The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that in the present era of instant and electronic communication, any information regarding a crime could reach the police through various channels including cryptic telephone calls, wireless messages, information from eyewitnesses, etc. The court noted that such information is mostly intended to prevent further untoward incidents.

“In the present era of instantaneous and electronic communication, information regarding a murder or other grave offence often reaches the police through various channels, including cryptic telephone calls, wireless messages, information from any person other than informants or eyewitness, or communications from members of the public. The purpose of such information is ordinarily to secure the immediate presence of the police at the scene of occurrence, to prevent further untoward incidents, to maintain law and order, and to preserve the scene. Such information is not ordinarily intended to set the criminal law in motion through registration of a case,” the court said.

The court observed that the burden was on the accused to prove that the prior information received by the police in connection with the crime was material information in accordance with Section 154 of CrPC and that this information was suppressed by the prosecution.

“Unless such earlier information satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 154 CrPC by disclosing the essential particulars of the occurrence, the identity of the accused, and the commission of a cognizable offence, no plea of suppression of the earlier FIR can be entertained or sustained. Consequently, the mere non-production of such cryptic information does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution case,” the court said.

The court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by two men who were convicted for murdering a Village Administrative Officer inside his office. The prosecution had alleged that the appellants had a grudge against the VAO for filing a complaint against them for their involvement in illegal mining activities.

The trial court convicted the men under Sections 449, 302, and 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life along with a fine.

On appeal, it was argued that a false case had been foisted against them due to an earlier complaint filed by the VAO. It was argued that even prior to registration of the FIR, the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence and made preliminary enquiries, but the same was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. It was thus argued that such suppression creates a serious doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution case and strikes at the root of its credibility.

Among other grounds, the appellants also argued that there was no reliable material connecting them to the case, that there were irregularities in the collection of fingerprint evidence as it was collected by a writer constable though the Identification of Prisoners Act mandates otherwise. The appellants also questioned the validity of the Test Identification Parade and argued that the identity was already revealed to the witnesses before conducting the test. The appellants also pointed out delay in producing the FIR before the Magistrate.

The court noted that as per the materials, the prosecution was able to prove that the appellants had strong motive against the VAO since he had persistently complained against the illegal mining activities.

The court also did not find anything to discredit the witnesses – the son of the VAO and the Village Assistant. The court found that their evidence was cogent and trustworthy and inspired confidence of the court. The court also noted that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of the witness at the place of occurrence during the specific time, and the details stated by them corroborated with the medical evidence.

With respect to irregularity in obtaining fingerprint evidence, the court noted that the specimen was collected under the supervision of the Investigating Officer and mere technical irregularities would not lead to rejection of the evidence when there was nothing to show that the collection process was tainted with illegality or procedural irregularity affecting its reliability.

Regarding the test identification parade, the court noted that though the accused had alleged that the witnesses were informed about the identity, no documents were produced to prove the same or any question put forward during the cross-examination. Thus, the court rejected the argument.

Thus, the court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no infirmity with the order of the trial court, the court concurred with the conviction of the appellants.

Direction To Hospitals

During the course of the hearing, one ground raised by the appellant was that the Accident Register had only shown that the deceased was brought to the hospital in an 108 Ambulance Service and there was nothing to show that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the witnesses, weakening the prosecution case.

The court noted that this trend was noticed in a number of criminal cases, where, making use of such entry, the defence contend that the injured/deceased was brought in by the Ambulance, thus questioning the presence of prosecution witnesses at the relevant point of time.

The court thus said that it was the duty of the medical officer to correctly record the name and particulars of the person who actually accompanied or brought in the injured/deceased to the hospital. The court added that such ambiguous entities create avoidable controversies during trial and create unnecessary doubts regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses and other material witnesses.

The court thus directed the Principal Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the Director of Medical Education and Research to circulate suitable instructions to all Government medical officers and hospitals dealing with medico-legal cases to record the particulars of the person accompanying/bringing in the injured/deceased, instead of merely entering '108' in the Accident Register.

Counsel for Appellants: Mr. M. Jegadeesh Pandiyan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Christopher, Government Counsel (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

Case No: CRL A (MD) No 1021 of 2023