DILLIBABU vs THE STATE REP BY ITS,
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Case type
- CRL A
- Decided on
- 23-02-2026
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 04.02.2026
DELIVERED ON : 23.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Dillibabu ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-11 CMBT Police Station,
Chennai – 600 107.
2.Srinu @ Srinivasan
3.Muthu Kumar @ Mari
4.Suresh … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 Criminal Procedure
Code, praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 06.10.2018 made
in S.C.No.189/2017 on the file of the XV Additional Sessions Court,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For R2 to R4 : Mr.A.R.Suresh
1/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
JUDGMENT
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The defacto complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal as
against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2018 made in
S.C.No.189/2017 passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Court,
Chennai, in and by which the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents 2
to 4 / A1 to A3 from the charges under Sections 341 r/w. 34 IPC, 323 r/w.
34 IPC and 302 r/w. 34 IPC.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. PW1 is the father of the deceased Gopinath. He deposed that on
29.08.2016 at about 06.15 p.m. PW1 and the deceased were proceeding
from the house to their shop. On the way, the accused waylaid them in
front of their house bearing Door No.13/41, abused them in filthy
language and attacked repeatedly with wooden logs – MO1 and stones –
MO2. PW1 sustained injuries on his shoulder and leg. The deceased fell
down. While so, A1 took big stone and thrown on the deceased head,
saying that he should die now itself.
2/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
2.2. PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW5 is the younger son of PW1. PW3
is the PW1's brother’s son. The deceased was unconscious with blood
injuries. PW4 to PW8 took PW1 to KMC Hospital for treatment.
Thereafter, PW1 was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government General
Hospital for further treatment. The Doctors conducted surgery to the
deceased at 10.45 PM in the night and subsequently the deceased died on
31.09.2016 without responding to the treatment.
2.3. PW20 – Mr.V.Murali, Sub Inspector of Police, on information,
rushed to the hospital and examined PW1. PW1 was admitted as inpatient
at Ward No.201 and the deceased was in ICU. PW20 recorded statement
(Ex.P1) from PW1. PW1 identified M.O.1 -wooden log.
2.4. PW20, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P1 from PW1, he
registered a case in Crime No.743 of 2016 for the offences under Sections
341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. Ex.P12 is the FIR. He forwarded a
copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, PW20 went to the
occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P13 and Rough
Sketch – Ex.P14 in the presence of PW11 – Tr.Suresh and PW12 –
Tr.Arumugam. On 30.08.2016, at about 12.45 hours, on receiving the
3/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
information, he arrested A2 near Rohini theater. On enquiry, A2
voluntarily gave confession statement and the same has been recorded in
the presence of PW11 and PW12. The admissible portion of confession
statement of A2 is Ex.P15. In pursuance to the confession statement, A2
took them to his house and handed over M.O.1 – wooden log from his
house and the same has been recovered under seizure mahazar – Ex.P16.
Then PW20 took A2 to the police station and subjected A2 to judicial
custody and thereafter, he has handed over the case records to PW21 –
Tr.Krishnakumar for further investigation.
2.5. PW21 deposed that on 31.08.2016 at about 23.35 hours, he
received death message of the deceased Gopinath from the hospital and
altered the Sections to 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 302 IPC. The
Alteration Report is Ex.P17. On 01.09.2016, PW21 had conducted inquest
over the dead body of the deceased at 06.00 a.m. to 08.00 a.m. in the
mortuary in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses. The Inquest
Report is Ex.P18. He handed over the body of the deceased through
PW15- Tr.Selvamani for conducting postmortem.
4/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
2.6. In continuation of his investigation, on the same day at about
09.00 a.m. PW21 received information that A1 and A3 were indulged in
robbery, caught hold by the public and handed over to PW21 at the police
station. PW21 arrested A1 and A3 and on enquiry A1 voluntarily gave
confession statement and the same has been recorded. The admissible
portion of the confession statement of A1 is ExP19 and in pursuance to the
confession statement of A1, he took them near to his house and at about
13.45 hours, he recovered blood stained stone – MO2 under Seizure
mahazar Ex.P20. He sent the seized case properties to the court. He
examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
2.7. PW17 / Dr.Gopinath deposed that while he was working on
29.08.2016, PW1 and the deceased were brought for treatment and on
enquiry they stated that on 29.08.2016 at 06.00 p.m., known male persons
assaulted them by using wooden logs and stones. On examination of the
deceased, PW17 found that there is swelling in the front side of his leg
and left side of his head and there is abrasion over forehead and cheek. He
could not able to speak anything and also noticed that blood oozing from
nose and mouth. They admitted the deceased as inpatient and he has
issued Accident Register / Ex.P6. On the same day and at the same time,
5/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
PW1 was brought by his wife Ranjitham - PW2 and informed that he was
assaulted by known male persons with wooden logs. On examination of
PW1, he noticed blood clot injury in his left cheek 5 x 5 cm and also
contusion on his back side of his head. He has issued the Accident
Register copy in respect of PW1 under Ex.P7.
