CRL A/1050/2023 of MURALI Vs STATE REP.BY on 30 September 2026

Common Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 23.08.2023 in S.C.No.288 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, A1 to A3 have filed Crl.A.No.1050 of 2023 and against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 12.11.2025 in S.C.No.191 of 2023 on the file of the aforesaid court, A-4 has filed Crl.A.No.1950 of 2025. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows : Conviction Sentence A-1 to A-3- Section 302 r/w 34 IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment A-4 – Section 302 r/w 34 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of R.10000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

2.1. The deceased Paulraj is the brother of P.W.1. On 09.12.2012 at 07.00 p.m., there was a temple festival in Thulukkanathamman koil. P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Veeramani were present in the temple festival. There was a Murugam temple behind this. In the source of light, P.W.1 and the other witnesses have seen the four accused. At that time, A-1 keeping his hand on the shoulder of deceased Paulraj came there and hit him on his head with cricket bat saying that there is problem because of you. A-2 also attacked him with cricket stumps. As the deceased fell down, A-3 and A-4 have attacked him with cricket stumps on his mouth. When P.W.1 approached the deceased, the four accused left the place with the cricket bat and stumps. Later, P.W.1 took the deceased to the Royapettah Government hospital in the auto. Thereafter, he was referred to the Chennai Government hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station at 02.00 a.m. and gave Ex.P.1 complaint and on 10.12.2012 at about 09.45 a.m., the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

2.2. P.W.14 Inspector of Police, at the relevant point of time, on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, registered the first information report in Crime No.1814 of 2012, which was marked as Ex.P.15. He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 03.00 a.m. and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and drew rough sketch Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.6. He has also recovered the bloodstained floor pieces and the ordinary floor pieces from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.4 mahazar. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. Later, he proceeded to the Government General hospital to enquire the deceased. As he was under treatment, P.W.14 enquired P.W.4 and recorded her statement. After receiving the death intimation of the deceased at 09.45 a.m., on 10.12.2012, he altered the offence into section 302 IPC and filed alteration report Ex.P.16. Thereafter, the investigating officer proceeded to the Rajiv Gandhi Government General hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P17 inquest report in the presence of witnesses. He gave a requisition to the medical officer to conduct autopsy.

2.3. In the meanwhile, P.W.11, the medical officer attached to the Royapettah government hospital, when he was on duty on 09.12.2012 at about 08.00 p.m., P.W.1 brought his deceased brother for treatment and it was informed that he found the deceased at 07.30 p.m. near Kotturpuram Anna Library. P.W.11 found 6x3x2 cm laceration injury on his right forehead and also another laceration injury measuring 5x2x1 cm next to the first injury and he had issued Ex.P.12 accident register.

2.4. P.W.12, medical officer attached to Chennai Medical college hospital, on receipt of the requisition from the Inspector of Police, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 11.12.2012 and found the following injuries: ‘1.An oblique sutured wound with 5 sutures measuring 4 cm and is just above the medial end of right eyebrow. On removal of sutures margins are regular. 2.An oblique sutured wound with 5 sutures measuring 7 cm and 0.5cm lateral to the injury no.1. On removal of sutures margins are regular. 3.A sutured wound with 2 sutures measuring 1.5cm on the left side of the inneraspect of the lower lip with surrounding contusion. 4.An oblique laceration of size 1.5x0.5.x0.5cm on the right side of the upper part of occipital region 6cm above right mastoid process. 5.A reddish brown abrasion of size 1x0.5cm on the anterior part of upper lip. 6.A reddish brown abrasion of size 2.5x1cm on the lateral part of middle third of left side of neck with surrounding contusion. 7.A reddish brown abrasion of size 1x0.5 cm on the front of left side of the neck just above the thyroid cartilage. 8.A reddish brown abrasion of size 0.5x0.5 cm on the back of right elbow joint. 9.A reddish brown abrasion of size 0.5x0.5cm on the tip of the nose. 10.A reddish brown abrasion of size 1x0.5cm lateral to the right mastoid process. 11.Black coloured periorbital edema around the right eye. On dissection; Scalp contused over the Frontal, right temporal and occipital region. A depressed fracture of size 5x3cm on the right side of the frontal bone. A linear fissured fracture measuring 5cm over the right temporal bone. Diffuse Subdural hemorrhage over the right cerebral hemisphere. A thin layer of subarachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain. A laceration of size 2x1x1cm on the right frontal lobe. Brainedematous. Comminuted fracture of anterior cranial fossa seen.’ He has issued Ex.P.13 postmortem report and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the effects of injuries on his head.

