P. Balamurugan v. Selvam

2.2. On 14.05.2016 at about 11:30 a.m., when the appellant and his mother (the deceased) were grazing cattle, the accused came to the place of occurrence on a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN22 AM 0947 and picked up a quarrel with them and, in the course of the same, assaulted the deceased by hitting her on the chest with his hand and kicking her on the stomach. As a result of the said assault, the deceased sustained injuries and died.

2.3. Thereafter, the appellant informed his father and other family members and lodged a complaint before the respondent police. On receipt of the complaint on 14.05.2016, a case was registered in Crime No.129 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. The First Information Report was forwarded to the Inspector of Police (P.W.13), who took up the investigation.

2.4. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch, and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. He then sent the body for post-mortem

Page 3 of 22

examination through P.W.8, a police constable, with a requisition to P.W.11, the post-mortem doctor.

2.5. After completing the post-mortem, the Investigating Officer continued the investigation, and arrested the accused at about 5:00 p.m. on the same day, remanded him to judicial custody, examined the remaining witnesses, and obtained the chemical analysis and forensic reports. Upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C. No. 21 of 2016 on 25.08.2016, furnished copies of the documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and, since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Sessions Court.

2.7. The case was thereafter taken on file as S.C. No. 13 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Charges were framed against the

Page 4 of 22

accused, and when questioned, the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.

2.8. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P12, and produced M.O.1. After the completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The accused denied the same as false and stated that the deceased died as she was butted by a buffalo, and that the said fact was suppressed. According to him, a false case was foisted due to the lingering enmity relating to the temple dispute.

2.9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, by judgment dated 14.02.2021, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by P.W.1, the son of the deceased and an alleged eyewitness to the occurrence.

Page 5 of 22

3. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

3.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has clearly established the existence of motive between the family of the deceased and that of the accused, arising out of a long- standing dispute regarding the issue of Muthalamman Temple.

3.2. It is further submitted that this aspect has been substantiated through the evidence of P.W.1, the eyewitness to the occurrence, who has categorically deposed that the accused assaulted the deceased by hitting her on the chest with his hands and by kicking her on the stomach, as a result of which she died on the spot. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent, natural, and trustworthy, and stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.11, the post-mortem doctor.

3.3. However, the learned trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the said evidence and erroneously acquitted the accused on the ground of minor discrepancies relating to the place of occurrence and the time of

Page 6 of 22

death, as well as certain lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, such as failure to collect the damaged clothes of P.W.1 and the deceased.

3.4. It is the settled principle of law that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot, by themselves, be a ground to discard otherwise reliable and cogent evidence, particularly the testimony of an injured or eyewitness, when the same is corroborated by medical and other material evidence.

3.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that the First Information Report was registered promptly and was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate without any delay, and that the investigation was conducted expeditiously, culminating in the filing of the final report with all necessary materials constituting the offence.

3.6. It is also contended that the time of occurrence has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1. Though P.Ws.3, 4, and 5, who were cited as eyewitnesses, turned hostile, certain portions of their evidence still support

Page 7 of 22

the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1. The trial court, however, failed to consider these aspects in proper perspective.

3.7. The learned counsel would further contend that the occurrence took place in the year 2016, whereas the witnesses were examined in the year 2021. In view of the considerable lapse of time, minor discrepancies with regard to the place and time of occurrence are natural and ought not to have been treated as grounds to disbelieve the prosecution case in its entirety.

3.8. Placing reliance on the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, the learned counsel would submit that the testimony of P.W.1 falls within the category of wholly reliable evidence and does not require corroboration. On these grounds, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and convict the accused.

Page 8 of 22

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/accused:

4.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that the present appeal is one against acquittal, and therefore, the scope of interference by this Court is very limited.

4.2. It is contended that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence on record, and unless the findings are perverse, the appellate court ought not to interfere.

4.3. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 is an interested witness, being the son of the deceased, and his testimony has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The trial court has rightly appreciated that, due to prior enmity arising out of the temple dispute, there exists a possibility of false implication.