2.8. PW18 / Dr.R.Narendar deposed that while he was on duty on
01.09.2016 at 11.00 a.m., he has received a requisition through Head
Constable / PW15 from PW21 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased. He noticed the following injuries in the postmortem
certificate:
1. Irregular reddish brown abrasions : a) 1 x 0.2 cm on the right
temporal region of the scalp ; b) 3.5 x 2 cm on the back of lower
third of right forearm ; c) 1 x 0.5 cm with intervening normal skin
on the back of right hand ; d) 3 x 2 cm on the back of middle third
of left forearm ; e) 3 x 2 cm, 1 x 1 cm on the back of left elbow ; f) 2
x 1 cm on the left side of chin ; g) 5 x 3 cm on the left cheek ; h) 9 x
5 cm on the left frontal region of the scalp and onto the adjoining
left cheek .
2. Diffuse dark red periorbital bruising around upper and lower
eyelids of both the eyes.
3.
Curvilinear sutured surgical incised wound 37 cm on the left fronto
temporo parietal regions of the scalp ; On removal of sutures, the
wound was 37 x 0.5 cm x scalp deep and the margin were regular
and graping ; On reflection of scalp, Diffuse Dark red scalp deep
bruising all over the scalp ; Surgical bony and Duramater
deficiency 17 x 10 cm on the left fronto temporo parietal regions
with protions of burr holes along with margins of the deficiency ;
Fissure fracture 8 cm on the left frontal bone ; Comminuted fracture
6/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
10 x 7 cm on the left parietal bone and onto the adjoining right
parietal bone ; On removal of calvarium, Dark red Extradural
hematoma 10 grams on the right parieto temporal regions of the
brain ; Dark red Subdural hematoma 5 grams on the right parietal
region of the brain ; Dark red subdural hemorrhage on the surfaces
and the undersurface of both the cerebral and both the cerebellar
hemispheres of the brain ; Dark red subarachnoid hemorrhage on
the surfaces and the undersurface of both the cerebral and both the
cerebellar hemispheres of the brain ; Brain ; Edematous and soft
cut section ; Normal Base of skull : Intact
Heart : Normal in size ; cut section ; All chambers contained fluid
and clotted blood ; Valves Normal ; Coronaries : Patent ; Great
vessels : Normal
Lungs : Normal in size ; cut section : Normal
Larynx and Trachea : Empty ; Hyoid bone and other laryngeal
cartilages : Intact
Stomach : Empty with no definite smell ; mucosa : Normal
Liver, Spleen and Both the Kidneys : Normal in size ; cut section :
Normal
Bladder: Empty
Ribs, Pelvis and Spinal column : Intact
Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.
Opinion as to cause of death ----
Reserved pending the reports of chemical analysis of viscera”
PW18 issued postmortem certificate - Ex.P8 opining that the deceased
would appear to have died on due to effect of head injuries and as per
Ex.P9 / Toxicology Report, there is no detection of alcohol or poison in
the deceased body.
2.9. PW2 – Tmt.Ranjitham who is the wife of PW1, deposed that on
29.08.2016 when PW1 and the deceased attended the funeral and after
7/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
taking bath, went to the shop. PW2 was told that some persons assaulting
her husband. She rushed to the occurrence place and saw that PW1 and
her son sustained blood injuries. At the time A1 took big stone and thrown
on the deceased by saying that he should die now itself and blood was
oozing out. PW2 further deposed that they took them to KMC Hospital
and thereafter they took them to Ranjiv Gandhi Government Hospital for
further treatment.
2.10. PW3 / Mohan deposed that there is a dispute between A2 and
A3 with regard to performing Annadhanam in the Temple at Koyambedu
during the month of Aadi and A2 & A3 assaulted him with their hands. He
did not lodge any complaint after attending the funeral of one subramani’s
father. PW1 and the deceased gone to the shop while the accused waylaid
and assaulted them. Upon hearing information from person who lives in
the same street, PW2, PW3 and PW4 rushed to the occurrence place. The
accused have assaulted PW1 and the deceased. A2 and A3 assaulted PW1
by using wooden log. The deceased fell down. At the time, A1 took a
stone from the place of occurrence and thrown it on the head of the
deceased by saying “he should die now itself” and after the occurrence,
they took PW1 and deceased to the hospital.
8/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
2.11. PW4- Tr.Jeevarathinam, father of PW3 deposed that PW3
informed that the accused were involved in a quarrel with A2 and A3
when he attended the funeral procession. Upon hearing the information,
he along with PWs 2 and 3 went to the occurrence place and saw that A2
and A3 assaulting the deceased with wooden logs and the deceased was
lying down with injuries. At that time, A1 took a big stone and thrown on
the head of the deceased saying that he should die. PW1 and the deceased
were unconscious and they were taken to KMC Hospital for treatment and
then referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for further
treatment.
