THE STATE REP BY vs MARAN @ SENGUTTAVAN @ MANIVANNAN @ MULLAIVALAVAN @

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 29-01-2026
DELIVERED ON : 25-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL A No. 388 of 2019
The State Rep By
The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, CBCID,
Coimbatore Range, Thalavady Police Station,
Cr.No.90/2000.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Maran @ Senguttavan @ Manivannan @
Mullaivalavan @ Kannaiyan
S/o.Singaram, Mullankuzhi,
Thiruvidaimaruthur, Tanjore District.
2. Govindaraj @ Megananthan @ Sabha @ Iniyan
@ Paranjothi @ Raju,
M/A 48 years, S/o.Sridharan,
No.97, Bodichetti street,
Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore District.
3. Andril @ Elumalai @ Paranjothi
S/o.Devaraja vannia,
Mettu Theeru, P.Villiyanur,
Villupuram Taluk.
4. Selvam @ Sathya @ Raju
S/o.Ramasamy Padayatcvhi,
Jayamkondam,Ariyalur,
Ariyalur District.
__________
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
5. Amirthalingam @ Lingam @ Chelzhiyan
S/o.Kaliaperumal, East Street,
Thattathimoolai, Anaikuppam,
Nannilam Taluk.
6. Basuvanna
S/o.Basappa, Malkuthipuram Village,
Thalavadi, Erode District.
7. Nagaraj
S/o.Ruthurappa,
Malkuthipuram Village,
Thalavadi, Erode District.
8. Puttusamy
S/o.Chikkana Chetty,
Malkuthipuram Village,
Thalavadi, Erode District.
9. Rama @ Kalmandipuram Rama
S/o.Subbu Chetty,
Kalmandipuram Village,
Thalavady, Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
/ Accused 1 to 8 & 10
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC against the
judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 in S.C.No.51/2011 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam, Erode
District.

For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Mohan
assisted by B.M.Subash for R3
Mr.C.Samivel,
Legal Aid Counsel for R1 and R2
and R4 to R9
__________
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.)
The State has preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment of
acquittal dated 25.09.2018 made in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in and by
which the respondents / Accused 1 to 8 and 10 are acquitted for the offences as
under:
Rank of the
Charges framed under Sections
Accused
A1, A2 and A5 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC
A3 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and
25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959
A4 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and
25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959
A6 and A7 120(B), 365 r/w. 109, 364 r/w.109 IPC, 25(1B)(a)
and Section 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 4(b) of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
A8 to A10 120(B), 364(A) r/w. 109, 365 r/w.109 IPC.
2. Brief case of the prosecution as per the prosecution witness:
2.1. PW1-Tr.Gopalan- Village Administrative Officer deposed that he
came to know about the kidnapping of actor Dr.Rajkumar. He went to the
house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and enquired the same. On enquiry, he came to
know that the deceased accused Veerappan and his associates at gun point they
kidnapped the said actor Dr.Rajkumar. PW2-Tr.Nagappa and PW3-
__________
Page 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
Tr.Govindaraj were also kidnapped. Since no one lodged complaint in this
regard, he lodged Ex.P1- complaint before PW45. Thereafter, PW45 visited the
occurrence place and prepared Observation Mahazar - Ex.P2.
2.2. PW2 – Tr.Nagappan deposed that on 30.07.2000 at 8.30 p.m., after
having dinner, actor Dr.Rajkumar was watching TV in his old house. PW2,
PW3-Tr.Govindaraj, PW10- Tr.Ravi and PW5-Tr.Nagaraj while they were
proceeding to new house, at that time, suddenly 9 persons have arrived and tried
to assault them at gun point. At that time, A1, A3, A5 and A4 asked them to sit.
Thereafter, the deceased accused Veerappan, A1, A4 and A3 gone to the old
house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and they took him from his house. They threatened
them by saying not to disclose to anyone. They also gave a cassette to
Mrs.Parvathamma / wife of actor Dr.Rajkumar and asked her to handover the
said cassette to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. They kidnapped 4
persons. After some time, PW2 took them to the forest. PW2 escaped from the
accused and ran through forest and went to Karnataka and met the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Karnataka. Thereafter, after a lapse of 108 days, one
Mr.Nedumaran brought actor Dr.Rajkumar to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Karnataka. PW2 also deposed that he has participated in the Test Identification
Parade and he has also identified A3 and A4 in the Test Identification Parade.
__________
Page 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.3. PW3- Tr.Govindaraj, who is the son-in-law of actor Dr.Rajkumar,
deposed that on 30.07.2000, while he was staying with his uncle actor
Dr.Rajkumar in his house, PW2 after having dinner, while proceeding to new
house to go to bed, at that time 7 or 8 persons have kidnapped him and also
abducted PW2- Nagappa, PW4- Nagesh, PW10-Ravi and PW5- Nagaraj.
Thereafter, they asked them to sit in the same place and gone to the old house of
actor Dr.Rajkumar and brought him. Further he has deposed in similar lines as
that of PW2.
2.4. PW4- Nagesh deposed that on 30.07.2000 between 8.00 to 9.00 a.m.,
when they proceeded from the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar to his new
house, at that time the deceased and his close associates restrained them and the
accused have gone to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and brought him. At
that time, they made certain demands to the Government of Karnataka.
Thereafter, the accused took them to forest. PW2 – Nagappa escaped from the
forest. PW3 accompanied one Nedumaran and after 108 days, said Nedumaran
brought actor Dr.Rajkumar. PW4 also deposed that he has identified A3 in the
Test Identification Parade conducted in Coimbatore Central Prison.
2.5. PW5- Nagaraj deposed similar to the version of PW2. PW5 informed
the accused that he was not feeling well and the accused left him. Next day, he
informed to the Village Administrative Officer about the occurrence.
__________
Page 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.6. PW6- Tmt.Deepa deposed that in the year 2000, while they were
watching TV with actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife Mrs.Parvathamma, the
accused Veerappan came, tied the hands of actor Dr.Rajkumar from behind,
also threatened his wife by showing gun, handed over a cassette to
Mrs.Parvathamma and asked her to handover the same to the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of Karnataka. He took actor Dr.Rajkumar.
2.7. PW7- Tr.Gandhiraj deposed that on one Sunday, while PW7, actor
Dr.Rajkumar and his wife Mrs.Parvathamma, Pallavi, Sona and Anumantharao
after dinner while they were watching TV, at about 9.00 p.m. the deceased
accused Veerappan and his associates arrived. Two persons were standing
outside and four persons entered inside the house. The deceased accused
Veerappan asked Mrs.Parvathamma not to speak anything, otherwise he will
shoot her and also handed over one cassette to her and asked her to handover
the same to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. Then, they took actor
Dr.Rajkumar by tying his hand from behind and while taking actor
Dr.Rajkumar, they said that if anyone follows, then they will shoot him.
2.8. PW8- Tr.Chennan deposed similar to the version of PW7. PW9-
Tr.Anuman deposed that on 30.07.2000 at 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., the deceased
accused Veerappan and his associates 10 or 15 persons have arrived. Four
__________
Page 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
persons entered inside the house and remaining were standing outside. They
surrendered them and tied the hands of actor Dr.Rajkumar and took him from
the house by five persons. They were standing in the house for only 5 to 10
minutes. A1 to A3 entered into the house. The deceased accused Veerappan
handed over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma and asked her to hand over the
same to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka and threatened them that they
should not disclose to anyone, otherwise the accused will kill them.
2.9. PW10- Tr.Ravi driver deposed similar to the version of PW3-
Govindaraj. PW11- Tr.Gopal deposed that on 30.07.2000 at 8.45 p.m., while he
was in his kitchen, a girl came and stated that her grandfather was tied from
behind. PW11, his wife and relatives came to the hall. At that time, the
deceased accused Veerappan threatened them by showing gun and said not to
enter into the house. The accused handed over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma
and took actor Dr.Rajkumar along with them.