4.4. It is also pointed out that there are material contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence and the time of death. Further, serious

Page 9 of 22

procedural irregularities are alleged, including the fact that the body was sent for post-mortem even prior to the conduct of inquest, and that the inquest report itself contains indications that the deceased was alive at a particular point of time, thereby creating doubt as to the prosecution version.

4.5. The learned counsel additionally submits that the trial court has taken note of the explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that the deceased might have been butted by a buffalo. This explanation gains some probability from the admission of P.W. 1 that one of the buffaloes owned by the family had a tendency to attack human beings ferociously.

4.6. In such circumstances, in the absence of reliable corroboration, the testimony of P.W.1 falls within the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, as classified in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, thereby requiring corroboration, which is lacking in the present case.

Page 10 of 22

4.7. The learned counsel would therefore contend that the trial court has meticulously appreciated the evidence and arrived at a plausible conclusion. There is no perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the judgment of acquittal, placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submissions, more particularly judgement reported in 2021 (3) SCC 687 and

2021 (6) SCC 213.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Points for determination:

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam, in S.C. No. 13 of 2017 warrants interference?

Page 11 of 22

7. A discussion on the principles governing an appeal against acquittal :

7.1.From the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, as well as the three-Judge Bench decisions in N. Vijayakumar v. State Of Tamil Nadu . reported in (2021) 6 SCC 213, and Murugesan v. State, it is clear that reversal of an acquittal by the High Court is permissible only when the conclusion reached by the trial court is not a "possible view."

7.2. It must be remembered that there should be restraint on interference if the view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable one. The expression "possible view" has been consciously employed and is distinct from expressions such as "erroneous" or "wrong." Though these expressions may appear similar at first blush, the distinction is real and significant.

7.3. A finding recorded by the trial court cannot be termed erroneous or wrong merely because the appellate court, upon reappreciation

Page 12 of 22

of evidence, arrives at a different conclusion. The High Court can interfere only when the view taken by the trial court falls outside the ambit of a possible view. So long as the view taken by the trial court is one that can reasonably be formed on the evidence available, irrespective of whether the High Court agrees with it or not, the same cannot be substituted. In these circumstances, the scope of interference with an order of acquittal is very limited. Guided by the above principles, this Court proceeds to examine the facts of the present case.

8.Discussion on reliability of testimony of sole eyewitness P.W.1:

8.1. The prosecution has examined P.W.1,3,4 and 5 as eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.3,4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case. The entire case rest on the testimony of sole eyewitness P.W.1.

8.2. According to the prosecution, a strong motive existed between the family of the deceased and that of the accused. P.W.1, in his evidence, admitted that the dispute had been decided in favour of the accused's family and that an appeal had been preferred by the deceased's

Page 13 of 22

family. In this background, the prosecution case is that, when P.W.1 and the deceased were grazing cattle, the accused came on a two-wheeler and picked up quarrel with them. In the course of the same, the accused assaulted the deceased by hitting her on the chest with his hands and by kicking her on the stomach, as a result of which she died. 8.3.The said evidence of P.W.1 was mainly disbelieved by the learned trial Judge on two grounds VIZ:

8.3.1. Primarily, the learned trial Judge found that the place of occurrence itself had not been established.

8.3.2. The learned trial Judge also recorded a specific finding that the time of occurrence was not properly established.

8.4. In his chief examination, P.W.1 stated that the occurrence took place near Alagarsamy Thottam (garden). However, in the cross- examination, he stated that after the occurrence he went to inform P.Ws.3 and 4, who were working as gardeners in Alagarsamy Thottam (garden). The inquest report states that the body was found in the garden of the

Page 14 of 22

deceased, which, according to P.W.1, is situated about one kilometre away from the alleged place of occurrence. Further, P.Ws.3 and 4, though treated as hostile, stated that the occurrence took place in a different thottam (garden). The observation mahazar also refers another place as the scene of occurrence. The rough sketch produced by the prosecution indicates different locations, which are neither consistent nor interrelated in terms of identity or proximity. In this case, no bloodstained earth or similar material objects were recovered to establish the place of occurrence. In view of the inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and the absence of corroborative evidence regarding the place of occurrence, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case on this aspect.

