Arockiya Jeya vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kalaiyarkoil

Court
Madras High Court

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 05.10.2026
Delivered On: 12.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.MURUGESAN
CRL RC(MD) No. 1210 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010884152026}
Arockiya Jeya ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kalaiyarkoil
Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
Crime No. 51 of 2025. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to the order in Crl.M.P.No. 7550 of 2025 in
R.C.S.No. 6 of 2025 in Crime No. 51 of 2025 dated 06.04.2026 passed by
the Learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sivagangai, set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushica,
Counsel for State of TN(Crl.Side)
ORDER
Heard and admitted.
02. With the consent of both parties, this criminal revision was
taken up for final hearing.
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
03. Challenging the order dated 06.04.2026 of the Judicial
Magistrate I, Sivagangai, hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’,
dismissing the protest petition in Cr MP No.7550/2025 filed by the
revision petitioner/ de facto complainant in RCS No.06/2025 in Cr
No.51/2025 on the file of Kalaiyarkovil Police Station, the revision
petitioner/ de facto complainant has filed this Criminal Revision
Petition under S.438 BNSS.
04. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in this
criminal revision, 'the revision petitioner' and 'the revision respondent',
unless the context otherwise requires.
05. Prefatory facts are that the investigating police officer, in Cr
No.51/2025 on the file of Kalaiyarkovil Police Station, had filed a
negative police report stating
(a) that one Vincent Prabu, the son of the revision petitioner/ de
facto complainant, while he was returning from his paddy field
to his house by a bike, fell down from the bike,
(b) that the injured Vincent Prabu was taken to Sivagangai GH
where he was declared ‘brought dead’,
(c) that therefore, a case in Cr No.51/2025 on the file of
Kalaiyarkovil Police Station was registered under S.194 BNSS
as ‘self accidental fall’,
(d) that after due investigation, he filed a closure/negative police
report in RCS No. 06/2025,
that challenging such closure/negative police report, the revision
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
petitioner/ de facto complainant had filed the protest petition in Cr MP
No.7550/2025 contending
(i) that the death of her son, Vincent Prabu, is not self accidental
death as reported by the investigating officer but it is a
suspicious death leading to the inference of murder, and
(ii) that there are various circumstances and materials leading to
the inference of murder, and
(iii) that the investigation is a defective investigation and the
consequent police report is also defective and incomplete, and
that the trial court has dismissed the protest petition in Cr MP
No.7550/2025 filed by the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant,
accepting such closure/ negative police report, and holding the death of
Vincent Prabu as self accidental death.
06. Challenging such dismissal of the trial court, the revision
petitioner has filed this criminal revision.
07. Heard both sides, and perused all the materials available.
08. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit
(a) that the trial court has simply accepted such negative police
report and dismissed the protest petition filed by the revision
petitioner, without applying its judicial mind independently of such
negative police report,
(b) that when the statements of the alleged eye witnesses would
show they are not the eye witnesses actually witnessed the occurrence,
the trial court has observed they are the eye witnesses,
(c) that the scene of occurrence would show the death of Vincent
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
Prabhu would not be a self accidental death as reported by the
investigating officer,
(d) that when the postmortem certificate says the cause of death
could not be ascertained, the trial court has accepted the case of self
accidental death as projected by the investigating officer,
(e) that the doctor who conducted postmortem was obviously not
able to ascribe reasons or explanations to the injuries found on the dead
body of the deceased,
(f) that the investigating officer did not choose to investigate as
to the 50 gms of blood clots noted below the fat and near the vessel
region under right gluteal region of the dead body, inferring an injury
caused by forcible injection, and also as to ‘petechial hemorrhages’
noted along the borders of both lungs of the deceased, inferring
asphyxia,
(g) that the delay of 5 months between the postmortem certificate
dated 31.01.2025 and the final opinion dated 01.07.2025 was not
considered by the trial court,
(h) that the trial court has failed to note that the investigating
officer, by putting his own leading questions suitable to his theory of
accidental fall from the bike, has extracted answers accordingly from
the doctor who conducted the postmortem,
(i) that the trial court has failed to note there is a sustained
enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of Justin
Daniel who is said to have taken the injured Vincent Prabhu from the
place of occurrence,
(j) that the trial court has ridiculously required the revision
petitioner to produce valid documents to show the death of her son is a
suspicious death, and
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
(k) that therefore, the impugned order of the trial court is
erroneous and perverse, liable to be interfered with.

09. Learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for the
revision respondent would submit that the trial court has specifically
taken note of the absence of external injuries suggestive of assault, the
absence of poison or alcohol in the dead body, the statement of
witnesses suggesting accidental fall and the medical opinion, that
therefore, the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer any sort
of illegality or infirmity warranting the interference of this court and
that therefore, the criminal revision petition deserves for dismissal.
10. Point for determination is whether the revision petitioner is
entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision, setting aside
the impugned order of the trial court and granting any other suitable
directions?
11. Reasons stated by the trial court for accepting such negative
police report are
(1) that the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant, during
police enquiry, did not say anything about the previous motive/enmity
(between her family and the family of Justin Daniel),
(2) that the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant did not
produce valid documents to show the death of her son is suspicious
death,
(3) that there are eye witnesses to the effect that the deceased fell
down from bike, and
(4) that the doctor who conducted postmortem was not able to
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
give opinion for cause of death because the injuries are small external
injuries.

12. On perusal of the records, this court finds that the revision
petitioner/ de facto complainant, before the investigating officer, has
given, under S.180(3) BNSS, a very lengthy statement, running into 6
pages, narrating the disputes/enmities between her family and the
family of Justin Daniel. Therefore, the finding of trial court that the
revision petitioner/ de facto complainant, during police enquiry, did not
say anything about the previous motive/enmity is obviously erroneous.
13. Requiring a de facto complainant to produce ‘valid
documents’ to show that the death of his/her son is suspicious death is,
of course, ridiculous and alien to criminal justice system. Therefore,
the finding of the trial court finding fault with the revision petitioner
for her failure to produce ‘valid documents’ to show the death of her
son is suspicious death is erroneous and perverse.
14. Justin Daniel, Sathyanathan and Arokiyasamy are portrayed
to have actually witnessed the occurrence where the deceased is said to
have accidentally fallen from the bike. Per contra , their statements
recorded under S.180(3) BNSS would show that they reached the place
of occurrence only after the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the finding
of the trial court that there are eye witnesses to the effect that the
deceased fell down from bike is also erroneous and perverse.
15. Coming to the medical evidence relied on by the trial court,
(a) it is not known why there is a delay of 5 months
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
between the postmortem certificate dated 31.01.2025 and the
final opinion dated 01.07.2025,
(b) the postmortem certificate would read ‘no definite
opinion could be given regarding the cause of death’ meaning
thereby, there is no definite opinion as to whether the death is
homicidal or accidental,
(c) strictly speaking, there is no definite medical opinion
supporting the case of self accidental death,
(d) there is no explanation on the part of the doctor, who
conducted postmortem, as to ‘petechial hemorrhages’ noted
along the borders of both lungs of the deceased,
(e) it is evident that the investigating officer, by putting his
own leading questions suitable to his theory of accidental fall
from the bike, has extracted answers accordingly from the doctor
who conducted the postmortem,
(f) the trial court ‘assumes’ that the doctor who conducted
postmortem was not able to give opinion for cause of death
because the injuries are small external injuries.
Therefore, the finding of the trial court that the medical evidence
would support the case of self accidental death is also erroneous and
perverse.
16. Incidentally, this court would like to point out that the
revision petitioner, in her protest petition, would plead some phone call
records which the trial court did not look into.
17. In the light of the foregoing discussions and reasons, this
court holds that the trial court has simply accepted such negative police
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
report and dismissed the protest petition filed by the revision
petitioner, without applying its judicial mind independently of such
negative police report, and without considering all the materials on
record.
18. Resultantly, this court holds that the revision petitioner is
entitled to get an order, allowing this criminal revision, setting aside
the impugned order of the trial court and granting directions in such
terms as detailed hereunder, and this point is answered, accordingly.
19. In fine, this criminal revision shall stand allowed,
(a) setting aside the impugned order of the trial court,
(b) remanding the protest petition in Cr MP No.7550/2025 filed
by the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant in RCS No.06/2025 in
Cr No.51/2025 on the file of Kalaiyarkovil Police Station, to the trial
court for disposal in accordance with law, after considering all the
materials available on record, and
(c) directing the trial court to complete the aforesaid exercise
within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, without being
influenced by this order .
20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
12.11.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gns
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Sivagangai
2.The Inspector Of Police, Kalaiyarkoil
Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )

CRL RC(MD)No.1210 of 2026
B.MURUGESAN, J.
gns
Order made in
CRL.RC.(MD)No.1210 of 2026
12.11.2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 10:56:19 am )