2.10. PW12- Tr.Vethiappan deposed that he was an agricultural coolie
worker along with other 11 people in actor Dr.Rajkumar’s garden and on
30.07.2000 at 8.00 p.m., when they were staying in the shed, one person came,
shown gun and threatened them not to shout. After 10 minutes, they saw that
actor Dr.Rajkumar hands were tied from behind and took by the deceased
accused Veerappan along with 8 persons. All the persons are having gun in
their hands.
__________
Page 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.11. PW13- Tr.Ramamurthy deposed that while he was sleeping on
30.07.2000 at night 10.00 p.m., he came to know that there was a quarrel in his
village and actor Dr.Rajkumar has been abducted by the deceased accused
Veerappan and his men. PW14- Tr.Sennimalai Gounder deposed that 10 or 11
years prior, at about night 3 a.m. he and his garden workers while watching TV
heard noise from outside. At that time, the deceased accused Veerappan and his
associates totalling 11 persons by holding gun, asked them to bring Basuvanna /
A6 and Nagaraj / A7 through their people. Basuvanna/A6 only came and they
talked with each other for half an hour. During investigation, he heard that they
are going to kidnap after 6 months and they need more money.
2.12. PW16- Tr.Nagarajan deposed that on 30.07.2000 at night between
8.00 to 8.15 p.m., 5 or 6 persons came to the farm house of actor Dr.Rajkumar,
out of which 3 of them took him to the back side of the farm house.
2.13. PW17- Tr.Duraisamy, JCB driver deposed that he works as a JCB
Operator in the farm lands belonging to actor Dr.Rajkumar. On 30.07.2000
between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., he went for his dinner after completing his work, at
that time, 7 or 8 persons came to the house of actor Dr.Rajkumar with gun and
after 10 minutes, they took actor Dr.Rajkumar by tying his hands from behind.
__________
Page 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.14. PW18- Chandrakumar deposed that during October, 2001 while he
was talking with his friends, while nearing to Malkuthipuram in the forest area,
A6 and A7 were talking with each other and they questioned why they are
standing, for which they replied that they are about to buy rice, dhall, country
made gun and detonator and they also informed that police are searching them.
So they were hiding.
2.15. PW19- Tr.Govindan- VAO deposed that on the request made by
Thalavadi Inspector of Police, he gone to the police station along with his
Assistant Tr.Salim Basha. On 12.02.2001, A2 was present in the police station.
In their presence A2 gave confessional statement with regard to the occurrence
held on 30.07.2000. Again the Inspector of Police called them to the police
station on 22.02.2001 and they saw that A1 was in the police station and the
Inspector of Police recorded confession statement of A1 and the signatures
found in the confession statement of the accused is Exs.P3 and P4.
2.16 PW20– Tr.Velliyangiri deposed that 10 years before, the Inspector
of Police, Bangalapudhur has obtained his signature and the signature of PW20
is Ex.P5.
__________
Page 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.17. PW22- Tr.Subramani-VAO of Sikkarasampalayam deposed that on
18.09.2001, Banglapudhur Inspector of Police brought one Andril / A3 to his
office. A3 took them to a place near Pudukuyyanoor Bridge, in the forest area
at a distance of 200 feet North to the Bridge and took the gun which was hidden
near Karuvelam Tree (Prosopis Juliflora) and handed over the same and musket
gun – M.O.1 and the same has been recovered under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P6.
2.18. PW23-Tr.Kulandaiya – VAO of Pudupattinam, Tanjore deposed
that on 07.09.2001, while he was standing near the road proceeding to Tanjaore
Nanjikottai road, near Village Farmers Market, PW42-Inspector of Police,
Tr.Rajendran has arrested A4 and he voluntarily gave confession statement and
the signature of PW23 found in the confession statement of A4 is Ex.P7.
2.19. PW24- Tr.Govindarj, VAO of Dikanar village deposed that on
30.10.2001, while he was in his office, A6/ Basuvenna surrendered before him
and he took him to Thalavadi police station at 12.00 noon. The Inspector of
Police enquired A6 and on enquiry, A6 voluntarily gave confession statement.
The admissible portion of the confession statement of A6 is Ex.P8. In
pursuance to the confession statement, A6 took them to a place in
Malkuthipuram Garden road and identified country made gun- M.O.2, detonator
and lighting thread and the same were seized under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P9.
A6 identified A7- Nagarajan and on enquiry, A7 voluntarily gave confession
__________
Page 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
statement and the same has been recorded and the admissible portion of the
confession statement of A7 is Ex.P10. A7 took them to his farm where he
concealed the country made gun – M.O.3, detonator and lighting thread and the
same were seized under Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P11 and thereafter, PW24
prepared Observation Mahazar – Ex.P12.
2.20. PW25- Tr.Guru deposed that on 30.07.2000 at 8.40 pm., the
deceased accused Veerappan and 3 persons tied the hands of actor Dr.Rajkumar
from behind and the accused informed that if anyone follows them, he will
shoot them. PW2-Nagappa handed over M.O.4 – Pant / shirt before Thalavadi
Police Station and the same has been recovered under Mahazar – Ex.P13.
2.21. PW26- Tr.Dhandapani VAO- deposed that while he was serving as
VAO of Thuraiyampalayam, on 08.09.2001 the Bangalapudhur Inspector of
Police called him. PW26 and Village assistant went to the police station and
saw that A4 was in the police station. A4 took them with the Inspector of
Police along with 6 of 7 persons to a place called Kuthiayalathur Forest Area at
Manakarai, where A4 identified a place, dug the ground and identified the
weapons which were buried in a blue colour polythene cover – M.O.5 and the
same has been seized under Mahazar-Ex.P14. Blue colour polythene cover –
M.O.5, 2 Nos. of Musket gun- M.O.6., SPPL gun – M.O.7, country gun –
M.O.8, Cleaning rod – M.O.9, Rose Colour rope – M.O.10, Red Polythene Bag
__________
Page 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
– M.O.11, Orange colour pot – M.O.12, Musket gun bolt 2 Nos. – M.O.13, Red
Colour Bullet 17 Nos.– M.O.14, Blue Colour Belt – M.O.15, Axe Saw blade 10
Nos. – M.O.16, Axe Saw Frame 2 Nos. – M.O.17, Blue colour Rotomax Pen –
6 Nos – M.O.18, Arrow Weighing Machine – M.O.19, Torch Light – M.O.20,
500 ml bottles – 2 Nos – M.O.21, Gun Medicine in Parachute Bottle – M.O.22,
Bullet Loading wood – M.O.23, Elephant Tusks -12 Nos. – M.O.24, Aluminium
Bullets 30 Nos – M.O.25, Polythene Matt- M.O.26, Aluminium Bar – M.O.27,
Green Full Sleeve Shirt- M.O.28, Green Colour Mask- M.O.29, Black and
White checked Lungi – M.O.30 were seized under Seizure Mahazar and they
have signed as witness in the confession statement as well as in the Mahazar.
The signature of PW26 in the confession statement of A4 is Ex.P15.
2.22. On 19.09.2001, PW26 again went to Bangalapudhu Police Station
along with Village assistant, on the request made by the Inspector of Police and
saw that A3 was present in the police station and on enquiry, A3 voluntarily
gave confession statement and the same has been recorded. The admissible
portion of the confession statement of A3 is Ex.P16.
2.23. PW27 – Tr.Viswanathan, VAO of Thalavadi village deposed that on
the request made by the Inspector of Police, he went to Thalavadi Police Station
along with Village Assistant on 08.11.2011 and he saw that A8 was found
arrested. On enquiry made by the Inspector of Police, A8 voluntarily gave
__________
Page 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
confession statement and the same has been recorded. The signature of PW27
found in the confession statement of A8 is Ex.P17. Thereafter, the Inspector of
Police arrested A9, which has been recorded and the signature of PW27 found
in the confession statement of A9 is Ex.P18.