2.12. PW5 – Tr.Harikrishnan, brother of the deceased deposed that
on 29.08.2016 evening at 6.15 p.m., he along with PWs 1 and 2 and
deceased attended the funeral of one person who died in the street where
he lives. There was a quarrel in the funeral and afterwards they returned
home. Later, PW1 and deceased went to shop. After some time, neighbors
told them that there is some issues going on and when PW5 went to the
occurrence place along with the PW2 and saw that A1 assaulted the
brother of PW5 / younger son of PW1 by using wooden logs and the
deceased fell down and thereafter, A1 took a big stone and thrown on the
head and therefore, he died.
9/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
2.13. PW6- Tr.Vijayakumar deposed that on 29.08.2016 at about
6.00 p.m., while he was in his shop, he came to know that the deceased
and PW1 were assaulted. He say that the deceased was lying down in the
floor with blood oozing from the injuries on his head.
2.14. PW7- Tr.M.Nandhakumar deposed that on 29.08.2016 at
06.15 p.m. while returning after attending the funeral, there was a quarrel
between PW3 with A2 and he pacified them. When he was crossing the
house of the accused, he heard noise and saw that PW1 and the deceased
were assaulted with wooden logs. The deceased fell down and at that
time, A1 took a big stone and thrown on his head. The deceased sustained
injuries and blood was oozing out and he became unconscious.
2.15. PW8- Tr.M.Rajeshkumar deposed that on 29.08.2016 while
returning from work in the evening 5.00 p.m., he heard that one
Subramanim’s father died and in this regard he was talking with PWs 2, 3,
5 and 7 and 2 of his friends and at about 6.15 p.m., PW1 took the deceased
and proceeded to the shop. While proceeding towards the shop, the
accused persons waylaid and assaulted PW1 and the deceased. A1
assaulted the deceased by using wooden logs on his head. The deceased
10/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
fell down unconscious and thereafter, A1 took a big stone and thrown on
the head of the deceased.
2.16. PW10- Tr.Prabhakaran deposed that he knew the accused. On
29.08.2016 at 6.00 p.m., while returning to his house from his private job,
when nearing his house, he saw that PW1 and the deceased were assaulted
by the accused using MO1, in which PW1 and the deceased fell down. A1
took a big stone and thrown on the head of the deceased by saying he
should die. The deceased became unconscious and the injured were taken
to the hospital.
2.17. PW11- Tr.Suresh deposed that he is auto driver and he did not
know anything about the accused. PW13- Tr.Perumal deposed that he
came to know that the police informed him that they have recovered 3
Casuarina wooden logs – M.O.1 and a stone – M.O.2 and the same has
been seized under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P16 and 20). He signed as a
witness in the said seizure mahazar and his signature found in the
confession statement of A1 is Ex.P3 and his signature found in the
confession statement of A3 of Ex.P4 and his signature found in Seizure
Mahazar is Ex.P5.
11/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
2.18. PW19 – Dr.Senthilkumar deposed that while he was working
as Professor in the Neurology Department in the Rajiv Gandhi
Government Hospital, on 29.08.2016, originally the deceased was taken to
KMC hospital and since he was injured on his head, he was referred to
Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital for further statement and he was
informed that the deceased was assaulted by four known persons and he
was given treatment and found that he noted severe injuries on the head of
the deceased and there is blood leakage in his brain and therefore, they
conducted surgery. On 30.08.2016 in the early morning hours at 1.00 a.m.
they removed the blood clot and thereafter, he was admitted in ICU.
Despite treatment, the deceased died on 31.08.2016 at 11.35. p.m. and
issued Death Report – Ex.P10. He also deposed that PW1 was admitted
as Inpatient and taken CT Scan and found that there is fracture on his left
side head. PW1 voluntarily came out and not continued the treatment and
to that effect, he has issued the report – Ex.P11.
2.19. PW21 / I.O. in continuation of his investigation, has examined
the witnesses and recorded their statements. Upon completion of
investigation, he has laid the final report against the accused for the
offences under Sections 341, 294(b) 323, 324, 506(ii), 302 r/w. 34 IPC.
12/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
On 30.09.2016, PW20 handed over M.O.3 – Blue Colour Baniyan which
was given by PW5 to the police station under Form 95 and sent to the
Court. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 21
witnesses, marked 24 documents and produced 3 Material Objects. Upon
completion of prosecution side witness, the accused were questioned
under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances
appearing against them, the accused denied the same as false. On the side
of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and no document was
marked.
2.20. DW1 - Nandhakumar, deposed that on 29.08.2016, DW1,
Suresh, Muthukumar, DW2 and Thurai went to attend the funeral of one
Samanayakar. PW4’s son PW3 scolded and attempted to attack
Muthukumar. DW1 pacified them. On the same day at 5.30 p.m., while
going home by crossing PW4’s home, DW1 witnessed PW4, PW3, PW1
and the deceased assaulting Muthukumar and Muthukumar running
towards his home from the occurrence place. At that time, PW4 and his
son (PW3) picked up stones from the road and threw them towards
Muthukumar, which hit him on his head, due to which he fell down.
