CRL A/646/2023 of RANJITH KUMAR Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.(k)86 of 2015 dated 25.04.2023, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. The accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as follows:- Accused Conviction Sentence Sole Accused Section 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment Section 316 of IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that PW12/father of the accused had illegal intimacy with the deceased Ramya, he has set up separate house with her on a monthly basis in a house owned by PW1 and PW2. The deceased had also become pregnant. When the matter stood thus, on 01.06.2013, the accused went to the house of deceased Ramya in the first floor of PW1 and PW2’s house and cut her indiscriminately. PW1 on hearing the sound, she came to the first floor and found that the deceased was lying with cut injuries, immediately, called PW2 and thereafter, gave a complaint under Ex.P1. PW14/Sub Inspector of Police after receipt of the complaint registered the FIR under Ex.P6 in Cr.No.689 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and forwarded the same to the Court and a copy to the Investigating Officer. PW19 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P9, Rough Sketch under Ex.P10 in the presence of PW18 and also seized bloodstained mozaic and ordinary mozaic/MO1 and MO2 under Ex.P2.

Thereafter, conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Inquest Report under Ex.P11 and forwarded to the dead body to the hospital for conducting autopsy. PW11/Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram conducted autopsy over the dead body and noted the following injuries: EXTERNAL INJURIES:-

1) Cut injury- gaping wound 5 cm in L, 2 cm breadth in Left Upper forearm.

2. Sup abrasion 5 cm left mid forearm

3. Right elbow 5 cm wound gaping broken bone

4. Right Wrist 4 cm cut injury

5. Deep cut injury 10x5x2cm in right deltoid region 6.10 cm cut injury left side face centing with ear cut transversely. 7.12 cm left vertical deep cut injury right tempero-occipital region behind right ear and issued Ex.P10/Post mortem certificte opining that the deceased died due to neurogenic and hemorrhage shock.

2.2. PW19 in continuation of the investigation arrested the accused near the bus stop in the presence of PW7 and one Ashok Kumar and recorded his confession. The admitted portion of confession is Ex.P12. Pursuant to the same, he has seized MO3/knife under Ex.P4 and sent the accused and material objects to the Court. He has also sent requisition under Ex.P13 for DNA profiling after collecting fetus of the deceased. PW17/DNA Expert extracted DNA from the fetus and issued Ex.P8/DNA Report. According to her, DNA could not be extracted from the materials sent to her. PW20 & PW21/Scientific Officers from the Forensic Department examined the material objects and issued Serelogy Report and Biology Report under Exs.P15 and P16. After completing the investigation finally laid the final report against the accused under Sections 302 and 316 of IPC.

2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked 16 documents, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and produced 6 material objects, namely M.O.1 & M.O.6.

2.4. 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 oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

2.5. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 25.04.2023 convicted the accused mainly on the basis of the evidence of PW1 in the cross examination as well as the evidence of PW7, confession of the accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court erred in convicting the accused without any legal evidence. All the eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution turned hostile and, therefore, no one has spoken against the accused.

Furthermore, the Serelogy Report does not show any incriminating circumstance against the accused, the blood grouping is inconclusive, and the arrest and seizure is also highly doubtful. Therefore, in the absence of any other legal evidence, the Trial Court fell in error in convicting the accused. Hence, seeks for allowing of the criminal appeal.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court, after a proper appreciation of evidence, has rightly convicted the accused and that the judgment does not warrant any interference. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Though the incident has occurred on the first floor of the house belonging to PW1 and PW2, their evidence when carefully seen would indicate that they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned completely hostile. The Trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW1 cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, wherein PW1 has admitted only what she has stated before the police as suggested by the prosecution. The nature of admission by PW1 before the police indicates that she has admitted only implicating the accused before the police. At the most, her evidence could be taken to the effect that she has admitted in giving statement to the police alone, that itself cannot be taken as substantive evidence before the Court of law. Therefore, merely by way of suggestion to the witness by the Prosecutor, wherein, having admitted the statement given before the police in our view do not constitute substantive piece of evidence.

Substantive piece of evidence means it should be given on oath before the Court of law, that is the only legal evidence can be relied upon and tested. Therefore, merely on the basis of admission in the suggestion by the Public Prosecutor admitting about giving statement before the police will not constitute substantive evidence.

7. Be that as it may, except that, there is no evidence available against the accused. The Trial Court has relied solely on the evidence of PW7 evidence and recorded the conviction. The evidence of PW7 clearly indicates that the accused was kept in the police station and confession was extracted by the police in his presence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the confession remains insignificant and cannot be relied upon for any other purposes, of-course for the discovery of fact alone. Furthermore, the so-called recovery also does not help the prosecution in any manner as no bloodstain whatsoever was established and the blood grouping test in the Serelogy Report remains inconclusive. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence and particularly, solely on the basis of confession, the prosecution case cannot be relied upon. The Trial Court has, in fact, mechanically recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court in S.C.No.(k)86 of 2015 dated 25.04.2023 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other lawful case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him. (N.S.K., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 30.09.2026 dhk Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chengalpattu

2. The Inspector of Police, B2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

N. SATHISH KUMAR

, J.

and K.RAJASEKAR, J. dhk Crl.A.No.646 of 2023 30.09.2026