2.24. PW28 – Tr.Balchandran, then Erode District Collector deposed that
in the year 2003, he has passed orders to take action against A6 and A7 under
Ex.P19 with regard to their possession of 20 gelatine sticks, 10 detonator and
Ex.P20 with regards to holding weapons and ammunitions without proper
licence which gave permission against A6 and A7.
2.25. PW29- Tr.Mahesan Kasirajan, then Erode District Collector
deposed that in the year 2008, he has issued orders to take action against A4
under Arms Act. The orders issued to him is Ex.P21. PW30 – Tr.Ramaiah,
Scientific Officer deposed that after receiving 6 material objects from the
Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, he examined and issued a report under
Ex.P22.
2.26. PW31- Tr.Nallasamy deposed that on 22.01.2001 while he was in
duty in Special Task Force, on surveillance over the deceased accused
Veerappan and his associates, at about 7.30 p.m. the Inspector of Police has
arrested A5 and he has given confession statement and the same has been
__________
Page 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
recorded. The signature of PW31 found in the confession statement of A5 is
Ex.P23.
2.27. PW32- Tr.Arulanandham, Inspector of Police, Task Force, on
22.01.2001 while he was in surveillance duty, at 7.30 p.m., he arrested A5 and
handed over A5 before Thalavadi Police Station on the next day along with a
separate report under Ex.P24.
2.28. PW33- Tr.Balasubramaniam, then Inspector of Police, Q Branch
deposed that on 15.02.2001, while they were searching the accused and his
associates, near Velliyangiri Seetha Hill, A1 was roaming with a bag on his
shoulder. On suspicion, they surrounded and enquired him and found in his
waist bag, Pipe Bombs, Electric Detonator, Solar Panel, Solar Charges, 12
Recharge Batteries, Nokia Binocular, Vodafone Mobilephone, Cellphone stand,
Kenwood Walkie Talkie User Manual, Pink Colour Bedsheet, Dark Green
Colour Plastic Tent, Black Hand Gloves, Toothpaste, soap and other things in a
plastic bag and they were seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mr.Sampathkumar – PW44 under Seizure Mahazar. The said material objects
were handed over to Alandurai Police Station along with a report and they
registered a case against the accused.
2.29. PW36 – Tr.Thyagaraj, Explosive Substance Control Officer,
deposed that he has received a requisition letter from the Judicial Magistrate,
__________
Page 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
Sathyamangalam with regard to explosive substances and after examining the
material objects and destroyed the same for public safety and he has issued a
report in this regard under Ex.P25.
2.30. PW37- Tr.Chandrasekaran, Inspector of Police has spoken about the
arrest of A1 by the DSP while they were in surveillance duty. PW39 –
Tr.Selvaraj and PW40- Tr.Kuppusamy have deposed with regard to
identification of musket guns. PW41- Tr.Somasundaram, Circle Inspector
deposed about the material objects recovered from A1 and handing over the
same through Special Report in Ex.P26 and registration of case in Crime
No.31/2001. The registered F.I.R is Ex.P27.
2.31. PW42 – Tr.Rajendiran, Q Branch Inspector of Police deposed that
on 31.08.2001, he arrested A3 near Aavin Booth in Tanjore New Bus Stand in
the presence of PW21 Amudhan and one Manoharan. On enquiry, A3 gave
confession statement. He handed over the accused before Thalavadi Police
Station and received acknowledgement to that effect under Ex.P28. He further
deposed that on 07.09.2001, he arrested A4 and on enquiry, A4 gave confession
statement voluntarily and the same has been recorded in the presence of PW23
– Kulandaiya (VAO) and one thachinamorthy. In pursuance to the admissible
portion of confession statement under Ex.P29, A4 handed over 410 Musket
Guns and Elephant Tusks and the same were recovered under Mahazar. PW42
__________
Page 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
handed over the case properties along with the Special Report – Ex.P30 before
the Bangalapudhur Police Station.
2.32. PW43- Tr.Murugesan, Inspector of Police, Q Branch deposed that
on 08.01.2001 at 4.00 p.m., he arrested A2 in Ayanavaram High Road, Chennai
and he has recovered cash and explosive substances and registered a case in
Cr.No.1 of 2001 and he has handed over the material objects before the V-
Judicial Magistrate, Chennai and also subjected the accused for judicial custody.
The First Information Report is Ex.P31.
2.33. PW44-Tr.Sampathkumar, Special Task Force Deputy
Superintendent of Police, deposed that on 14.2.2001, while he was in
surveillance duty in Velliyangiri hills, found that A1 was standing in a
suspicious manner. They arrested and enquired him. He gave confession that
he is involved in the kidnapping of actor Dr.Rajkumar and he has handed over
pipe bomb, 2 cellphones without sim card, Solar cell charger panel, 12 watt
recharge batteries, kenwood walkie talkie, pink colour, bed sheet, leather hand
gloves, lungi and clothes and the same were recovered under mahazar in the
presence of Sub Inspector of Police – Tr.Murugesan – PW43 and produced the
same before Alandurai Police Station with a report and a case was registered in
Cr.No.31/2001.
__________
Page 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.34. PW45 – Tr.Lakshmanaswamy, Inspector of Police deposed that on
31.07.2001 at 9.00 a.m., PW1 lodged a complaint and he registered a case in
Crime No.90/2000 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 364, 307 and
506(ii) IPC r/w. 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Ex.P32 is the registered
F.I.R. He went to the scene of occurrence at Thottakajanur and drawn Rough
Sketch – Ex.P33 in the presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses and
recorded their statements. He examined Nagappa/PW2 and recorded his
statement and recovered torn White Colour Half Sleeve Shift and torn Wood
Colour Pant under Form 91– Ex.P34. Further, on 19.12.2000, he examined,
Mrs.Parvathammal, PW3 and PW4 and recorded their statements and handed
over the case records for further investigation on 01.08.2000 to Thalavadi
Inspector of Police Mr.Kaliappan. But the said Inspector of Police died. Thus
PW41 deposed on behalf of Mr.Kaliappan on the case he investigated since he
known the signature of Mr.Kaliappan. He arrested A5 and subjected him to
judicial custody. He recovered cash of Rs.500/- and sent the same to the Court
under Form 91. He further deposed that he has taken the accused to police
custody from judicial custody. He had also arrested A1 and the admissible
portion of the confession statement of A1 is Ex.P35 and in pursuance of his
confession statement of A1, material objects were seized. He has given a
requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate to sent the explosive substances
for chemical analysis.
__________
Page 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
2.35. PW46- Tmt.Sasikala, then Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam
deposed that she had recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC of the
witnesses and the compilation of such statements is Ex.P50. On 12.09.2001,
she conducted Test Identification Parade and issued the Test Identification
Report – Ex.P51.
2.36. PW47- Tr.Jayabal, Additional Superintendent of Police deposed
that he and one Soundarajan examined 123 witnesses with regard to demanding
ransom based on the instructions received from the Government. After
completion of examination of witnesses, PW47 recorded their statements and
gave report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption under Ex.P52.
2.37. PW48 – Tr.Basheer Ahmed, Deputy Superintendent of Police
deposed that he went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and
received the FIR on 09.04.2003. He gave a letter on 01.09.2003 for adding
Sections under Arms Act to the District Collector, in respect of A3 and A4
2.38. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused, the
prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 48, marked Exs.P1 to 52 and produced 31
material objects. Upon completion of prosecution side evidence, when the
accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to
incriminating materials appearing against the accused, they have denied the
__________
Page 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
charges and claimed that it is a false case. On behalf of the defence side, one
Mr.Sugumaran was examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked and no
material object was produced. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt / charges framed against the accused and acquitted all the accused.
