Display PDF PDF

1
In the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
Present: Tmt.Alamelu Natarajan, B.Com., M.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
Tuesday, the 12th day of December, 2017
Thiruvalluvarandu 2046, Sri Hevilambi Andu, 26th day of Karthigai month
Spl.S.C.NO.19/2016
(Crime No.194 of 2016 of Udumalpet Police Station,
P.R.C.No.7/2016, Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Udumalpet)
Name of the Accused : 1) Chinnasamy, 40,

S/o.Baluchamy,
2) Annalakshmi, 35,
W/o. Chinnasamy,
3) Pandithurai, 49,
S/o. Pandi,
4) Jagatheesan, 31,
S/o.Pandi,
5) Manikandan, 25,
S/o Marimuthu,
6) Selvakumar, 25,
S/o.Pandi thevar,
7) Kalaithamilvaanan @ Tamil @ Kalai, 24,

S/o. Periyasamy,
8) Mathan @ Michael, 25,

S/o.Murugesan,
9) Dhanraj @ Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj, 23,

S/o. Kailasam,
2
10) Prasanna @ Prasannakumar, 19,

S/o.Vasudevan,
11) Manikandan, 39,

S/o.Madasamy.
Charges framed against the accused: 1) Against the accused 1 to 10 :

Criminal Conspiracy punishable u/s.
120(B) I.P.C.
2) Against the accused 4 to 10 :

Rioting punishable u/s. 147 I.P.C.
3) Against the accused 4 to 8 :

Rioting armed with deadly weapon
punishable u/s. 148 I.P.C.
4) Against the accused 4 to 7 u/s. 302

I.P.C.and against the accused 8 to 10
u/s. 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
Committing Murder punishable u/s 302
IPC and to be a member of unlawful
assembly with a common object to
commit murder punishable u/s.
302 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
5) Against the accused 1 to 3 u/s.

302 r/w. 120(B) r/w.109 I.P.C.
Abetment to commit murder punishable
u/s.302 r/w.120(B) r/w. 109 I.P.C.
6) Against the accused 4 and 6 u/s. 307

I.P.C. and against the accused 5, 7
to 10 u/s. 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
Attempt Murder Punishable u/s 307 and to
be a member of an unlawful assembly with
a common object to attempt murder
punishable u/s. 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
3
7) Against the accused 1 to 3 u/s.

307 r/w. 120(B) r/w.109 I.P.C.
Abetment of attempt murder punishable
u/s. 307 r/w.120(B) r/w. 109 I.P.C.
8) Against the accused 4th accused u/s.

3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 and against the
accused 5 to 10 u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 149
I.P.C.
Whoever, not being a member of a
scheduled caste intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a scheduled caste in any place
within public view and abuses any
member of a scheduled caste by caste
name in any place within public view and
being a member of an unlawful assembly
with a common object to commit the
above said offences punishable u/s.
3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s)
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015
r/w. 149 I.P.C.
9) Against the accused 1 to 3, 5 to 7 u/s.

3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 and against the accused 8 to
10 u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
(Additional charges omitted to be
framed against the accused 1 to 3 have
been framed on 13.6.2017 as per sec. 216
of Cr.P.C.) :-
Whoever, not being a member of a
scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe,
commits any offence in Indian Penal Code
noted in the schedule for Sec. 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015
4
against a member of a schedule caste or a

schedule tribe or against the property
belonged to a member of schedule caste or
schedule tribe punishable u/s.3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and
being a member of an unlawful assembly
with a common object to commit the
above said offence punishable u/s.
u/s.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
10) Against the 11th accused :-

Harbouring an offender, if the offence be
capital punishable u/s. 212 I.P.C.
Plea of the Accused : All the accused pleaded not guilty of the
charges framed against them.
Judgement : In the result,
1. The charges levelled against A2 and