8.5. According to P.W.1, the occurrence took place at about 11:30 a.m. The inquest was conducted by P.W.13 between 3:00 p.m. and 3:50 p.m. However, P.W.8, who handed over the body to the post-mortem doctor (P.W. 11), deposed that he handed over the body at about 1:30 p.m., i.e., prior to the conduct of the inquest. The post-mortem doctor (P.W.11) deposed that he commenced the post-mortem at about 3:30 p.m. and completed it at about

Page 15 of 22

3:50 p.m. He further opined that the time of death was approximately 2 to 6 hours prior to the post-mortem. He also noted the presence of rigor mortis, and stated that rigor mortis would ordinarily set in after about six hours. This discrepancy creates doubt regarding the sequence of events and the prosecution version. In view of the said medical evidence, the learned trial Judge arrived at a finding that the occurrence might not have taken place at 11:30 a.m., as projected by P.W.1. This Court finds that the said conclusion is a possible view. This conclusion gains support from the version of P.W.1 himself, who stated that after the occurrence, he went to his house, which is situated about three kilometres away, informed his relatives, and thereafter returned to the place of occurrence and proceeded to the police station. In the sequence of events, there arises a serious doubt, making it improbable that the occurrence took place at the time stated by P.W.1. Therefore, the cumulative effect of these circumstances indicates that the occurrence might have taken place at a time different from the time alleged by the prosecution and the same was properly considered by the learned Trial Judge and has held that time of occurrence was not properly established. Hence, in the absence of any concrete material to conclusively establish that the

Page 16 of 22

occurrence took place at 11:30 a.m., this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge.

8.6. The learned trial Judge has also appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 in the light of the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar v. THE STATE OF MADRAS, and has rightly held that his testimony falls within the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such circumstances, corroboration is necessary and such corroboration is absent. P.Ws.3, 4, and 5 have not supported the prosecution case and have not spoken about the presence of the accused or any circumstance indicating that the accused fled from the scene after the alleged occurrence. In view of the above, this Court holds that testimony of P.W.1 suffers serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities and finds every reason to disbelieve his version and therefore, the learned trial Judge has correctly observed that the existence of prior enmity between the parties, while constituting a motive, also provides a basis for possible false implication. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the presence of the accused at the scene and the alleged act of assault.

Page 17 of 22

9. Discussion on the other circumstances:

9.1.Additionally, the arrest of the accused, stated to have been made at about 5:00 p.m. on 14.05.2016, also appears doubtful in view of the admission for the suggestion that the accused was already found in the police station even prior to the lodging of the complaint.

9.2. There are also material lapses in the investigation. Despite the case of the prosecution that there was a scuffle resulting in damage to the clothes of the deceased and P.W.1, no such clothes were recovered or produced. Moreover, the inquest report contains indications that the deceased was alive at a particular point of time, and no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution in this regard.

9.3. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has offered an explanation that one of the buffaloes belonging to the deceased's family had a tendency to attack human beings and that the deceased might

Page 18 of 22

have been injured in such an attack. This explanation finds some support from the admission of P.W.1 regarding the aggressive nature of the animal. The said explanation, though not conclusively proved, appears to be a plausible explanation and thus creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. This view taken by the learned trial Judge is also a possible view. Further, the medical evidence indicates that the injuries could have been caused by a forceful impact, which does not conclusively rule out the possibility of an animal attack.

10. Conclusion:

10.1. In view of all the above circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

10.2. Applying the principles laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and N. Vijayakumar v. State Of Tamil Nadu . reported in (2021) 6 SCC 213, this Court finds no perversity

Page 19 of 22

or misappreciation of evidence in the judgment of the trial court warranting interference.

11.Result:

11.1. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Theni @ Periyakulam dated 14.12.2021 in S.C.No.13 of 2017. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K,J.]

20.04.2026

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No gvn

Page 20 of 22

To:

1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni @ Periyakulam.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Jeyamangalam Police Station,

Devathanapatti Taluk, Theni District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section Officer,

Criminal Section(Records),

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Page 21 of 22

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

gvn Judgment made in

Crl.A.(MD).No.655 of 2023

20.04.2026

Page 22 of 22