Aggrieved over the same, the State has preferred this criminal appeal.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State put
forth the following contentions:
(i) The Court below has completely ignored the evidence of
PW14, who has spoken about the conspiracy as an eye witness.
(ii) The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence of the
material witnesses PW2 to PW5, who have spoken about the overt
acts of A1 to A5. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence
of the witnesses PWs.6 to 12. PW16 & PW17 have corroborated
the evidence of the witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and the said witnesses have
also deposed about the overt act of A6 to A10 in aiding A1 to A5 in
committing the offence of abduction and wrongful confinement of
the witnesses PWs.2 to 4.
(iii) The Trial Court failed to consider that non-examination
of the main victim actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife will not affect the
case of the prosecution and their evidence were substantiated by the
evidence of PW2 to PW5, PW16 and PW17.
__________
Page 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
(iv) The evidence of the witnesses PWs.1 to 12, 16 and 17 are
not only eye witnesses, but their evidence are also corroborating and
convincing.
(v) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1
to 12, PW22 and PW23 to prove possession of Arms with A3 and
A4 and the same is also corroborated by the evidence of PW42 and
PW45.
(vi) PW26-VAO categorically deposed that A6 voluntarily
gave confession statement and in pursuance of his confession
statement, M.O.3 – country made gun was seized and the same was
also corroborated by the evidence of PW45 / I.O.
(vii) In pursuance of the confession statement of A6, A7 was
found in possession of country made gun, gelatin sticks, detonators
and the same were seized under Mahazar Ex.P11 in the presence of
PW24 and the Trial Court has failed to consider that charges under
Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act have been proved against
A6 and A7.
(viii) The Trial Court failed to consider that the witnesses have
identified the accused in the Identification Parade conducted by the
Judicial Magistrate- PW16, which clearly proves that the material
witnesses were genuine. Identification of the accused persons have
been clearly proved and she has also given report in this regard
under Ex.P51.
(ix) The First Information Report is not a substantive piece of
__________
Page 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
evidence and it only helps to set the law in motion and the Trial
Court has failed to consider that any person can set the law in
motion.
(x) The Court below erroneously came to the conclusion
stating that the case was not registered under the first information.
(xi) The trial Court has failed to note that while appreciating
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, benefit of doubt can be
given to the accused, but it cannot be given as a bonus in favour of
those who are guilty of polluting the society and the mankind.
(xii) The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside
and the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced as per the
charges framed against them.
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 4 to 9
would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy through
reliable witnesses. In order to establish the conspiracy, the prosecution though
chosen to examine PW14, his evidence is unreliable one, since the alleged eye
witness to the occurrence have not clearly deposed about number of accused
involved at the time of alleged abduction. Though the prosecution has claimed
that actor Dr.Rajkumar, PW2 and PW3 have sustained injuries during the
alleged occurrence, they have not chosen to produce any medical record and not
chosen to examine any medical evidence. The main victim in this case namely
__________
Page 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
actor Dr.Rajkumar as well as his wife Mrs.Parvathammal were not examined in
this case. When the specific case of the prosecution is that deceased accused
Veerappan handed over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathammal, she in-turn handed
over to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, before that she had lodged a
complaint before the the Deputy Inspector General of Police [DIG], Karnataka,
but the prosecution has failed to produce the said cassette allegedly given to the
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. The prosecution has also failed to
explain as to why the earliest complaint given by Mrs.Parvathamma before the
DIG, Karnataka has not been registered and the same has been suppressed. The
statements of the eye witnesses were recorded belatedly and sent to the Court,
which creates doubt over veracity of the prosecution case. Upon considering
the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has rightly acquitted the
accused and there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Court
below.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 / A3 would submit
that the charge framed under Section 364A IPC would not get attracted, since as
per the evidence of PW2 to PW4, the accused person have not demanded
ransom and as per their evidence, they voluntarily gone along with the deceased
accused Veerappan. The entire prosecution case has been falsified through the
evidence of DW1 and as per Ex.P52, since as per Ex.P52, the Director of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption has conducted enquiry and submitted a letter
__________
Page 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
under Ex.P52 to the DSP, CBCID, Chennai, wherein it has been stated that the
team headed by the Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of
Police, was constituted to probe into the allegations of payment of ransom for
releasing the actor Dr.Rajkumar from the custody of the deceased accused
Veerappan. The team which conducted inquiries, had almost examined 21
witnesses including the main victim Actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife
Mrs.Parvathamma, his son Sivarajkumar, Raghavendra Rajkumar and Punith
Rajkumar, PW3 – Govindaraj, PW4-Nagesh, PW2-Nagappa and other
witnesses and they denied payment of money to the deceased accused
Veerappan.
6. The learned counsel for A3 would further submit that there is
enormous delay in lodging the complaint by PW1-VAO, as the alleged
occurrence said to have held on 30.07.2000 at night between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m.,
whereas PW1 lodged the complaint only on the next day i.e., 31.07.2000 at 9.00
p.m. According to the prosecution, the investigation in this case commenced
only after receiving the complaint from PW1, after a lapse of 24 hours delay,
whereas according to the prosecution, the wife of the main victim actor
Dr.Rajkumar in the midnight on 30.07.2000 she had gone to the DIG Office,
Karnataka and also met the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka in the early
morning hours at 4‘O Clock and also handed over the cassette which was
allegedly given by the deceased accused Veerappan. Therefore, Ex.P1-
__________
Page 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
complaint given by PW1 has no value, since the victim’s wife
Mrs.Parvathamma has lodged the complaint before DIG, Karnataka. The
prosecution has also not produced the alleged cassette given by the deceased
accused Veerappan to the victim’s wife. The Test Identification Parade was
conducted only after a lapse of 1½ years without following due procedure, since
the photographs of the accused persons have been published widely in news
channels and news dailies, as such there may be possibility of accused persons
seen in the news papers and TV channels. The learned Judicial Magistrate who
recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 CrPC has not
followed the procedure contemplated under the said Section and there is a delay
in recording the statements and there is no details and descriptions given while
recording the statement. There are contradictions between the evidence of
PWs.2 to 5 with regard to number of accused persons who have allegedly
involved in the kidnapping. The alleged occurrence said to have held in the
dark night and the Observation Mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer
has not mentioned about any street light situated in the scene of occurrence. As
per the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, actor Dr.Rajkumar has not been abducted, but
they voluntarily went along with the accused and other witnesses and they have
also not spoken about the forcible abduction by the accused persons apart from
the main victim / actor Dr.Rajkumar.
__________
Page 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
7. The learned counsel appearing for A3 would further contend that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conspiracy and the alleged
abduction for ransom. Though the prosecution was able to produce M.O.31 –
Micro CD, but has not chosen to produce the alleged cassette given by the
deceased accused Veerappan to Mrs.Parvathamma. It is an admitted fact that
the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Karnataka have jointly constituted a
Special Team to rescue Actor Dr.Rajkumar. In this regard, Special Team
comprising of Mr.Nakeeran Gopal, Mr.Palanedumaran, Tmt.Kalyani,
Mr.Sugumaran, and Mr.Sivasubramanian and they went to the forest and
involved in the rescue operations, but the prosecution has miserably failed to
examine the aforesaid persons as witnesses on the prosecution side. Though the
Investigating Officer admitted that he has recorded the statements of the
aforesaid persons and also collected materials from them, however has not
chosen to place the same before the Trial Court. The prosecution has also not
chosen to examine actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife Mrs.Parvathamma in this
case as well as identifying the accused persons through the Test Identification
Parade in the manner known to law. Therefore, there is no perversity or
illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in acquitting the
accused.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire
__________
Page 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
materials of record in the form of deposition of witnesses and exhibits.
9. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges framed against the
accused, has relied upon the following circumstances:
(i) Conspiracy
(ii) Evidence of the victims – PWs.2 to 5
(iii) Eye witnesses
(iv) Extrajudicial Confession
(v) Arrest and Recovery
CONSPIRACY
10. According to the prosecution, prior to 30.07.2000, the deceased
accused Veerappan and his associates viz., A1 to A10 hatched criminal
conspiracy to abduct actor Dr.Rajkumar and his relatives and to threaten them
so that the Government of Karnataka to concede to their following demands :
1. Permanent solution to the Cauvery Water Issue should be
found based on justice. The Government of Karnataka should
implement the interim orders of the Cauvery Water Tribunal by
releasing 205 TMC of water every year to Tamil Nadu.
2. Adequate and just compensation should be paid to all the
Tamil victims of the 1991 Cauvery riots and Government of
Karnataka should ensure proper protection to the Tamils in
Karnataka.
3. The Government of Karnataka should accept Tamil as an
additional official language of administration.
4. The Government of Karnataka should unveil a statue of
Thiruvalluvar at Bangalore.
__________
Page 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
5. The Government of Karnataka should take immediate action
to vacate the stay orders issued by the High Court against Justice
Sadhasivam Commission enquiring in to the alleged atrocities
committed by the Task Forces of the two States. The Government
should grant compensation of Rs.10 lakhs each to all the rape
victims and Rs.10 lakhs to the kith and kin of each murdered person
and Rs.5 lakhs each to the persons otherwise affected. If the
commission finds the police officers guilty, they should be punished.
6. The innocent persons languishing in Karnataka jail should be
released.
7. Adequate compensation should be paid to the families of 9 SC
and ST people in Karnataka.
8. In the Nilgiris District, minimum procurement price for tea
leaves should be fixed at Rs.15/- per Kg.
9. Venkatesan, Muthukumar, Ponnivalavan, Sathyamurthy and
Manikandan should be released from Tamil Nadu Prisons.
10. Immediate solution should be found to the problem of
Manjolai Tea Estate workers in Tamilnadu. Minimum daily wages
should be fixed at Rs.150/- for the coffee and tea estate workers in
Tamilnadu and Karnataka.
11. PW1 has lodged the complaint – Ex.P1, wherein there is no mention
about the alleged criminal conspiracy hatched by accused persons. PW14, in
his cross examination deposed that 10 or 11 years before, during night 3 a.m.,
while he was watching television along with his garden workers, he heard
shouting noise. He came out from his house and saw that 11 persons along with
the deceased accused Veerappan were holding gun in their hands. However,
PW14 has not chosen to disclose anyone till the Investigating Officer examined
him on 11.11.2001. PW14 categorically admitted that what was the actual
__________
Page 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
conversation between the deceased accused Veerappan and A6 were not known
to him. PW14 also deposed that 11 persons came along with the deceased,
talking with A6. As per the evidence of PW14, they hatched a conspiracy to
kidnap after lapse of 6 months, whereas after a lapse of 1 week, the accused
have kidnapped actor Dr.Rajkumar, which creates serious doubt over the
credibility of his version. There is no explanation from PW14 that after seeing
the deceased accused Veerappan and his associates and after hearing the alleged
criminal conspiracy hatched between them, why he has not chosen to inform the
same to the police also creates reasonable doubt about the evidence of PW14.
PW14 also deposed that he came down from the hills. If it is so, what was the
conversation between the deceased accused Veerappan and A6 has not been
clearly established. PW14 also not stated about the correct date and time of
identification of the accused and what was having spoken between them. It is to
be noted that PW14 was examined by the Investigating Officer on 11.11.2001
i.e., after a lapse of 1 year from the alleged occurrence. Further, the statement
of PW14 has been sent to the Court concerned on 13.01.2002 with enormous
delay. PW14 has not stated anything about the street light facility available at
the time of the conversation of conspiracy hatched by the accused persons.
PW14 also not stated anything about identification of accused persons in his
evidence and he has also not participated in the Test Identification Parade
conducted by PW46- Judicial Magistrate. PW14, in his cross examination
categorically admitted that when higher officials from Karnataka examined, he
__________
Page 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
stated that he has not known anything. Further, in his chief examination also,
when he was examined in the forest area, he deposed that not known anything.
From the evidence of PW14, it reveals that PW14’s behaviour in leaving the
place of occurrence not reporting the matter to anyone is extremely unnatural
and the alleged incident having occurred in the dark night, as accepted by
PW14. Therefore, the chance and opportunity for him to have identified the
accused is also highly doubtful. The Trial Court has rightly discarded the
evidence of PW14 and found that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged
conspiracy.
12. PW1 lodged the complaint before PW45. In the complaint, it has
been stated that the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 30.07.2000
in the night hours between 8.45 p.m., whereas the complaint has been lodged on
the next day on 31.07.2000 at 9.00 p.m. In the complaint also there is a
correction in the date from 30.07.2000 to 31.07.2000. As per the evidence of
PW1, he is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence and he examined the
village people and he has lodged the complaint and also deposed that upon
hearing the occurrence, he came to the scene of occurrence.
VICTIM EVIDENCE
13. PW2- Nagappan deposed that on 30.07.2000 between 8.30 to 9.00
p.m., after having dinner in old house, actor Dr.Rajkumar was watching TV,
__________
Page 29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
staying in his old house. PW3, PW10 and PW5 proceeded to the new house to
sleep. After crossing the road, while proceeding to the new house, suddenly 9
persons arrived and tried to attack them, whereas in the complaint lodged by
PW1 and in his evidence it has been stated that the deceased accused Veerappan
and 14 persons have came to the occurrence place, whereas the eyewitness to
the occurrence PW2 categorically deposed that only 9 persons came to the
occurrence place. PW2, in his cross examination deposed that after crossing the
road when proceeding to the new house, 9 persons have arrived. Therefore the
first alleged occurrence said to have held in the road. In this regard, PW45/ I.O.
has drawn Rough Sketch under Ex.P33 wherein it has been held that the alleged
first occurrence held in front of the new house. According to PW2, the
occurrence held between 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. In Ex.P33, there is no mention about
the existence of electrical post and electrical light glowing or not. PW2 also not
stated anything that he had seen 9 persons in the street with the presence of
street light. PW2 also not specifically stated who are all were standing. Though
he has stated 9 persons, he has not given specific names or identification of the
persons. PW2 categorically stated that he does not know about the deceased
accused Veerappan and his associates before the occurrence.
14. PW2, in his chief examination, deposed that the deceased accused
Veerappan asked them where is actor Dr.Rajkumar to PW3. In-turn PW3 told
that actor Dr.Rajkumar is in his old house. Thereafter, the deceased accused
__________
Page 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
Veerappan, A2, A1, A4, A3 went to the house of actor Dr.Rajkumar. PW2 in
his cross examination admits that he has not stated anything about the personal
identification features of the accused persons.
15. PW3-Govindaraj, in his chief examination deposed that while they
were proceeding to the new house of actor Dr.Rajkumar from 30 feet away from
the road, they were surrounded by 7 or 8 persons and they were holding guns
and pointed the guns and he was unable to note their physical features. They
have instructed them to sit in that place and left 3 persons with them and the
remaining persons left to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar. After 10 – 15
minutes, they brought actor Dr.Rajkumar by tying his hand from behind. As per
the evidence of PW3, in the alleged occurrence, 7 or 8 persons have surrounded
them. PW1, on enquiry, came to know that there are 14 persons involved in the
alleged occurrence. PW2 says that there are 9 persons involved. PW3 says that
7 or 8 persons arrived to the occurrence place. PWs.2 and 3 categorically
deposed that they were unable to note the physical identification of the persons.