Subsequently, one Sheikthavuth brought a vehicle in which the said
13/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Muthukumar, along with DW2, went to the Koyambedu police station.
Later, PW4, PW3, PW1 and the deceased throw stones on one Vignesh.
Eventually, Mani, son of one Chanthiran, who resides in the same street as
DW1, threw stones towards PW’s 5, 3, 1 and deceased. From that, one of
those stones hit the deceased causing him to faint and fell down. Deceased
sustained injury in the left side of the forehead. Then PW1 and the
deceased were taken to the hospital by car. DW2 - Rama Murthy, deposed
the similar version of DW1 and he further deposed that the injured
Muthukumar was taken to the Apollo First Aid Unit near C.M.D.A. bus
stop where first aid was given then went to the Koyambedu Police station
and was in station till 7 p.m., but has not chosen to give any complaint to
the police regarding the incident happened.
2.21. As per the evidence of the defence witnesses, there was a
quarrel between the accused persons and the victim persons in which both
the parties have sustained injury and eventually the DW2 along with the
injured Muthukumar and one Sheikthavuth went to the police station, but
chosen not to give complaint about the occurence. The defence witness
also claims that during the said commotion, one Muthukumar was injured
and the PW1, 3, 4 and the deceased threw stones on one Vignesh, but the
14/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Defence counsel neither chosen to examine the injured person
Muthukumar nor the Vignesh and there was no evidence produced and
marked from the side of the Defence to prove the said incident. Thus, the
evidence of DWs 1 and 2 does not support the case of the defence to
disprove the prosecution case and the same could not be taken in to the
account.
2.22. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Court below found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved
over the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by PW1/injured
witness/defacto complainant against the judgment of acquittal passed by
the trial court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses
PWs.1, 3, 5 and 9, who categorically deposed in their evidence narrated
the occurrence and established the presence of the respondents 2 to 4 /
accused 1 to 3 in the occurrence place and also specifically stated about
their overt acts. PW1 / father of the deceased is the injured witness and he
had sustained injuries in the same occurrence and there is no reason to
15/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
disbelieve the evidence. The Court below failed to believe the evidence of
PW17, doctor who had mentioned the injuries sustained by the deceased
on examination and the evidence of PW17 also corroborates the evidence
of the eye witness. The Court below has failed to consider the evidence of
PW9, PW11, PW12, PW14, who had turned hostile and acquitted the
accused, as it is to be noted that those witnesses are only secondary
witnesses. The Court below failed to state that as per the complaint, four
persons had assaulted the deceased and whereas only 3 persons were
arrayed as accused and there is no reason / explanation by the prosecution
and that cannot be a reason for acquittal. The prosecution has proved the
case beyond all reasonable doubt and the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court is liable to be set aside and prayed for conviction of the
respondents 2 to 4 as per the charges framed.
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to
4 / Accused 1 to 3 would submit that on 29.08.2016, there was a death of
one Samu Naicken occurred in the South Mada Street, Koyambedu,
Chennai where both the defacto complaint / PW1 and the accused 1 to 3
are residing. In the funeral procession, PW1’s brother -in-law / PW4
participated. In the burial ground, PW4 picked up quarrel with regard to
16/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
the distribution of Annadhanam in the temple festival held earlier between
A2 and PW3 and there was a commotion in the burial ground. While
crossing the defacto complainant’s house on returning home from the
burial ground, at about 5.15 p.m., A2 along with DW1 and DW2 were
intercepted by PW1, deceased, PW3 and PW4 and starting attacking A2
with wooden logs and stone in which A2 sustained injuries all over his
body, particularly on the backside of the head and fell down. Immediately
DW2 took A2 to the first respondent police at about 5.30 p.m. On
noticing the injuries sustained by A2, he was directed to go to Appollo
Hospital and after getting first aid, A2 made a complaint at about 6.00
p.m. as against PW1, deceased, PW3 and PW4. The first respondent
police registered a case in Cr.No.742 / 2016 under Sections 341, 294(b),
323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. In the meantime, on the complaint made by A2,
PW4 was secured by police and brought to the police station for
interrogation at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., Both PW3 and A2 were in the
police station all through out the night and on the next day i.e.,
30.08.2016, both of them were produced before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody in the respective crime
numbers, in which they are show as accused / PW4 in Crime No.742 and
A2 in Crime No.743.
17/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 / A1 to A3 would
further submit that PW4, who was taken to police station at about 6.00
st
p.m. 7.00 p.m., would have stated so before the 1 respondent or given a
counter complaint as against A2 on 30.08.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. near
Rohini theatre and recorded confession statement in the presence of PW11
and PW12 and recovered M.O.1 – Series (wooden logs). PW11 and
PW12 categorically deposed that they did not know anything about the
case and the signature found in the confession statement and also in the
Recovery Mahazar are not put by them and hence, the entire case of the
prosecution regrading arrest, confession, seizure of material objects
against A2 are concocted and falls to ground. The learned counsel for the
accused would further submit that as per the prosecution case, A1 and A3
were secured by general public on 01.09.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. and
st
handed over to the 1 respondent police and they were arrested and in
police custody, confession statements were obtained from them in the
presence of Pws.13and 14 and recovered M.O.2 – Stone through A3.