A3 u/s 120(B), 302 r/w 120(B) r/w 109,
307 r/w 120(B) r/w 109 IPC and 3(2)(Va)
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015
and the charges levelled against A10 u/s
120(B), 147, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149
IPC, 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC,
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act 2015, does not stand established on
the side of the prosecution and hence A2,
A3, and A10 are acquitted from the
above said charges u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.
2. A1 is sentenced to death, and that he

be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,
subject to confirmation by the Hon’ble
5
Madras High Court. And A1 is directed

to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) i/d 1 year SI.
for offence u/s 120 (B) IPC.
A1 is sentenced to death, and

that he be hanged by the neck, till he is
dead, subject to confirmation by the
Hon’ble Madras High Court. And A1 is
directed to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) i/d 1 year SI.
for offence u/s 302 r/w 120 (B) r/w
109 IPC.
A1 is also sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) i/d 6 months SI
for offence u/s 307 r/w 120 (B)

and r/w 109 IPC.

imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- i/d 6 months SI
for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) of
Scheduled caste and Scheduled
Tribes (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A1 is directed to be hanged to death

subject to the confirmation of Hon’ble
Madras High Court and this death
sentence shall be executed after A1
undergoing the other sentences imposed
on him. The other sentences shall run
concurrently. The total fine imposed on
6
A1 is Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs). Out

of the total fine amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(Three Lakhs), Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh)
to be appropriated to the State and the
balance to be apportioned equally
between PW1 and father of the deceased
Shankar namely, Thiru.Velusamy, S/o
Chinna Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street,
Kumaralingam, Madathukulam (LW21)
as compensation u/s 357 (2) Cr.P.C.
*******

to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) i/d 1 year SI
for offence u/s 120 (B) IPC
A4 is also sentenced to death, and be

hanged by the neck, till he is dead,
subject to the confirmation by the
Hon’ble Madras High Court. And A4 to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
for offence u/s 302 IPC

fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
7

imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- i/d 3 months SI


for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST

(POA) Amendment Act 2015

concurrently. Total fine amount imposed
is Rs.1,65,000/- (One Lakh Sixty Five
Thousand). Out of the total fine amount
Rs.5,000/- is appropriated to the state and
8

*****



for offence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC


9


for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) SC/ST
for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC
*****
10


A6 is also sentenced to death, and he


11

for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act 2015

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC
A6 is directed to be hanged to death,

Madras High Court, and this death
*****
12

A7 is also sentenced to death, and that

he be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,
Hon’ble Madras High Court. And to pay
a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty




Amendment Act 2015
13

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST

(POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149
IPC

*****

14






Amendment Act 2015
for offence u/s 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST

(POA)Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC.
15

*****
8. A9 is sentenced to imprisonment for
life, life means rest of his life without
any benefit of remission of the sentence
in any manner, whatsoever, and to pay a
Thousand) i/d six months SI
A9 is sentenced to imprisonment for

life, life means rest of his life without
for offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC.
A9 is also sentenced to imprisonment

for life, life means rest of his life without
16



for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) SC/ST
for offence u/s 3(1)(r)(s) r/w 149 IPC
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A9 is directed to undergo the above

sentences concurrently. The total fine
imposed on A9 is Rs. 1,55,000/- (One
Lakh Fifty Five Thousand). Out of the
total fine amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- (One
Lakh Fifty Five Thousand), Rs.5,000/- to
be appropriated to the State and the
17
Kumaralingam, Madathukulam Taluk

(LW21) as compensation u/s 357 (2)
Cr.P.C.
*****
9. A11 is sentenced to undergo RI for 5

years for the offence u/s 212 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- i/d 6 months SI.
Out of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand) Rs.5,000/- to be
appropriated to the state and the balance
of amount to be apportioned equally
Kumaralingam, Madathukulam Taluk
(LW21) as compensation u/s 357 (2)
Cr.P.C.
********
The remand period already undergone by

the 1st accused from 14.03.2016 to
12.12.2017, and the remand period
already undergone by the 4th , 5th, and 6th
accused from 16.03.2016 to 12.12.2017,
and the remand period already undergone
by the 7th accused from 02.04.2016 to
already undergone by the 8th accused
from 16.03.2016 to 12.12.2017, and the
remand period already undergone by the
9th accused from 29.03.2016 to
already undergone by the 11th accused
18
from 16.03.2016 to 02.07.2016, are

ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
This court has awarded Capital

punishment of death sentence as against
A1, A4 to A8, subject to the confirmation
by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The
Sherishtadar is directed to immediately
submit the entire case bundles to the
Hon’ble Madras High Court for
confirmation of the capital punishment of
death sentence u/s 366 Cr.P.C.
Property Order:-
This Court has passed orders with regard

to the material objects in P.R.No.13/2016
in this case as follows:
M.O.Nos.1 to 5 Aruval knives,

M.O.Nos.6 to 11, 22, 24 to 27 and 31 to
32 dresses, M.O.No.33 cloth bagand
M.O.Nos.15 to 18 blood stained and
sample mud, are ordered to be destroyed
after the appeal time is over or after the
disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.12 Pulsor motor cycle

bearing Regn.No.TN 57 AS 2340 is
evidenced to be owned by P.W.29
Venkatesan, Madurai. TheOriginal
registration number being TN 59 AV
19
2766, has been falsely changed as TN 57

AS 2340 and used in this occurrence.
P.W.55 Kalyanakumar, the Regional
Transport Officer, Madurai North
Regional Transport Office, has issued
Ex.P.67, B Register extract with regard to
M.O.12 and evidenced that the real
registration number of the said vehicle is
TN 59 AV 2766 and P.W.29 is it’s owner
and hence, M.O.No.12 pulsor motor
cycle is ordered to be returned to P.W.29
Venkatesan, on production of R.C. book
and relevant documents after the appeal
time or disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.13, Bajaj Discover motor

cycle without registration number is
evidenced to be owned by P.W.28
Karthick and he has mortgaged the same
with A.1 Chinnasamy and it’sregistration
number is TN 57 AR 0569, A.1 handed
over the same to A.4 Jagatheesan and the
same was used in this occurrence.
M.O.No.13 is ordered to be returned to
P.W.28 Karthick, on production of R.C.
20
book and relevant documents after the

appeal time or disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.28, Bajaj Discover motor

cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 57 AZ 3957,
is evidenced to be owned by P.W.17
Thirumalaisamy and P.W.17 has
mortgaged it to P.W.16 Raja. It was
evidenced by P.W.16, that P.W.17 took
the vehicle and has given the same to A5
Manikandan and was used in this
occurrence. M.O.No.28 is ordered to be
returned to P.W.17 Thirumalaisamy, on
production of R.C. book and relevant
documents after the appeal time or
disposal of appeal.
M.O.No. 29, Enfin model cell phone,

M.O.No.30, Nokia cell phone,
M.O.No.34, Lava Cell phone,
M.O.No.35 Samsung cell phone,
M.O.No.36 Samsung cell phone are
evidenced to be seized from A2, A10,
A6, A8 and A5 respectively and they are
to be retained with the case bundle as
case properties.
21
M.O.No.14 Micromax cell phone and

M.O.No.42 memory card areevidenced
to be owned by P.W.4 Nasurutheen.
M.O.19 DVR, M.O.20 adopter are
evidenced to be seized from Eswari
Department Stores owned by P.W. 7
Amarnath. The prosecution has to pay
the cost of Electronic Items to PW.4
Nasurutheen and PW.7 Amarnath, so
seized from them.
M.O.No.14 Micromax cell phone ,

M.O.No.19 Digital Video Recorder,
M.O.No.20 adopter with wire,
M.O.No.41 Software CD of M.O.No.19,
M.O.42 Memory card of M.O.14,
M.O.46 to 48 the video recordings and
M.O.49 soft copy of annexures I to IV
enclosed with Ex.P.91 report submitted
by P.W.62 are to be retained with the
case bundle as case properties.
22
M.O.No.21, cash Rs.20,000/- and