PW3 in his cross examination deposed that there are 4 or 5 persons, but he
could not say whether they gone to actor Dr.Rajkumar’s old house. Further, in
his cross examination, PW3 admitted that before 30.07.2000, he did not know
the accused and while enquired by the police, he did not say any physical
identification of the accused persons. PW3 also deposed that there is a
telephone facility available in the house of actor Dr.Rajkumar. As per Ex.P33 –
__________
Page 31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
Rough Sketch, the distance between old house and new house of actor
Dr.Rajkumar is within 100 mtrs distance. When 14 persons holding gun point
near to the new house, they were making such a noise to reach the old house
where actor Dr.Rajkumar and family members were residing. Between old
house and new house, there is no other house and only a road is passing.
16. Next witness relied on by the prosecution is PW4, who in his chief
examination, deposed that 10 persons including the deceased accused
Veerappan have surrendered to them and 4 or 5 persons gone to the old house
and the remaining persons have guarded them and sometime thereafter, they
brought actor Dr.Rajkumar.
17. PW5- Nagarajan, in his chief examination, deposed that 9 persons
came and pointed out guns and surrendered them and 3 accused guarded them
and the remaining went to the old house of Actor Dr.Rajkumar, but in the chief
examination categorically admits that he has identified the accused persons
upon seeing the accused persons photographs in telephone and newspaper and
also admitted that the police shown the photographs of the accused which was
published in the newspaper.
18. With regard to the number of accused persons arrived to the
__________
Page 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
occurrence place, there are contradictions between the evidence of PWs.2 to 5.
Their evidence is also contradictory with regard to the first occurrence said to
have held in the road and the alleged occurrence said to have held in the old
house of actor Dr.Rajkumar. PWs.2 to 3 have not deposed who are all the
accused pointing the gun with their physical features and who are all the
accused gone to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar.
EYE WITNESS
19. PW6-Deepa, in his chief examination deposed that both the date and
time of the occurrence said to have held, as to how many persons injured and as
to the old house of actor Dr.Rajkumar. PW7 deposed in the chief examination
that at 9.00 p.m., after completion of TV news, the deceased accused Veerappan
and 6 persons came, out of which 2 persons were standing outside and 4 persons
entered inside the house, two persons were standing near wife of actor
Dr.Rajkumar and one person standing near actor PW8 and PW9. PW7 has not
stated anything about the accused persons who entered into the house came
along with gun. PW7 also not state anything about the physical identification of
the accused persons. PW7, in his cross examination, categorically admits that
he does not know whether the accused gave a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma in
the farm house there is facility of TV and Mrs.Parvathamma left the house in
the night itself. When PW7 categorically admits that he did not know whether
the cassette was given to Mrs.Parvathamma, he could not have witnessed the
__________
Page 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
occurrence.
20. PW8- Sennan in his chief examination deposed that on 30.07.2000
9.45 p.m. the deceased accused Veerappan and his associates persons came and
5 persons entered inside the house of actor Dr.Rajkumar and the remaining were
standing outside. PW7 says that 6 accused persons came and whereas PW8
deposed that suddenly 5 accused persons entered the house. PW9 says that the
deceased accused Veerappan and 10-15 persons entered into the house. There
are contradictions with regard to number of accused persons who came to the
occurrence place. As per the evidence of PW7 and PW8, after closing the
news, at about 9.00 p.m, the accused have entered into the house, whereas PW9
deposed that the accused came to the house at 8.45 p.m. PW5 and PW6 did not
mention any time as to when the accused persons entered the house.
21. PW10- Tr.Ravi, Driver was examined as eye witness to the
occurrence. He deposed that at about 8.45 p.m., after having dinner, they
proceeded to the new house for sleeping along with PWs.2 to 5 and at that time,
it was dark. While so, the deceased accused Veerappan and 5 or 6 persons came
there and the deceased accused Veerappan went to the old house of Actor
Dr.Rajkumar and brought him. From the evidence of PW10, the deceased
accused Veerappan gone to the old house of Actor Dr.Rajkumar for abducting
him and at the time of the alleged occurrence, it was dark. PW10, in his cross
__________
Page 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
examination, admits that he was unable to identify the accused persons.
22. PW11 deposed in similar lines to that of PW10 and further deposed
that the deceased accused Veerappan threatened Mrs.Parvathamma, wife of
Dr.Rajkumar that if anyone follows, they would kill and also the deceased
accused Veerappan handed over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma. In the cross
examination, PW11 admitted that he has not stated anything about the personal
identification of the accused persons.
23. PW12, in his chief examination, admits that he could not able to
identify the accused persons who threatened by pointing guns and after 10
minutes, the hands of actor Dr.Rajkumar were tied behind and the deceased
accused Veerappan and other persons have taken away actor Dr.Rajkumar from
his old house. From the evidence of PW12, about 9 persons came to the
occurrence place, whereas the evidence of PW11 is contradictory to other
witnesses.
24. PW16 deposed that 5 or 6 persons came to the occurrence place and 3
persons were watching backside of the house and he has not stated anything
about the threat made by the accused by pointing out gun. PW17 deposed that 7
or 8 persons came between 8 to 9 p.m. and he saw that actor Dr.Rajkumar was
abducted from his house. PWs.16 and 17 have not specifically stated who are
__________
Page 35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
all accused persons holding guns in their hands.
25. PW6, PW7, PW11 and PW12 have deposed in their cross
examination that on 31.07.2000 morning the Inspector of Police, Thalavadi
came to the scene of occurrence and inquired them and also obtained signature
from them. PW8, in his cross examination, categorically admitted that he
reached Bangalore in the night itself and after reaching Bangalore, police
inquired PW8 and on the next day early morning at 4.00 a.m., met the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Karnataka and narrated the same. In-turn the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of Karnataka called all the DGP’s, when Mrs.Parvathamma narrated
the occurrence, the police have written the complaint.
26. PW8 is one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. On the day of
occurrence, in the night itself, the eye witness PW10 and PW8 and
Mrs.Parvathamma went to Bangalore. In the early morning at 4.00 a.m.,, they
have given oral complaint and the same has been recorded as complaint by the
police officials of Karnataka State. The aforesaid statement of complaint has
not been placed before this Court. Before lodging the complaint – Ex.P1 by
PW1, the Inspector of Police, Thalavadi came to the scene of occurrence and
inquired the witnesses and recorded their statement. In such circumstances, the
said statement of complaint has not been registered as the First Information
Report.
TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE
__________
Page 36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
27. PW46- then learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam has
conducted Test Identification Parade in the Central Prison, Coimbatore and
issued the report – Ex.P51, wherein it has been mentioned that the witnesses
PWs.2, 3 and 4 have identified the accused. In the statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, there is no mention about physical identification of the
accused persons. Further the Investigating Officer recorded Section 161 CrPC
statement of PW2 on 28.09.2000 and subsequently, after a lapse of 2 months
from the date of the occurrence. Further Mrs.Parvathamma was examined on
19.12.2000 after a lapse of 4 ½ months and also sent their statement to the
learned Judicial Magistrate only on 03.05.2001 and therefore, statements have
been recorded from the eye witnesses only after a lapse of 4 months and also
belatedly sent to the Court. In the statement given by the witnesses, PW2 have
not mentioned about the identification of the accused. There is possibility of
seeing the photographs of the accused in the newspaper or television. In this
regard, PW5, in his cross examination, categorically admits that before
conducting Test Identification Parade, he had seen the accused in the newspaper
and television channels. So it is clear that after seeing the photographs of the
accused persons in the newspaper and television, they have identified the
accused in the Test Identification Parade. It is also to be noted that after a lapse
of 4 ½ months, statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and
only on 12.08.2000, Test Identification Parade has been conducted in this case.