However, PW13 in his cross examination stated that M.O.1 and M.O.2
shown to him by the police is self contradictory to each other. Similarly,
PW14 disowned his signature in the Mahazar as well as in the confession
statements of A1 and A3 and therefore, arrest, confession and seizure of
18/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
material objects as against A1 and A3 are also concocted and falls to
ground.
6. The learned counsel for A1 to A3 would further submit that PW1
and the deceased at the time of admission in KMC Hospital for treatment
had stated that 4 known persons attacked him and his son with wooden
logs and stones as recorded in Accident Registers – Exs.P6 and P7 issued
by PW17 and whereas PW20, stated that only 3 persons have assaulted
them and hence, the evidence of PW1 is contradictory and unreliable.
PW3, who is alleged to be an eye witness, categorically admits that he had
not seen the occurrence as he had been to college and the entire case of
PW1 is that Pws.3 and 4 were present in the scene of occurrence and tried
to pacify them is highly imaginary and improbable. PW1 further stated
that he sustained injury only in his little finger and there is no material
record produced before the trial Court to show that he was grievously
injured and hence the Trial Court has rightly ignored the evidence of PW1
regarding injuries and also the nature of alleged occurrence and neither
PW1 nor PW17 has not mentioned anything about the injuries alleged to
have been sustained by the deceased and hence, there is no question of any
corroboration. PW1 has stated that the alleged occurrence took place in
19/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
front of the house at Door No.13/41, South Mada Street, whereas PW5 has
stated that the alleged occurrence had taken place in front of his house at
Door No.27, South Mada Street and hence, the evidence of PW5 is
unreliable. The Trial Court, after taking note of the inconsistencies,
improbabilities and circumstances regarding arrest, confession and seizure
of material objects as against the accused and held that the prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence acquitted
the respondents / accused 1 to 3 of all the charges framed against them.
To strengthen his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents /
accused has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in State Rep. By Inspector of Police,, Jeyamkondam Police
Station, Ariyalur District and Others v. Kamaraj [(2016) 1 MLJ (Crl.)
691] to show that there were contradiction in the evidence of the eye
witnesses regarding the injuries sustained by PW1 and the deceased at the
hands of the accused and therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and
accordingly, acquitted the accused of all charges.
7. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the first respondent / State would submit that the prosecution has proved
20/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
the case beyond all reasonable doubt through the evidence of the eye
witnesses Pws.3, 4, 5 and 7, who have categorically deposed in their
evidence about the occurrence and the overt acts attributed against the
respondents / accused. The Court below failed to note the evidence of the
eye witness as well as injured witness – PW1, who is the father of the
deceased and he has sustained injury in the occurrence and there is no
reason to disbelieve his evidence. The Court below acquitted the
respondent/accused mainly on the ground that PW1 and the deceased were
taken to the hospital and at the time of treatment, has admitted that 4
known persons have attacked them with wooden logs and stones, as
recorded in Accident Registers – Exs.P6 and P7 issued by PW17, is
unsustainable in law. He would further submit that the Medical Officer
should ascertain the cause of injury, weapon used time etc., thereby
showing no power is vested upon the medical officer, to ascertain from the
injured or the person accompanied the injured, who is the cause of the
assault, whether it is known or unknown even. To strengthen his
contention, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court
dated 18.10.2006 in Crl.A.No.193 of 2004 [Ramaraj v. Inspector of
Police, Padalur Police Station] to show that the Medical Officer
concerned, to ascertain and incorporate in the certificate, how the injuries
21/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
were inflicted and what is the weapon used, including the time, so as to
find out, at later point of time, whether the injury would have been caused
by the weapons produced on behalf of the prosecution.
8. We have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the entire materials available on record.
INTERFERENCE IN APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL
9. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence let in by the
prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused in
respect of the charges levelled against them. The present appeal has been
preferred by the injured witness / PW1 against the judgment of acquittal
passed by the Court below. It is to be noted that the first appellate court
even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal can re-appreciate the
entire evidence and decide the case.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Sohan Lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573], wherein it was held as under:
“3…. as the first appellate court the High Court, even
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also
22/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be
reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to
interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the
guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely
because the High Court could take one more possible or a
different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the
extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned,
no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in
dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against
conviction or the other against an acquittal.”
11. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt, has relied upon the
following circumstances:
(i) Injured Witness
(ii) Eye Witnesses
(iii) Medical Evidence
INJURED WITNESS
12. PW1, who is the father of the deceased Gopinath, is the injured
witness in this case. As per the evidence of PW1 on 29.08.2016 at about
06.15 p.m. PW1 and the deceased were proceeding from the house to their
shop. On the way, the accused waylaid in front of their house bearing
Door No.13/41, abused them in filthy language, attacked repeatedly with
wooden logs – MO1 and stones – MO2. PW1 sustained injuries on his
shoulder and leg. The deceased fell down. While so, A1 took big stone and
23/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
thrown on the deceased head saying that he should die now itself. PW1,
in his chief examination deposed that he was taken to KMC hospital for
treatment along with his son / deceased and thereafter, they were referred
to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital for further treatment. PW1 further
stated in the chief examination that since he sustained injuries on his
hands and leg, he was admitted in Neurology Department and the police
enquired him and obtained complaint / Ex.P1 in the hospital. PW1 also
admits and identifies the wooden logs – M.O.1 series used by the accused
to beat PW1 and the accused. PW20 Sub Inspector of Police, who
examined PW1 at the hospital in his chief examination deposed that PW1
was admitted as inpatient at Ward No.201 and he recorded statement /
complaint under (Ex.P1) from PW1. In pursuance of the same, PW20
registered the case in Crime no. 743/2016 and the registered the FIR in
Ex.P12.
13. As per the evidence of PW17- Dr.Gopinath- who treated the
deceased as well as PW1 deposed in his chief examination that on
29.08.2016, PW1 and the deceased was brought for treatment and on
enquiry they have stated that known male persons assaulted by using
wooden logs and stones. He further deposed that on the same day and at
24/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
the same time, PW1 was brought by his wife Ranjitham - PW2 and
informed that he was assaulted by known male persons with wooden logs.
On examination, he noticed blood clot injury in his left cheek 5 x 5 cm
and also contusion on his back side of his head. He has issued the
Accident Register copy in respect of PW1 under Ex.P7.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and
Others [(2011) 4 SCC 324], wherein it was observed as under:
“27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given
due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence
cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be
very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual
assailant in order to falsify implicate someone else. The
testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and
efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an
injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness
would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished
merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission
of an offence. Thus the evidence of the injured witness should
be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
therein.”
In the case on hand, the evidence of the injured witness / PW1 is amply
corroborated by the evidence of PW20- Sub Inspector of Police as well as
25/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
the doctor / PW17 and therefore, the evidence of PW1 is cogent,
convincing and reliable.
EYE WITNESSES
15. PWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are eye witnesses to the occurrence and
they categorically deposed in their evidence narrating the occurrence and
established the presence of the respondents 2 to 4 / accused 1 to 3 in the
occurrence place and also specifically stated about their overt acts. PW1 /
father of the deceased is the injured witness and he had sustained injuries
in the same occurrence and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
16. As per the evidence of PW2, on 29.08.2016 when PW1 and the
deceased went to the shop after attending the funeral, she heard that some
persons assaulting her husband, so she rushed to the occurrence place and
saw that PW1 and her son sustained blood injuries. Thereafter, A1 took a
big stone and thrown on the deceased by saying that he should die now
itself. As a result, blood was oozing out form the deceased person. After
the incident, they took them to KMC Hospital and thereafter referred to
Ranjiv Gandhi Government Hospital for further treatment.
26/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
17. As per the evidence of PW3 / Mohan, who is the brother’s son
of PW1, there is a dispute between A2 and A3 with regard to performing
Annadhanam in the Temple at Koyambedu during the month of Aadi and
A1 & A2 assaulted him with their hands. He did not lodge any complaint.
PW3 deposed that PW1 and the deceased gone to the shop, while so, the
accused waylaid and assaulted them and upon hearing information from
street people, PW2 and PW3 rushed to the occurrence place. The accused
have assaulted PW1 and the deceased. A2 and A3 assaulted PW1 by using
wooden log. The deceased fell down. At the time, A1 took a stone from
the place of occurrence and thrown on the head of the deceased saying that
he should die now itself and then they took them to the hospital.
18. PW4- Tr.Jeevarathinam, father of PW3 deposed that PW3
informed that the accused were involved in a quarrel with A2 and A3
when he attended the funeral procession. Upon hearing the information
from PW2, he gone to the occurrence place along with his son PW3 and
saw that A2 and A3 assaulting the deceased with wooden logs and the
deceased was lying down with injuries and at that time, A1 took a big
stone and thrown on the head of the deceased saying that he should die.
PW1 and the deceased were unconscious and they were taken to KMC
27/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Hospital for treatment and then referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government
General Hospital for further treatment.
19. PW5 – Tr.Harikrishnan another eye witness and son of PW1, in
his chief examination deposed that on 29.08.2016 evening at 6.15 p.m., he
attended the funeral of one person who died in his street. There was a
quarrel in the funeral and he heard a noise that the accused are assaulting
PW1 and the deceased and he gone to the occurrence place and saw that
A1 and A3 assaulted the brother of the deceased using wooden logs and
the deceased fell down and thereafter, A1 took a big stone and thrown on
the head and therefore, he died.