M.O.No.23, cash Rs.24,000/- are ordered
to be confiscated to Government after
the appeal time is over or after the
disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.37 to 40 and M.O.Nos.43 to

45 the photographs of accused in this
case are ordered to be kept in the bundle.
This case coming on 14.11.2017, for final hearing before me in the
presence of Thiru.U.Sankaranarayanan, Special Public Prosecutor for the State,
Thiru.Dr.A.P.Jayachandran, Advocate for first accused, Thiru. M.Palanisamy,
Advocate for second accused, Thiru.C.P.Subramaniam, Advocate for third accused,
Thiru.M.Kannappan, Advocate for the accused 4 to 9 and 11, Thiru.P.K.Chandran,
Advocate for the 10th acccused and after hearing the arguments of both sides,
perusing the records and having stood over for consideration till this date, this
court delivers the following:

23
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet Sub Division, has

filed a final report against the accused, for murder of one Shankar and for
grievously assaulting one Kowsalya, who are stated by the prosecution as husband
and wife. Shankar is said to belong to Hindu, Pallar community, and his wife
witness Kowsalya is said to belong to Hindu, Piramalai Kallar community. The
victim Shankar and witness Kowsalya loved each other when they were studying
in P.A. Engineering College at Pollachi, and they married each other at Palani
Paatha Vinayagar temple on 12.07.2015. Both are said to have led their family life
in the house of victim Shankar at Savadi street, Komaralingam.
A1 and A2 are the parents of witness Kowsalya, and A3 is stated to be
the maternal uncle of witness Kowsalya. The 4th accused is alleged to be the friend
of the 1st accused, and that A5 to 11 are alleged to be the accomplice of the 4th
accused. A1 to A3 were against the inter-caste marriage of witness Kowsalya with
Shankar, and that they tried to compel Kowsalya to leave Shankar, and took all
efforts to separate them. Further, the prosecution has alleged that A1 to A3
threatened Kowsalya and Shankar, and that for the same, witness Kowsalya is
stated to have not yielded to the threatening words of A1 to A3. On 23.7.2015,
one Jayaraman, father of the 2nd accused, is said to have met witness Kowsalya in
the house of Shankar, and said to have convinced her that he cares for her and
Shankar, and on the pretext of illness, he is said to have cunningly taken away
Kowsalya and handed over her, to her parents. Her parents A1 and A.2 are alleged
to have taken P.W.1 Kowsalya to Varusanaadu, Dindigul, and compelled her to
leave Shankar and further it is alleged that A3 had threatened Kowsalya for her life
and that since Shankar preferred a complaint before Madathukulam Police Station
on 24.07.2015, Ex.P.39, that his wife was missing, and therefore, A1 and A2
24
without any option, had to necessarily send Kowsalya to Madathukulam Police