2.5. P.W.14 continued his investigation and on 10.12.2012 at 05.30 p.m., he arrested A-1 in the presence of P.W.9 and recorded his confession and the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.18. Pursuant to the same, M.O.1, cricket bat was recovered under Ex.P.19 seizure mahazar. On the same day, A-2 was arrested and his confession statement was marked and the admissible part of his confession was marked as Ex.P.20 and in pursuant to the same, a cricket stump was seized in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P.21 seizure mahazar. Thereafter, A-3 and A-4 were arrested in the presence of witnesses and the investigating officer has recorded their confession statements separately, the admissible portion of which are marked as Exs.P.22 and P.23 and pursuant to their confession statements, he seized cricket stumps under Exs.P.24 and P.25 mahazars and thereafter, the material objects were sent to the Court. P.W.14 recorded the statement of witnesses and medical officers. He has also obtained the biological report Ex.P.34 and Serology reports Exs.P.35 and P.36. After completing the investigation, he has laid the final report against the accused.

2.6. After the filing of the final report by the investigating officer, 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 Sessions in S.C.No.288 of 2013 and was made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for trial. The trial Court framed the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC against the accused.

3. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked 36 documents, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36 and produced 6 material objects, namely M.O.1 to M.O.6. As the 4th accused absconded, the case against him got split up and numbered as S.C.No.191 of 2023 and the case was kept pending in respect of A-4

4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, A-1 to A-3 were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating circumstances as false. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded and no document was marked.

5. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 23.08.2023, found A-1 to A-3 guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life as stated above. Thereafter, A-4 surrendered and the trial against him proceeded and he was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence and he denied them as false and on his side, no evidence was recorded and no document was marked. Based on the evidence and the materials available, the trial court by judgment dated 12.11.2025, found him guilty and sentence him to undergo life imprisonment as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeals have been preferred.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the presence of eyewitnesses in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. P.Ws.1 to 3 are relatives and close friends of the deceased. When the deceased was attacked and

beaten by the other accused by using cricket bat and stumps, the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, being close friends and relative, have not even made any attempt to prevent such attack. This fact clearly shows that they were not present in the place of occurrence at the time when the occurrence took place. Further, the evidence of P.W.5 auto driver shows that at about 05.00 p.m., P.W.1 called him to take his brother in the auto to the hospital. His evidence creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.11, the medical officer clearly shows that P.W.1 who admitted the deceased in the hospital, has informed him that he did not know as to how the deceased sustained injuries whether by falling down or by the attack of others. He never stated that the deceased was attacked by known persons. This aspect also creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution case. Further, the delay in filing the FIR has also not been explained and the FIR has reached the court with inordinate delay which also remains unexplained. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants herein and hence, prayed for acquittal of the appellants herein.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are eyewitnesses and they have clearly spoken about the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased. Therefore, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. He would further submit that merely because some statement has been given before the medical officer while admitting the deceased in the hospital for treatment at the earliest point of time as to the nature of the injury sustained, that cannot be a ground to disbelieve their evidence. Hence, the trial court was right in relying on their evidence and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the criminal appeals.

8. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials.