20. As per the evidence of PW7 on 29.08.2016 at 06.15 p.m. while
returning after attending the funeral, there was a quarrel between PW3
with A1 and he pacified them. When he was crossing the house of the
accused, he heard noise and saw that PW1 and the deceased were
assaulted with wooden logs. The deceased fell down and at that time, A1
took a big stone and thrown on his head. The deceased sustained injuries
and blood was oozing out and he became unconscious.
28/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
21. The eye-witnesses viz., PWs.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have categorically
deposed about the manner of occurrence and the specific overt act against
the accused.
22. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW11-
Tr.Suresh, auto driver, to prove the recovery of the marked object. PW11
deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He admitted his
signature found in the confession statement of A2 in Ex.P2. PW13-
Tr.Perumal, in his chief examination, deposed that he came to know that
the police informed him that they have recovered 3 Casuarina wooden
logs – M.O.1 and a stone – M.O.2 and the same has been seized under
Mahazar. He signed as a witness in the said seizure mahazar and his
signature found in the confession statement of A1 is Ex.P3 and his
signature found in the confession statement of A3 of Ex.P4 and his
signature found in Seizure Mahazar is Ex.P5.
23. PW20, Sub Inspector of Police deposed in his chief examination
that he went to the occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar –
Ex.P13 and Rough Sketch – Ex.P14 in the presence of PW11 – Tr.Suresh
and PW12 – Tr.Arumugam and on 30.08.2016, at about 12.45 hours, on
29/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
receiving the information, he gone near Rohini Theatre and arrested A2.
On enquiry, A2 voluntarily gave confession statement and the same has
been recorded in the presence of PW11 and PW12. The admissible portion
of confession statement of A2 is Ex.P15. In pursuance to the confession
statement, A2 took them to his house and handed over MO1 – wooden log
from his house and the same has been recovered under seizure mahazar –
Ex.P16.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
24. As per the evidence of the doctor / PW17 on 29.08.2016, PW1
and the deceased were brought for treatment and on enquiry they have
stated that known male persons assaulted by using wooden logs and
stones. On 29.08.2016 at 06.00 p.m., on examination of the deceased,
PW17 found that there is swelling in the front side of his leg and left side
of his head and there is laceration injury over forehead and cheek. The
deceased could not able to speak anything and also noticed that blood
oozing from nose and mouth. The deceased was admitted as inpatient and
he has issued Accident Register / Ex.P6.
25. PW19 – Dr.Senthilkumar, in his chief examination, deposed that
30/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
on 29.08.2016, the deceased was brought for further treatment in Rajiv
Gandhi Government Hospital, where he worked in Neurology Department
and he was informed that the deceased was assaulted by four known
persons. On examination, he noted severe injuries on the head of the
deceased and there is blood leakage in his brain and therefore, they
conducted surgery. On 30.08.2016 in the early morning hours at 1.00 a.m.
they removed the blood clot and thereafter, he was admitted in ICU.
Despite treatment, the deceased died on 31.08.2016 at 11.35. p.m. and
issued Death Report – Ex.P10. In the meantime, PW1 was also admitted
as Inpatient and taken CT Scan and found that there is fracture on his left
side head. PW1 voluntarily came out and not continued the treatment and
to that effect, he has issued the report – Ex.P11.
26. As per the evidence of the postmortem doctor / PW18, in his
chief examination, deposed that while he was on duty on 01.09.2016 at
11.00 a.m., he has received a requisition through Head Constable / PW15
from PW21 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW18
issued postmortem certificate - Ex.P8 opining that the deceased would
appear to have died on due to effect of head injuries and as per Ex.P9 /
Toxicology Report, there is no detection of alcohol or poison in the
31/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
deceased body. Therefore, the evidence of the doctors who treated the
victims viz., PW17 and PW19 and also the Postmortem doctor / PW18
coupled with Exs.P6 and P7 -Accident Registers respectively issued for
the deceased and PW1, Ex.P8- Postmortem Report, Ex.P9 – Toxicology
report, Ex.P10- Death Report and Ex.P11- Medical Certificate issued by
PW19 for PW1 amply corroborates the nature of injuries sustained by the
deceased and PW1, which also corroborates the evidence of injured as
well as eye witnesses.
27. From the evidence of PW2 to PW5 and PW9, it revealed that
the injured witness, who is the father of the deceased/PW1 established his
presence beyond a reasonable doubt as he had sustained injury during the
same offence. As discussed above, the evidence of the injured witness has
a great evidentiary value and is considered reliable, unless a strong reason
exists for its rejection. Even his testimony has remained unimpeachable
during the cross-examination. PW1’s evidence is also corroborated by the
medical evidence and other independent eyewitnesses. Apart from PW1,
the prosecution examined PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 as eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that they were
present near the place of the incident and had seen the accused persons
32/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
assaulting PW1 and the deceased with stones and wooden logs. The
evidence of the eyewitnesses are consistent with each other on particulars
such as the time, place, and manner of assault, as well as the weapons
used. PWs 3 and 4, who are close relatives of PW1, rushed to the spot and
tried to intervene when the attack took place, which further corroborates
the testimony of PW1. The presence of these witnesses is natural, as they
are residents of the same locality and came out upon hearing the
commotion. The consistency of their depositions lends strong support to
the prosecution's version and rules out any possibility of false implication
as pleaded by the learned counsel for the respondents.