Therefore, there is possibility of the eye witnesses seeing the photographs of the
__________
Page 37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
accused in the newspaper, could have identified the accused in the Test
Identification Parade by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the statement given
by the witness before the learned Judicial Magistrate, admittedly they have not
stated anything about the name of the persons or their physical identification.
It is to be noted that when the witnesses have not described the physical
identification of the accused in the cross examination, how they identified the
accused on seeing the newspaper or television channels and the same would
lead the Investigating Officer to come to a wrong conclusion. Upon considering
the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court rightly found that the Test
Identification report submitted under Ex.P51 is not acceptable one.
28. In this case, PW1 has lodged a complaint after a lapse of 26 hours,
only on the next day i.e., 31.07.2000. PW1 is not an eye witness to the
occurrence. Eye witnesses to the occurrence categorically deposed that at the
time of the alleged occurrence, it was dark night hours and they could not able
to say how many accused persons who are all holding gun in their hands, have
not been clearly stated. According to the prosecution, the wife of actor
Dr.Rajkumar and Mrs.Parvathamma was also one of the eye witnesses to the
occurrence and admittedly, the deceased accused Veerappan has handed over a
cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma, to be handed over to the Hon’ble Chief Minister
of Karnataka, whereas the said Mrs.Parvathamma was not chosen to be
examined as witness in this case. Though PW2 and PW3 stated that they have
__________
Page 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
been assaulted by the accused, but the prosecution has not produced any
medical evidence in this regard. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove
that who are all the accused holding weapons trespassed into the house of actor
Dr.Rajkumar.
29. Eye witnesses to the occurrence, who are close blood relatives of
Actor Dr.Rajkumar, have not lodged any complaint before any police station.
PWs.6, 7, 11 and 12 in their cross examination categorically admits that on
31.07.2000 morning, the Inspector of Police, Thalavadi Police Station came to
the scene of occurrence, recorded their statement and obtained their signature.
PW8 in his cross examination categorically admitted that on the next day
morning, police had come to the scene of occurrence and they have gone to
Bangalore at night and police also enquired him. Next day morning 4’O clock,
he met the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka and informed the same. The
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka called DIG and Mrs.Parvathamma
narrated the occurrence and written the complaint. Therefore, after the
occurrence, on 31.07.2000 early morning 4.00 a.m., Mrs.Parvathamma has
given complaint before DIG of Police, Karnataka, but the said statement has
been suppressed by the prosecution. Whether First Information Report has been
registered or not has also not been explained by the prosecution. Further, as per
the prosecution witness, it is stated that the deceased accused Veerappan handed
over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma with regard to demand and the same has
__________
Page 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
been handed over to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, but the
Investigating Officer has not recovered the said cassette and produced before
the Court. PW45/I.O. came to the occurrence place in the early morning hours
on 03.07.2000 and examined PWs.6, 7, 11, 12 and obtained signatures from
them, whereas PW1 lodged the complaint on 31.07.2000 at 9.00 p.m. When
PW45 before lodging the complaint by PW1, came to the place of occurrence
and recorded statement from the witness and obtained their signature but the
prosecution has failed to explain with regard to the earliest information given by
Mrs.Parvathamma before the DIG, Karnataka. The next information received
by PW45 from the witness in the morning itself, have not been properly
explained.
EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
30. PW24- Tr.Govindaraj, VAO deposed that on 30.10.2001, A6
surrendered before him while he was in office and on enquiry, A6 voluntarily
gave confession statement and the same has been recorded by him in the
presence of Village Assistant. Then he took him to Thalavadi Police Station at
12.00 p.m. and handed over the same to the police. At 12.30 p.m., the Inspector
of Police came and enquired the accused. On enquiry, A6 voluntarily gave
confession statement and the admissible portion of the confession statement of
A6 is Ex.P8. In pursuance to the confession statement, the accused took them
to a garden road in Malkuthipuram and identified the place where he buried the
__________
Page 40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
weapons and handed over the same to PW45. The Inspector of Police recovered
the same under Mahazar-Ex.P9. In this regard, PW45 deposed that PW24/VAO
handed over A6 and he has arrested A6 and on enquiry, he has voluntarily gave
confession statement. PW45 prepared Rough Sketch under Ex.P33, where
weapons were handed over by the accused and the same has been recovered in
the presence of PW24.
31. Extra Judicial confession is concerned, it is a week piece of evidence
and is generally used as a corroborative link to credibility to the other evidence
on record. In Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh [ 2022 SCC Online SC 705] ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the evidentiary value of an extra judicial
confession in the following words:
“11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of
the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried
jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such
persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved,
the court may take into consideration such confession as against
such other person as well as against the person who makes such
confession. However, this court has consistently held that an extra
judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it
inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other
evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence
of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra
judicial confession . As held in case of State of M.P. Through CBI v.
Paltan Mallah , the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused
could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of
evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the
accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-
accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction
based on such extra judicial confession of the co- accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
__________
Page 41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
32. It is no more res integra that an extra judicial confession must be
accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on
record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as
a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt.
Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends
on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the
circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a
confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and
that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving
an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side
and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable
doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the
prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession.
33. In the case on hand, the alleged occurrence said to have held on
30.07.2000 and nearly after a lapse of more than 1 year, A6 voluntarily
surrendered before PW24 - VAO and gave extra judicial confession and it is not
supported by any corroborative evidence.
RECOVERY
__________
Page 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
34. On 31.08.2001, A3 was arrested by PW42- Q-Branch Inspector
Rajendiran at Tanjore, gave a voluntary confession-Ex.P16 in which PW21
Amuthan, Manokaran were witnesses. Later, A3 was Handed over to Thalavadi
Police on 01.09.2001 at 5.00 p.m. and submitted the special report, which was
marked under Ex.P28.
35. Eventually, A4 was arrested on 07.09.2001 near Ulavar Santhai where
he gave a confession-Ex.P29 in front of PW23-VAO Kulanthaiya and one
Thanchinamoorthy. Later, A4 was handed over on 08.09.2001, 9.10 p.m. and
prepared the special report under Ex.P30. Later, while examining the
prosecution witnesses, PW21 turned hostile. PW23 did not clearly mention the
time, persons or details of confession. PW42 through whom Ex.P30- special
report, also failed to mention the arrest and handing over time.
36. A3 and A4 who got arrested gave voluntary confessions to PW45
Inspector Lakshmanasamy. A3 confession was marked under Ex.P26 through
PW26 VAO Dhandapani, and A4 confession was marked under Ex.P29, which
was marked through PW42. Seizure Mahazar Ex.P14 marked for the recovery
of M.O.s 5–30, which was recorded in the presence of PW26 Dhandapani &
Village Assistant - Sapipulla. While examining the PW26 about the seizure,
PW26 didn’t specify the time of reaching the station or recovery. There is also
no proof of who conducted the recovery, whether it was from the police officers
__________
Page 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
in the Q-Branch or the STF. The claimed recovery from the Manakkarai forest
also had no rough sketch prepared. When the material objects were buried under
the 6-foot-deep in the ground, no tool which ws used for digging the material
objects was produced before this court, and the pit diggers were not examined
as prosecution witnesses. PW26 is unaware if the musket-M.O.1 was loaded or
not, and there are no details on sealing/packing in his deposition.
37. The report of A3 handover is under Ex.P28. The confession of A3
said two guns were hidden under a karuvel tree, in which the admissible portion
of the confession statement of A3 is marked as Ex.P16. The Rough Sketch-
Ex.P46 shows guns under a tree, 200 feet from the main road, Keelamel
Pannari–Satti. There is a highly improbable location and no details if buried
underground. While examining the deposition of PW26, he didn’t confirm
recovery in his presence.