9. The motive projected by the prosecution is that while playing cricket, there was some previous dispute between the two groups. Therefore, the accused persons decided to eliminate the deceased, which was the motive for such an occurrence. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. According to him, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 09.12.2012 while he was in the temple festival in Thandu Thulukkanathamman Temple, the accused were standing behind the Murugan temple. The presence of the accused was seen by P.Ws.1 to 3 and by one Veeramani in the source of light which was available, but the said Veeramani was not examined by the prosecution. According to P.W.1, A-1 took the deceased by holding his hand on the shoulder of the deceased and he hit the deceased with the cricket bat on his head. After the deceased fell down, A-2 to A-4 repeatedly attacked him with cricket stumps and this was witnessed by all the witnesses.

10. It is relevant to note that the very conduct of P.Ws.1 to 3 who were close relatives and friends of the deceased assumes significance. When accused persons tried to attack the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 3 remained mute spectators at that time and they have not even made any attempt to prevent such attack in order to save the life of deceased. Be that as it may, even assuming that in the melee, they were afraid and hence, they could not prevent such attack, but the very evidence of P.W.1 about the alleged occurrence is doubtful. It is P.W.1 who took the deceased to the hospital and admitted him. P.W.11, the medical officer, attached to Royapettah Government hospital admitted the deceased for the first time at 08.00 p.m. At that time, P.W.1 has clearly stated that he was not sure as to how his brother has sustained injury and in fact, he was lying down in the place from where he was lifted and brought to the hospital. The first statement of P.W.1 to P.W.11 makes it clear that P.W.1 was not sure as to how the deceased suffered injuries. It is relevant to note that though P.W.1 was not confronted with the earlier statement given before P.W.11, the fact remains that a perusal of the entire cross examination of P.W.1 shows that the lawyer who appeared before the trial court to defend the accused, in a very casual manner without any seriousness, put some suggestions and not defended the accused properly. In any event, the evidence of P.W.11 the medical officer clearly shows that he has only admitted the deceased in the hospital and at that time, P.W.1 informed him that he was not sure as to how his brother sustained injuries whether by falling down or by some attack. In fact, his evidence would further go to show that the deceased was taken from the place where he was lying down and that he was taken to the hospital. This aspect cannot be ignored altogether. This fact coupled with the delay in filing the FIR also assumes significance. If really P.W.1 has seen the occurrence and admittedly it was the P.W.1 who took his brother deceased to the hospital at 08.00 p.m., there was no reason given as to why there was a delay in registering the complaint before the police station since the complaint was given at 02.00 a.m. by P.W.1. There was no reason assigned by P.W.1 for such delay in filing the complaint to the police about the occurrence. This really causes a very serious doubt about the prosecution case.

11. Further, though the FIR said to have been filed at 02.00 a.m., but it has reached the court only at 07.55 p.m. on 10.12.2012. This delay in sending the FIR to the court was also not explained properly. There was no sufficient reason by the prosecution for this delay. This aspect coupled with the very conduct of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they have not even made any attempt to save the deceased from the attack by the accused. This creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. Further, admittedly, the accused are carrying only cricket bat and stumps. In such a case, P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses could have very easily tried to prevent the attack, but they have not made any such attempt. Therefore, considering the conduct of the witnesses and the earlier statement of P.W.1 before P.W.11, medical officer about the incident and the nature of the injuries suffered and the delay in filing the FIR and despatching the same to the court with a delay, this court is of the view that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Further, effective cross examination was not done by the counsel engaged by the accused and though that cannot be ground to infer the guilt, when materials produced by the prosecution itself clearly shows that the delay is apparent and further, there was no explanation for the delay in registering the FIR and sending the same to the court and further, the earlier statement before P.W.11 doctor by P.W.1 also doubts the presence of the eyewitnesses in the place of occurrence. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. In the light of the above, both these three Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgments of the trial Court dated 23.08.2023 and 12.11.2025 in S.C.No.288 of 2013 and S.C.No.191 of 2023 respectively are set aside and all the appellants/accused nos.1 to 4 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes VVK

To

1. I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, J-4, Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai. Crime No. 1814/2012.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-1, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. VVK CRL A No. 1050 of 2023 and 1950 of 2025 30-09-2026