Madurai Bench Acquits Four in Double Murder Case, Calls Investigation “Most Slipshod” and Orders Departmental Action Against IO

The Madurai Bench set aside life sentences in a 2012 double murder, finding the investigating officer failed to examine vital witnesses and may not have visited the scene at all.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, on 1 June 2026 set aside the conviction and life sentences imposed on four accused persons in a double murder arising from Crime No. 264 of 2012. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, had convicted all four under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment in a judgment dated 9 October 2023. The High Court found that the prosecution's two eyewitnesses were unreliable, the dying declaration of the second deceased could not be acted upon in isolation, and the investigation was so defective that the court could not rule out that the investigating officer had fabricated records from the police station rather than attending the scene of crime. The bench directed departmental action against the investigating officer.

The Incident and the Trial Court's Findings

The prosecution's case traced the motive to a domestic rupture. The first deceased, Kannan (D1), had discovered his wife A7 in a compromising position with A1, her own father. A panchayat followed, a customary divorce was effected, and A7 was subsequently married to another person. D2, Periyasamy, had supported D1 and his parents at the panchayat, and the accused persons are alleged to have developed enmity against both men.

On 18 May 2012, D1 came to his native place for a family function. D2 called him and D1 left for Thadikombu at around 4 p.m. According to the prosecution, a share auto arrived near a TASMAC shop on the main road. A5, A6, and A7 alighted first and threw chilli powder on D1 and D2. A1 to A4, along with a child in conflict with law, then got down and attacked both men with aruvals and knives. D1 was declared brought dead. D2 was taken to Dindigul Government Hospital and survived until 24 May 2012.

PW1 lodged the complaint at Thadikombu Police Station on 18 May 2012 at about 11 p.m. The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 307, and 302 of the IPC. After D2 died, the sections were altered to Sections 147, 148, and 302. The case was committed to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, and taken up as S.C. No. 83 of 2018. The trial court convicted A1, A2, A3, and A4 and sentenced them to life imprisonment on the murder charges, with concurrent sentences of three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148. A5, A6, and A7 were acquitted.

Why the Eyewitness Account Failed

PW1 is the mother of D1 and PW2 is his father. Both reside at Vedasandur, roughly 10 to 15 kilometres from Thadikombu. The bench examined how they came to be present at the scene.

PW1 stated in examination-in-chief that she received a phone call at about 4.40 p.m. saying A1 and A4 were chasing D1. In cross-examination, however, she placed the call at about 7.40 p.m. PW2 gave an entirely different account: that after reaching Thadikombu, they called D1 and asked him to come home, and he asked them to wait, after which the incident took place. The bench found these versions to be in complete contradiction regarding the place from which PW1 and PW2 allegedly witnessed the attack.

The complaint itself (Ex. P1) stated that D1 and D2 had gone to Thadikombu in the morning and that at about 3 p.m. D1 was chased by the accused, with information reaching PW1 and PW2 through known persons in the locality. This version conflicted with PW1's deposition before the court. No phone call records were collected during investigation, and the person who allegedly informed PW1 and PW2 was never examined.

The timing discrepancy in the accident register deepened the problem. Ex. P12, the accident register for D2, recorded the time as 3.15 p.m. on 18 May 2012. The original accident register, marked as Ex. C1, showed an alteration to 8.30 p.m. PW9, the duty doctor, stated that D2 was brought to hospital at 9.35 p.m. and that the incident had taken place at 8.30 p.m. The bench found that if the incident had actually occurred at 3.15 p.m., PW1 and PW2, who reached the scene only around 11.40 to 11.45 p.m., could not have witnessed it. No explanation was offered for the alteration in Ex. C1.

There was also no evidence of where D1 was taken after the incident, which doctor examined him, or whether any accident register was prepared for him. The bench held that the presence of PW1 and PW2 at the scene was “highly suspect” and that both appeared to be planted witnesses who were not actually present.

