrated the posterior aspect of trachea 1 x 2 cms with surrounding soft tissue contusion and entered the lumen of trachea. On opening the trachea few blood clots seen. The right common carotid artery and internal jugular vein are severed.

3. A vertical stab wound 3x2 x cavity deep seen over the front of upper one-third of right side of chest. On dissection, the stab wound entered the right thoracic cavity and penetrated the front of upper lobe of right lung 3 x 2 x 2 cms deep.

4. A oblique stab wound 12x3x4 cms over the front of right side of upper abdomen.

5. A horizontal stab wound 9x3x4 cms over front of right side of upper abdomen 8 cms below and inner to the injury no. 4.

6. A oblique stab wound 8x4 cms x cavity deep front of right side of lower abdomen 2 cms below the injury no. 4 and 1 cm outer to the injury no. 5, with parts of omentum and intestines protruding out.

7. A transverse stab wound 6x2x6 cms over the outer aspect of upper one-third of left arm.

8. A vertical stab wound 4x4x2 cms over the outer aspect of left wrist.

9. A stab wound 4x3 cms x cavity deep over the front of left side of upper abdomen.

10. An oblique stab wound 5x2x3 cms over the back of left shoulder.

11. A horizontal stab wound 8x4x8 cms over the back of left

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

axilla 9 cms below the injury no. 10.

12. A horizontal stab wound 4x2x3 cms over the back of left side of middle one-third of chest 10 cms below the injury no. 11.

13. An oblique stab wound 5x3x8 cms over the upper part of left side of back 5 cms inner to the injury no. 10.

14. An oblique stab wound 6x2x5 cms over the upper part of left side of back 1 cm inner to the injury no. 13.

15. A horizontal stab wound 7x3x5 cms over the upper part of right side of back.

16. A horizontal stab wound 7x2x8 cms over the centre of back of chest 4 cms below the injury no. 14.

17. A vertical stab wound 5x3x4 cms over the back of right side of lower abdomen. In all the stab wounds, the margins are reddish and regular and the ends are acute and sharp, with surrounding soft tissue contusion.” Accordingly, P.W.12 issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P5). After receipt of Viscera Report (Ex.P6), he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries.

10. After postmortem, the dress on the body of the deceased (M.O.3) was recovered by Police and sent to the Court under Form-91 (Ex.P11).

11. Meanwhile, P.W.14 (Investigating Officer), in continuation of his investigation, arrested the accused at 06.30 a.m. and recorded his confession in

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

the presence of P.W.10 (Village Administrative Officer) and one Sankar. The admissible portion of the confession made by the accused is marked as Ex.P3. Based on his confession, the Investigating Officer seized the knife (M.O.1) and the trouser worn by the accused at the time occurrence (M.O.2) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P4). Thereafter, the Forensic Expert (P.W.13) visited the place of occurrence and collected samples of blood stains on the walls using cotton swabs and the Investigating Officer sent the same to Court under Form-95 (Ex.P10). Then, he forwarded the Material Objects (M.O.1 and M.O.2) to the Court under Form-95 (Ex.P12). Thereafter, he sent a requisition (Ex.P13) to the learned Magistrate to record the statements of the eye-witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P14; P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P15; P.W.3 is marked as Ex.P16; and P.W.5 is marked as Ex.P17.

12. After examining all the witnesses and recording their statements, P.W.14 handed over the case file to one Mr.Rajakumar (Inspector of Police). The said Mr.Rajakumar (not-examined), in continuation of the investigation, collected various reports including Biology Report (Ex.P18), completed the investigation and filed a final report for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against the accused, in P.R.C.No.14 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

13. 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.118 of 2017 and was made over to the III Additional Sessions Judge at Poonamallee, for trial.

14. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 IPC as against the accused. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

15. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.14, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.3.

16. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused and when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined, however, Exs.D1 to D8 were marked.

17. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by its judgment dated 05.02.2020, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

18. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused has filed the above Appeal.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly submit that, though the FIR was registered immediately and the accused was arrested and recovery was effected on the same day, all the material objects were sent to the Court after four days, that is, only on 13.03.2017. Further, the medical evidence clearly shows that there were several injuries, which, according to the learned counsel, could not have been caused by a single person. Hence, he would submit that the entire version of the prosecution witnesses is highly doubtful. He would further submit that the prosecution has not established that P.W.2 to P.W.5 were tenants in the house belonging to P.W.1. Further, the evidence of P.W.14 (Investigating Officer) clearly shows that fingerprints and other materials were also collected by the Forensic Department. However, no forensic report has been filed by the prosecution. Hence, he would submit that the entire prosecution case is highly doubtful. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the judgment of the trial Court warrants interference.

20. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 clinchingly establishes that it was only the accused who caused repeated stab injuries on the deceased.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

The same has been substantiated by the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W.12) who conducted autopsy as well as by the Postmortem Report (Ex.P5). Hence, he would submit that merely because the forensic report has not been filed, the same would not have any impact on the prosecution case, particularly when ocular evidence of the witnesses, who have no axe to grind against the accused, clearly establishes the occurrence and the involvement of the accused. Therefore, he would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused.