Station. Further, it is alleged that Kowsalya appeared before Madathukulam Police
Station, and told that she went with her grandfather as per her own willingness, and
hence the complaint given by Shankar, Ex.P39, was dropped.
A1 to A3 since failed in their attempt, to separate Kowsalya with
Shankar, they are alleged to have taken revenge on them, and decided to do away
Kowsalya and Shankar within 10 days by engaging A5 to A10 through their friend
A4, by paying money. A3 is alleged to have supported A1 and A2, in this regard,
and is alleged to have abetted the 4th accused to commit the murder of Shankar and
P.W.1 Kowsalya, as soon as possible. 10 days prior to the occurrence date on
13.03.2016, as per the plan of A1 to A3, the accused A1, A4 to A6 and A8 have
unlawfully assembled near the Arulmigu Dandayuthapani Children Park, at Palani-
Kodaikanal By-pass road, and is alleged to have hatched criminal conspiracy to
murder Shankar and P.W.1 Kowsalya.
In furtherance of criminal conspiracy, it is alleged that the 1st accused
had taken the 4th accused to his house at Palani, and A1 and A2 is alleged to have
given Rs.50,000/- to the 4th accused as advance to execute the murder plan with the
help of A4 to A10. Further, it is alleged that the 1st accused had given a Bajaj
Discover motor cycle, for using it at the time of occurrence, wherein the number, in
the number plate was erased and given to A4. Further, A1 is alleged to have made
arrangements for the stay of A4 to A6 and A8 at Bakiya Lodge, Palani. The 4th
accused is alleged to have used the stolen Pulsar motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN
59 AV 2766, and had falsely changed the registration number as TN 57 AS 2340.
In furtherence of criminal conspiracy hatched on 12.03.2016 at 5 p.m.
by A1, A5 to A7 and A9 near the foot of the rope car service at Palani, A4 to A10,
are alleged to have unlawfully assembled on 13.03.2016, to commit the murder of
25
Shankar and Kowsalya. Hence, A1 to A10 are alleged by the prosecution to have
committed an offence punishable u/s. 120(B) I.P.C.
On 13.03.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., A4 to A6 are alleged to have come
in the Pulsar motor cycle with the false Regn. No. TN 57 AS 2340 and, that A7 and
A8 are alleged to have come in a Bajaj Discover two wheeler without registration
number, and that A9 and A10 are alleged to have come in a Bajaj Discover two
wheeler having Regn. No.TN 57 AZ 3957 to Udumalpet. Further, it is alleged that
A9 and A10 went to Komaralingam in their Bajaj Discover two wheeler having
Regn. No.TN 57 AZ 3957, to watch the whereabouts of Shankar and Kowsalya.
On the same day, 13.03.2016, at about 12.45 p.m., Shankar and Kowsalya who
had proceeded from Komaralingam to Udumalpet to purchase shirt for Shankar in
a town bus is alleged to have been followed by A10, in the same bus, and that A9
had followed the said bus in his Bajaj Discover two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN
57 AZ 3957, and that it is alleged that A9 and A10 had intimated to A4 to A8 with
regard to the arrival of Shankar and Kowsalya at Udumalpet.
On 13.03.2016, around 2.15 P.M., Shankar and Kowsalya after
purchasing shirt, is said to have proceeded to Udumalpet Bus Stand. While
Shankar and Kowsalya were on their way coming on the south side of the Palani
main road, and while waiting to cross the main road, in front of Eswari Department
Stores, which is situated opposite to the Udumalpet Central Bus Stand, it is alleged
that A5, A6, and A10 have followed Shankar and Kowsalya, and that A10
identified Shankar and Kowsalya to A5 and A6, facilitating them to execute the
murder. Meanwhile, A4 is alleged to have come to the occurrence place at that
moment in his Pulsar two wheeler containing the falsely changed Regn. No. TN 57
AS 2340, for the execution of the murder of Shankar and Kowsalya. A7 and A8
are alleged to have come in their Bajaj Discover two wheeler without any
registration number, to the occurrence spot, following A4, in furtherance of
26
criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Shankar and Kowsalya. A9 is said to