38. The prosecution has claimed recovery through PW22-VAO
Subramanian under the seizure Mahazar Ex.P6, which mentioned the rusted 410
musket, buried 1 ft deep in the forest. While examining the deposition of PW22,
he did not know the case details of A3. PW22 also did not verify if the gun was
loaded. PW22 also did not know the packing method, whether it was in a sealed
sign seal and he forgot about the sketch. From the evidence of PW45 and
PW22 there is a glaring contradictions in which PW22 says properly sealed,
__________
Page 44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
whereas PW45 Inspector says not properly sealed. Both PW22 & PW26 failed
to state time, place, who dug/sealed, or what tool was used. Thus, their evidence
weakens the prosecution's recovery not proved beyond a doubt.
39. A6-Pasuvanna surrendered before PW24 VAO Govindaraj on
30.10.2001, gave confession (Ex.P38) and report (Ex.P37), in which the time of
surrender not mentioned in both the handover to PW45 Inspector and the later
confession Ex.P8 recorded before VAO & assistant. A7 Nagaraj was arrested at
home and gave confession under Ex.P10. The recoveries as told by A6 from
A7’s land M.O.2 gun under Ex.P9 and from A6’s land is M.O.3 gun under
Ex.P11. While examining the PW24’s evidence, he did not mention the time of
recovery. Moreover, he claimed only the gun & detonator were recovered, but
the mahazar shows many items. He also admitted to not being aware of A6’s
arrest status. In this case, there is no Independent witnesses despite nearby
residents, PW14 Chennimalai Gounder, and Moorthy present. There is also no
reason given by the prosecution for why they have not brought any independent
witness to prove their case. PW45-Inspector also admitted seized materials were
not properly sealed. Hence, recoveries from A6 & A7 not proved beyond a
doubt.
40. The sanctions under Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Arms Act,
1959 were given on 04.09.2003 to A6 & A7 under Exs.P19, P20, and Sanction
__________
Page 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
under Arms Act, 1959 for A3 & A4 under Ex.P21 by the PW28-District
Collector, Erode. Where the FSL Reports mention that the Guns (Items 6 & 7)
in working condition. The report is marked as Ex.P22 through PW30. the report
also stated that M.O.1 could fire up to 30 metres. In this case, the Prosecution
didn’t show whether the guns were tested or packed safely during the seizure.
The Explosive analysis under Ex.P25 marked through PW36 has only
confirmed the explosive nature, not the chemical composition.
41. PW2 stated in his chief examination that after 59 days from the
custody of the deceased accused Veerappan escaped from the forest. PW2
stated that he reached the place of Pudubeerkadau near Bannari in a Tent Hotel,
where he stated that he was sustained injuries due to attack of bear and collected
Rs.2/- and Rs.3/-, in total he collected Rs.12/-. From there, he travelled in a
TVS 50 and reached the main road, thereafter through Bus he reached Bannari.
The prosecution has not examined the person who drove the TVS 50 and helped
PW2 to reach the main road. Why PW2 has not reported the same to police
immediately after he had collected a sum of Rs.12/- in a tent hotel. PW2 has not
clearly deposed about handing over pant, shirt (M.O.4 series) before police.
The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW25 to prove M.O.4 has been
handed over by PW2. PW25 has not sated specifically which date and time
PW2 came to police station and handed over M.O.4.
__________
Page 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
42. Thus, this court comes to the conclusion that the recoveries was not
proved from A3, A4, A6, A7 as there were no independent witnesses, improper
sealing, inconsistent testimony and the FSL report alone was insufficient to
establish guilt under the Arms Act (for A3, A4, A6 and A7) and Explosives Act
(for A6 and A7). Hence, the alleged recoveries from A3, A4, A6, and A7 are
unreliable, unsupported by proper documentation, and contradicted by
witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove recovery beyond a
reasonable doubt.
43. PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 categorically admitted in their chief examination
that they were not abducted by the deceased accused Veerappan and they
themselves gone with the accused. The witnesses, who are present in the farm
house, have not identified the accused / A1 to A5. The presence of A1 to A5
has not been established by the prosecution as to alleged occurrence place or in
the forest area where the abducted persons were kept. In this regard, the
Government has constituted a Special Team to rescue actor Dr.Rajkumar. The
said team comprised of Mr.Nakeeran Gopal, Mr.Palanedumaran, Tmt.Kalyani,
Mr.Sugumaran, and Mr.Sivasubramanian. In this regard, PW45/ IO has not
stated anything about recording the statement of the members of the Special
Team, who are involved in the rescue process and also has not chosen to cite
them as witness in this case and also not chosen to examined them before the
Court of law.
__________
Page 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
44. The Trial Court noted that in order to give evidence, the Court below
has sent notice / summons to Mrs.Parvathamma / wife of Actor Dr.Rajkumar,
but she did not appear before the Trial Court and therefore, the Trial Court has
dispensed with her appearance vide order dated 22.11.2016. Whereas on
31.07.2000, she had chosen to lodge a complaint before the DIG, Karnataka.
The main victim actor Dr.Rajkumar has not been examined as witness in this
case. In order to establish the overt act attributed against the accused persons
who trespassed into house of Actor Dr.Rajkumar and who are all holding the
weapons and who are all abducted him, have to be established by examining
actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife, whereas they have not chosen to appear before
the Court below and they have not chosen to identify the accused persons while
conducting Test Identification Parade by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the
manner known to law.
45. According to the prosecution, the deceased accused Veerappan
handed over a cassette to Mrs.Parvathamma, wife of the actor Dr.Rajkumar and
demanded her to handover the same to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka
and she in-turn handed over the same to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Karnataka on the same day, whereas the Investigating Officer has not chosen to
recover the said cassette from Mrs.Parvathamma and also not chosen to mark
the said cassette as material object in this case and what are all the demands and
__________
Page 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
what are all the conversations allegedly recorded in the cassette has not been
placed before the Trial Court. The prosecution has chosen to place M.O.31 –
Micro CD, which contains the alleged speech of actor Dr.Rajkumar in the forest
area and the same has been seized under Mahazar-Ex.P45. The said M.O.31
was not sent to forensic analysis to confirm the speech of Actor Dr.Rajkumar.
M.O.31 has been seized from one Dharmarajan and the said Dharmarajan was
also not examined as witness. The prosecution has not chosen to examine
higher officials, who involved in the rescue operations from either state (Tamil
Nadu or Karnataka). On behalf of the accused side, the reports of the Special
Team constituted by the Government has been marked as Exs.D1 to D4 and the
same documents were not disputed by the prosecution. One of the person
Tr.Sugumaran, who is a part of the Special Team, was examined on behalf of
the defence side as DW1. The case of the prosecution of ransom has been
falsified through the evidence of DW1. As per Ex.P52, the Director of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption has conducted enquiry and submitted a letter
under Ex.P52 to the DSP, CBCID, Chennai, wherein it has been stated that the
team headed by the Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of
Police, was constituted to probe into the allegations of payment of ransom for
releasing the actor Dr.Rajkumar from the custody of the deceased accused
Veerappan. The team which conducted inquiries, had almost examined 21
witnesses including the main victim Actor Dr.Rajkumar and his wife
Mrs.Parvathamma, his son Sivarajkumar, R.Raghavendra Rajkumar and
__________
Page 49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
R.Punith Rajkumar, PW3 – Govindaraj, PW4-Nagesh, PW2-Nagappa and other
witnesses and they denied payment of money to the deceased accused
Veerappan.
46. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of
circumstances. The present case does not fall in the category of a light-hearted
acquittal, which is shunned upon in law. We find no infirmity in the judgment
of the Trial Court.
47. In the light of the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 in
S.C.No.51/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Erode @ Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. No costs.
(P.V.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.)
25-02-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jvm
To
1. III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Erode @ Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )

CRL A No. 388 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
JVM
JUDGMENT
IN
CRL A No. 388 of 2019
25-02-2026
__________
Page 51
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 03:50:39 pm )