21. In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.

22. We have perused the entire materials available on record.

23. The fact that the deceased and the accused were residing in the same house on the first floor of the house belonging to P.W.1 has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.2 to P.W.5 were residing in another portion of the same house. P.W.1, in his evidence, has clearly stated that, originally, one Boopathy and the accused were tenants and later, through the accused, the deceased came as a tenant and started residing in the same house. While so, on 10.03.2017 at about 02.30 to 03.00 a.m., while P.W.1 and his wife were

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

sleeping, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 rushed to his house and informed him that the accused was stabbing the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the first floor. On reaching the portion where the accused was staying, the accused informed P.W.1 that he had stabbed the deceased and that they could do whatever they wanted to do. He also dropped the knife (M.O.1) there itself.

24. P.W.2 to P.W.5 were residing as tenants in another portion of the same house, just opposite to the portion where the deceased and the accused were residing. On hearing the sound of an altercation between the accused and the deceased at around 03.00 a.m., they went to the place and witnessed the occurrence. They have, in one voice, stated in their evidence that the accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased and caused several injuries. Immediately thereafter, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 rushed to P.W.1 and informed him about the occurrence.

25. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 clearly establishes that it was only the accused who caused the injuries on the deceased. It is not the case of the accused that he was not residing in the same house along with the deceased. Admittedly, the dead body was found in the very same room where the deceased and the accused were residing.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

26. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 have, in one voice, clearly stated that it was only the accused who caused multiple stab injuries to the deceased. In fact, the intestine of the deceased was also protruding. The medical evidence also shows that several injuries had been caused. This fact further establishes that the accused had repeatedly caused injuries on the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the complaint was given by P.W.1 and the FIR was registered and the accused was arrested in the same morning.

27. P.W.1 has stated that he immediately called his friend P.W.6. P.W.6 also came there and thereafter, they gave the complaint. The evidence of P.W.6 also clearly corroborates the version of P.W.1. P.W.6 has also clearly spoken about the visit of the Police and the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in his presence.

28. The motive attributed by the prosecution against the accused is that the accused had committed theft of the chain worn by the deceased one week prior to the occurrence. This has been spoken to by P.W.8 and P.W.9, who are the father and brother-in-law of the deceased, respectively. Be that as it may. When direct eyewitness accounts are available and when such evidence is consistent and does not suffer from any material infirmity, motive assumes insignificance. Therefore, de hors the motive, the version of the eyewitnesses clearly

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

establishes the complicity of the accused in the crime. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is cogent and consistent and there is no motive, whatsoever, for them to falsely implicate the accused. Hence, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the eye-witnesses.

29. Though the prosecution has also come forward with the theory of confession and recovery of M.O.1 pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession allegedly made by the accused before the Village Administrative Officer, we are not in a position to accept such recovery pursuant to the alleged confession. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the accused had left the knife (M.O.1) in the house itself. Even in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has asserted that the police seized the knife from the place where the accused had left it in the same room. Therefore, the recovery of knife (M.O.1) as projected by the prosecution cannot be believed. However, de hors the alleged recovery and confession, the eyewitness accounts clearly establish the guilt of the accused.

30. Though much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Material Objects were sent to the Court only after four days after the arrest and seizure, the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) has clearly given an explanation for such delay. In his evidence, he has stated that, since the materials were collected on the same day, they were doused with blood and

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

were also smelling, and hence, they were dried and thereafter, sent to the Court. This explanation is also plausible and cannot be ignored altogether. Be that as it may. The eyewitness accounts clinchingly establish the role of the accused and the medical evidence also clearly shows that several stab injuries were repeatedly caused on the deceased. P.W.2 to P.W.5 were residing in the portion opposite to that of the deceased and the accused. They have also stated that they had seen the accused stabbing the deceased in the light which was burning at the relevant point of time. Therefore, their evidence cannot be doubted on any ground.

31. Though much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel and that there was no premeditation, we are not in a position to accept the said submission for the simple reason that, even assuming that the occurrence had taken place as a result of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation, it must further be established that the accused had not acted in an unusual or cruel manner or taken any undue advantage. However, in the present case, the fact remains that several stab injuries were repeatedly caused on the body of the deceased by the accused, which is substantiated by the medical evidence. This clearly shows that the accused took undue advantage of the situation and acted in a cruel manner by repeatedly causing multiple stab injuries. Therefore, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC will not come to the aid of the accused in this case in any

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

manner.

32. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that it was only the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. In such view of the matter, we find that the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused has been clearly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and imposing the sentence of life imprisonment.

33. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKN

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

To

1. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The Inspector of Police, T3 Korattur Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

CRL A No. 1609 of 2024

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. MKN CRL A No. 1609 of 2024 01-10-2026