have driven a Bajaj Discover two wheeler having Regn.No.TN 57 AZ 3957, near
the occurrence place, and it is alleged by the prosecution that he had stood there,
in order to help in committing murder of Shankar and Kowsalya, in case they
escape the hands of A4 to A8. The prosecution alleges that A4 to A10 have
assembled at the occurrence place, with a common object to commit murder of
Shankar and Kowsalya, since Kowsalya married Shankar who belonged to the
scheduled caste. The prosecution alleges that A4 to A10 have committed an
offence punishable u/s. 147 I.P.C., and that A4 to A8, as unlawful assembly has
used dangerous weapons for execution of murder, and hence prosecution alleges
that A4 to A8 have committed an offence punishable u/s. 148 I.P.C.
A4 to A8, after having assembled as an unlawful assembly, to execute
the murder of Shankar and Kowsalya, on 13.03.2016 at 2.15 p.m., in public place
and in the view of the public, the 5th accused, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy
to murder Shankar and Kowsalya, has cut on the neck of Shankar causing severe
injury with a big knife, and thereby pushed Shankar down, and that A4 abused the
caste name of Shankar by saying
“எங்க ஜாதி புள்ளைய லவ் மேமேஜ் பண்ணுவாயாடா பள்ைத் தாமயாழி”
and continuously and alternatively cut on the neck and right hand of Shankar with
a big knife, and caused him severe injuries. In furtherance, A6 had also
continuously and alternatively cut on the neck, right shoulder, and hand of Shankar
with a long knife, and thereby caused Shankar grievous injuries. A7 is alleged to
have continuously and alternatively cut on the neck of Shankar with a long knife,
and thereby caused him severe injuries. A5 had cut on the neck of Shankar with a
long knife, and thereby caused him severe injuries. A8 is alleged to have pushed
P.W.1 Kowsalya on the car standing nearby, and that A4 continuously and
27
alternatively cut on the head of Kowsalya with a long knife, and thereby caused her
severe injuries by uttering the following words as,
“இத்மதாடு செத்துத்சதாளலடி”
A6 is alleged to have continuously and alternatively cut on the right

side of the head, and left hand fingers of P.W.1 Kowsalya, with a long knife, by
uttering the following words as,
“காதல் கல்யாணோ செய்கிறாய்”
A9 is alleged to have waited on the northern side of Pollachi-Palani

main road to commit murder of Shankar and Kowsalya, if they escaped from A4 to
A8 in the execution of murder. The prosecution alleges, that Shankar died due to
the severe injuries sustained by him, caused by A4 to A8, on the way to
Government Hospital, Coimbatore and, that P.W.1 Kowsalya had also sustained
grievous injuries on her head and hand, caused by A4 to A8. Therefore, A4 to A8
are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s.302 I.P.C., and A1 to A3
being the perpetrators, are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s. 302
r/w. 120(B) r/w. 109 I.P.C, and A9 and A10 are alleged to have committed offence
punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. A9 and A10 are charged u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC
since they have been members of an unlawful assembly, with a common object,
and also have aided A4 to A8 to commit grievous assault and murder of Shankar,
and had intention to cause grievous assault and murder of Kowsalya. However,
Kowsalya sustained grievous injuries, alleged to have been caused by A4 and A6,
who had assaulted her with an intention to commit murder. Therefore, A4 and A6
are alleged to have committed offence punishable u/s. 307 I.P.C. A5, A7, A8 to
A10 are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s. 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C.
since they have been members of unlawful assembly with a common object to
28
commit murder of Kowsalya. A1 to A3 are alleged to have committed an offence

punishable u/s. 307 r/w. 120(B), 109 I.P.C. since they are alleged to have advanced
money to A4 and A6 for commission of murder of Kowsalya, wherein attempt to
murder by A4 to A8 has failed.
A4 to A10, alleged to be members of an unlawful assembly, with a

common object to commit murder of Shankar, who belonged to schedule caste
community, and also to murder P.W.1 Kowsalya, for having married the scheduled
caste boy Shankar, in the public place and in the view of the public. A4 has abused
the caste name of Shankar by saying
“எங்க ஜாதி புள்ளைய லவ் மேமேஜ் பண்ணுவாயாடா பள்ைத் தாமயாழி”
and is alleged to have humiliated Shankar, and that A4 to A8 in furtherance of
common object, have committed murder of Shankar and attempted to commit
murder of P.W.1 Kowsalya, A4 has committed an offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and A5 to A8, being the
members of an unlawful assembly are alleged to have committed murder of
Shankar, fully knowing that Shankar belongs to Pallar community, a scheduled
caste. A5 to A8 are alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s. 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
A11 is alleged to have harboured A4 to A6 and A8 in his house on

