Madras High Court Acquits Four Convicts In Double Murder Case, Finds Investigation 'Bizarre' And Defective

Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case only because of a defective investigation. Taking note of judicial pronouncements to this effect, the court ordered departmental action against the investigating officer and ordered it to be completed as expeditiously as possible.

“The law on the issue was dealt with by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and Ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108. One of us (Justice N.Anand Venkatesh), had an occasion to deal with this issue in detail in K.Muthupandi v. State, reported in (2020) 1 MLJ (Crl) 53. In view of the same, this Court directs that the departmental action be initiated against PW16 [investigating officer] under the relevant service rules and it shall be completed as expeditiously as possible after affording opportunity to PW16,” the court said

The court was hearing criminal appeals filed by four persons against their conviction and sentence by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The men were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine.

As per the prosecution, one of the deceased had seen his wife, Accused No. 7 in a compromising position with Accused No. 1, his uncle. This led to a customary divorce before a panchayat in which the second deceased had supported the first deceased. As per the prosecution, this incident had led to the accused persons developing enmity against both the deceased.

While so, when the first deceased came from Chennai to his hometown to attend a family function, the second deceased call him on phone at 4 pm and he left to the place of occurrence. At about 4:40 pm, the first and second prosecution witness received a phone call that the accused were chasing the deceased. When the prosecution witnesses went to the place, they saw the accused throwing chilly powder in the eyes of the deceased, and attacking them. Both the deceased were taken to the hospital. The first deceased was declared brought dead and second deceased succumbed to his injuries after few days.

The appellants argued that the two main witnesses were interest witnesses and were not wholly reliable. It was argued that though dying declaration of the second deceased was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, there was nothing to show who informed the Magistrate to record the dying declaration. It was pointed out that even the investigating officer had come to know about the recording of dying declaration a couple of days after he took up the investigation.

The appellants further argued that while the deceased had named all persons in his dying declaration, the trial court gave benefit of doubt only to some accused while acquitting them and not to the other accused. It was argued that if benefit of doubt was to be given, it should be given to all accused and could not be dissected and acted upon for certain few.

The prosecution on the other hand argued that the incident had taken place in 2012 and it was natural that there would be some discrepancies. It was submitted that it is a case of double murder and just because there were lapses, the entire case could not be thrown out.

The court noted that there were contradictions in the statement of the witness regarding how they got the information, what they say at the place of occurrence etc. The court also noted that there were alterations in time in the accident register and no explanation had been given regarding the same. The court also noted that there was no evidence to show where the first accused was taken in the ambulance or if any accident register was prepared in his case. The court also noted that the prosecution had even failed to examine the ambulance drivers who had taken the deceased to the hospital.

Since there were contradictions on when the offence was actually committed and certain important witnesses were not examined, the court said that it could not entirely rely on the dying declaration. The court also noted that it would not be appropriate to rely on the dying declaration alone to convict the appellants, especially when some of the accused were given benefit of doubt under the same dying declaration.

The court also raised doubts on whether the investigating officer had actually visited the place of occurrence or had prepared all the documents in the police station itself. The major reason for this, the court noted that as per the accident register, the left hand of one of the deceased had been amputated in the incident but the portion of the left arm, which might have been available at the place of crime, was not seized by the officer. The court thus concluded that the investigation officer did not carry out any work in the scene of crime and everything was done sitting in the police station.

Thus, considering all the facts, the court held that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was unsustainable. The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.

Counsel for Appellant: Ms. P. Kritika Kamal, Mr.Gopala Krishna Laxmana Raju Senior Advocate for Mr.S.G.L.Rishwanth, Mr.A.Arunprasad for Mr.M.Suresh

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Muthukumar v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229

Case No: Crl. A(MD)Nos.973, 1094 of 2023 and 642 of 2024