Vital Witnesses Left Unexamined

The bench identified four categories of witnesses whose statements were never recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and who were never examined before the trial court.

Murugesan, the brother of D2, is said to have taken D2 to hospital in the ambulance. His name appears in the complaint (Ex. P1) and in the inquest report. He was not examined and no statement was recorded from him. Rathinavel, who accompanied D2 to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, was spoken to by PW11 and his presence was recorded in the inquest report. He too was neither examined nor had his statement recorded.

D1 and D2 were taken in two separate ambulances. The ambulance drivers, who could have corroborated the timing of the incident, were not examined. The driver of the share auto in which the accused allegedly arrived at the scene was also not examined, and the vehicle was never seized.

The investigating officer, PW16, offered no explanation in cross-examination for these omissions. The bench drew an adverse inference: that these witnesses were deliberately kept out because their evidence would have demolished the prosecution's case.

The Dying Declaration Cannot Be Dissected

D2 gave a dying declaration (Ex. P16) to PW14, the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai, at 12.30 midnight on 19 May 2012. PW13, a doctor, certified that D2 was conscious and in a fit state of mind. In the declaration, D2 named all the accused persons, including A5, A6, and A7.

The bench identified two independent reasons why the dying declaration could not sustain the convictions.

First, there was no material on record as to who initiated the process. On scrutiny of the original records, it emerged that a Special Sub-Inspector named Venkataraman had informed the Magistrate at about 00.05 hours on 19 May 2012. PW16, who took up investigation at about 1.00 a.m. on 19 May 2012, stated in cross-examination that he came to know about the dying declaration only two to three days later. More significantly, D2 remained alive until 24 May 2012, yet PW16 never recorded his statement under Section 161(3) during that period.

Second, and more fundamentally, the trial court had acquitted A5, A6, and A7 despite their names appearing in the dying declaration. The bench held that a dying declaration must be acted upon as a whole or rejected as a whole. It cannot be dissected to apply against some accused while leaving out others. Since the trial court had already extended the benefit of doubt to A5, A6, and A7 on the basis of the same dying declaration, it was not open to use that declaration to convict the remaining appellants.

The bench also noted that chilli powder, which was central to the prosecution's account of how the attack was set up, was found only as a trace reference in the observation mahazar relating to a two-wheeler. There was no mention of chilli powder in the postmortem reports of either D1 or D2, and the substance was never sent for chemical analysis.

A Doubted Scene Visit and an Expression of Anguish

The bench went further than merely finding gaps in the evidence. It expressed a specific doubt about whether PW16 had visited the scene of crime at all.

The accident register (Ex. P12) showed that D2's left hand had been amputated during the attack, meaning a portion of the left arm would have been present at the scene. The observation mahazar prepared by PW16 contained no reference to this. The bench found that if this significant piece of physical evidence was not seized or even noted, the only reasonable inference was that PW16 had not carried out any work at the scene and had prepared the documents from the police station.

The bench recorded its anguish in plain terms, describing PW16's investigation as “one of the most slipshod investigation we have seen in the recent times.” It observed that two lives had been lost, the postmortem reports showed very serious injuries on both deceased, and yet vital witnesses were intentionally excluded and their statements were not even recorded.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and Ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108, and on a prior judgment by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh in K. Muthupandi v. State, reported in (2020) 1 MLJ (Crl) 53, for the proposition that where an acquittal results from a defective investigation, the court may record a finding to that effect and direct consequential action.

Order

The Division Bench allowed all three criminal appeals — Crl. A.(MD) Nos. 973 and 1094 of 2023 and 642 of 2024 — and set aside the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 83 of 2018 dated 9 October 2023. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released from jail forthwith unless required in any other case. Bail bonds were terminated and any fine amounts paid were ordered to be refunded.

The bench directed that departmental action be initiated against PW16 under the relevant service rules and that the proceedings be completed as expeditiously as possible after affording him an opportunity to be heard.