13.03.2016 night, with full knowledge about the offence committed by A4 to A6
and A8. Hence, A11 is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s. 212
I.P.C.
29
2) This case has been taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Udumalpet and numbered as P.R.C.No.7/2016. When the accused were produced
before that Court, they have been furnished with the copies of documents as per
Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to this Court
since the offence is only triable by Sessions Court. This case has been taken on the
file of this Court on 08.06.2016, and numbered as Spl.S.C.No.19/2016.
3) After the accused were produced in this Court and after perusing
the records, and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges for offence
punishable u/s. 120(B), 302 r/w. 120(B) r/w. 109 and 307 r/w. 120(B) r/w. 109
I.P.C. were framed as against the accused A1 to A3, and charges for offence
punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w.3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, were framed as against the accused A4, and
charges for offence punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and
3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, were
framed as against the accused A5 and A7, and charges for offence punishable
u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, were framed as against the accused A6, and
charges for offence punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149
I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C., were framed as against the accused A8, and charges for
offence punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C.,
were framed as against the accused A9 and A10, and charges for offence
punishable u/s.212 I.P.C. was framed as against the accused A11. The charges
were read over and explained to all the accused, and when they were questioned
regarding the charges, all the accused pleaded not guilty, and denied the charges.
30
Further, this Court had noticed, that a charge has been omitted to be
framed against A1 to A3 who were facing charges u/s 120(B). As regards to the
commission of offence punishable u/s. 120(B) I.P.C., the said offence is found in
the schedule prescribed in the Amended Act 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015, hence, on 13.06.2017, an additional charge u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 which was omitted to be framed, has been framed
against A1 to A3 u/s. 216 (1) Cr.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to
A1 to A3 and when they were questioned regarding the charges, they pleaded not
guilty. Further, A1 to A3 have been questioned whether they want to further recall
and examine witnesses with regard to the additional omitted charge framed against
them. For the same, on the side of A1 and A2, they have stated that they have to
recall and examine witnesses in this regard, and prayed time to file list of witnesses
to be examined on their side. As regards to A3, they have not chosen to recall any
further witnesses.
4) On the prosecution side, 67 witnesses have been examined and 122

documents and 49 material objects have been marked. The gist of the evidence of
the prosecution are as follows:
Kowsalya, the wife of deceased, victim, in this case, has been
examined as PW1. She has deposed as follows:
“I have resided with my parents and my brother Gowtham at Palani