28. The chain of events following the occurrence, as to the arrest
and recovery, has also been clearly proved by the prosecution through
their witnesses. On 30.08.2016, PW20 arrested A2 near Rohini Theatre
and recorded his voluntary confession statement-Ex.P15 in the presence of
witnesses. In pursuance of the said confession, the wooden log-MO1 used
in the commission of the offence was recovered under seizure mahazar-
Ex.P16. Subsequently, A1 and A3 were arrested, and their confessional
statements-Ex.P19 were recorded. In pursuance of the same, a blood-
stained stone -MO2 was recovered near A1’s house under Ex.P20. The
evidence of recovery witnesses PWs 13 and 20 corroborates the
33/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
prosecution's case. The seized material objects were later sent for forensic
examination, and the reports confirmed the presence of human blood of
the same group as that of the deceased. This forensic evidence connects
the prosecution’s case and establishes a clear link between the accused and
the crime.
29. Eventually, the medical evidence has also supported the case of
the prosecution and has also been corroborated by the eyewitness/injured
witness of PW1/ father of the deceased and the other eyewitness in this
case. The medical evidence supports the ocular witnesses in this case.
PW18-autopsy doctor who issued the Postmortem Report-Ex.P8 and
Toxicology Report (Ex.P9) revealed multiple lacerated wounds on the
head and face, consistent with the use of wooden logs and stones as
weapons. PW18 has opined that the death of the deceased was due to the
cumulative effect of head injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Further, the injured witness /PW1 was
medically examined by PW19 – Dr. Senthilkumar, who treated both PW1
and the deceased, issued Accident Register copies-Exs. P6 and P7 and the
Medical Certificate -Ex.P11 confirms that PW1 sustained injuries during
the same occurrence. The medical evidence, therefore, not only establishes
the cause of death but also corroborates the testimonies of PW1 and other
eyewitnesses, leaving no room for doubt regarding the participation of all
the accused in the commission of the offence. Therefore, this Court finds
34/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
reasonable grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court.
30. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2019, filed by the
defacto complainant / PW1 is allowed and the judgment of acquittal dated
06.10.2018 in S.C.No.189 of 2020 passed by the learned XV Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai is set aside. Thereby, A1 to A3 are found guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w Section 34 IPC for
wrongfully restraining the PW1 and the deceased, Section 323 r/w
section 34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 and the deceased
and section 302 r/w section 34 of IPC for causing death by murder of
the deceased.
31. Since this Court reversed the sentence of acquittal passed by the
trial court, in the interest of justice, before pronouncing the sentence, this
court is inclined to hear the accused on the question of sentence and to
consider the mitigating circumstances involved in this case. Accordingly,
while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and convicting A1 to
A3/respondents 2 to 4 for the charged offences, this Court directs the
Registry to post the appeal on 26.02.2026 for hearing the accused on the
question of sentence to be imposed against them.
35/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
32. List this matter on 26.02.2026.
[P.V., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
23.02.2026
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-11 CMBT Police Station,
Chennai – 600 107.
2. XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
36/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN , J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
Judgment in
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
23.02.2026
37/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
This is the appeal filed by the defacto complainant against the
judgment of acquittal made by the trial Court. This Court, vide its
judgment dated 23.02.2026, found A1 to A3, who are the respondents 2 to
4 herein guilty for the charged offences and hence the matter was directed
to be listed today (26.02.2026) under the caption for “question of
sentence”.
2. Today, all the three accused appeared before us. On questioning
regarding sentence, all the accused A1 to A3/ respondents have stated that
they have not committed any offence and a false case has been foisted
against them.
3. Accused 1 to 3, who are the respondents 2 to 4 herein are hereby
convicted and sentenced as under:
(i) A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 month simple
imprisonment.
(ii) A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence under Section 323
IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment.
(iii) A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offence under section 302 r/w
section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine
of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
38/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
4. After questioning of sentence and imposing the sentence of
punishment, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused
prays to suspend the sentence in order to prefer an appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission
made by the learned counsel for the respondents / accused and that it is a
case of reversal of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, in
order to provide an opportunity to the accused A1 to A3 to prefer an
appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sentence of imprisonment
alone is suspended for all the accused till the appeal period is over. After
the expiry of the appeal period, if no appeal is filed and no order of stay or
any other fruitful order in favour of the accused by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the trial Court is directed to secure all the accused to undergo the
sentence awarded by this Court.
[PVJ] [MJRJ]
26.02.2026
cgi/jvm
Note: IT on 26.02.2026
39/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
cgi/jvm
Crl.A.No.192 of 2019
26.02.2026
40/40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:38 pm )