before marriage. My father is Chinnasamy. My mother’s name is Annalakshmi.
Pandithurai is my maternal uncle. I belong to Hindu , Piramalai Kallar
community. I have studied 2nd year computer science and engineering in P.A.
College of Engineering at Pollachi in 2015. Sankar studied his final year (4th year)
Mechanical Engineering in the same College. I went from Palani to Pollachi in
the college bus daily. Sankar came from Komaralingam, near Udumalpet. Sankar
31
also travelled from Komaralingam in the same college bus. Sankar belongs to
Hindu, Pallar community. He belongs to Schedule caste. From the 1st year
onwards, Sankar told that he loved me. We loved each other. We loved for 1 year
and 4 months. Our parents came to know about our love. On 10.07.2015, when
my parents knew our love, they told me not to go to college. On 11.07.2015, in
the morning, I told Sankar that my parents prevented me from going to college on
knowing the love matter. He told me to come out and told me that he will marry
me. So that, on 11.07.2015 at about 12 noon, I came out from my parents’ house
and stayed with Sankar in his friend’s house at Dhali. On 12.07.2015 we got
married at Patha Vinayagar Temple, Palani. After marriage, we went to All
Women Police Station, Udumalpet and I gave a petition for protection. I gave a
petition to convince my parents since they have not agreed for the marriage. That
petition is Ex. P1. On the same day my parents came to Police Station. Sankar’s
father and his relatives also came. The Police enquired both sides and Sankar gave
in writing that he will take care of me well. The letter given by Sankar is Ex. P2.
In that letter Sankar’s father Velusamy and Varadharajan, president of his village,
have put their signatures as witnesses. I gave a petition not to take further action
and that petition is Ex. P3. I have signed in it. Senthilkumar, Anbalagan,
Balasubramanian who are neighbours of Sankar, have also signed as witnesses. In
the Police Station my mother , grandmother, my two Aunts told me that it is
impossible to live with Sankar, who belongs to schedule caste and that the
marriage itself is not valid and asked me to come along with them. During out
marriage Sankar tied Thaali. I told my parents, “I will live with Sankar and I will
not come with you”. My mother asked me to return back the belongings they
gave me. Therefore I returned back one pair of golden studs, one pair of small
studs wear in ear lobe, golden ring, watch, silver foot chainand, golden chain
which were given my parents. My mother took my chappal and bit it and
32
threw it away. I have resided with Sankar in his house at 3/2, Savadi street,
Komaralingam and we lived as husband and wife for 8 months. After two weeks
of my marriage my maternal grandfather Jayaraman came to Sankar’s house. He
told that past is past and that we would compromise. He took me and Sankar to
Kozhumam and bought new dresses and snacks for ourselves. Then we returned
home and my grandfather left his scooty and told me to keep that and went
away. On the next day at about 11 am grandfather Jayaraman came. At that the
time myself, Sankar’s paternal uncle’s daughter Mariyathal and Sankar’s father
Velusamy were there. My grandfather was leaning on the pillar in Sankar’s house
and told that he had chest pain and asked me to take him to the doctor by
scooty. I drove the scooty keeping my grandfather and Mariyathal sitting behind
me. We went to Madathukulam and my grandfather took treatment at a private
hospital. When we came out my grandfather’s friend came there and he told me
to take my grandfather in scooty and he will take Mariyathal with him. My
grandfather drove the scooty and I was sitting behind him. My grandfather’s
vehicle went firstt and then his friend’s vehicle came behind. After some time,
when I saw behind, grandfather’s friend’s vehicle was missing. The vehicle driven
by grandfather’s friend was TVS XL. When I saw back an Indigo car, came and
its doors were open. In that car my father, my mother, father’s friend Kalidas were
sitting. On seeing them, I jumped from the scooty and started running. My
parents chased and caught me and boarded me in the car. They took me to the
house of one Revathi, who is sister of my mother, in Dindigul. There they untied
my Thaali , removed my Metti and my dresses worn by me and through them in
the fire. Then made me to sit and poured water on my head by telling there is no
connection between me and Shankar. But I told them that I will live only with
Sankar. My parents and my aunty took me to various places and did manthriham
and put black paste on me to forget Sankar. They also gave me manthriga food to
33
be eaten by me but I refused to eat. My parents and my maternal aunt took me

to Varushanadu, near Theni to meet a priest and then I was taken to the house of
Revathi at Dindigul. I was there for 3 days. For 2 days, when I was at Dindigul, I
refused to eat. I wanted to go with Sankar and was adamant. The 3 rd accused
Pandithurai came to Dindigul and told my parents that I was doing too much and
that why I should be left alive and that seeing me his children will also go in the
wrong way and hence asked my parents to take me away. In the meanwhile,
Sankar lodged a complaint at Madathukkulam Police Station that I was missing.
The Police registered a case and searched for me. My parents tried to convince
me but in order to cheat them I told them that I will tell in the Police Station that I
would not go with Sankar and stay with them. After that they took me to the
house of Mohan who is my paternal uncle at Kaniyampoondi, Tiruppur. There
my parents brought an advocate and that advocate asked me to give in writing
that I would not go with Sankar. I told that advocate I will go with my parents.
The advocate asked others to leave the room and asked me with whom I will be
residing. I told that I would want to go only with Sankar. For that, the advocate
asked me why I am doing like that at the studying age. Through his mobile
phone I spoke to Sankar. The advocate came out and told my parents what I told
him. My parents took me to one Boonthiammal’s house since Sankar knew
where I was. My mother told me that I cannot live with Shankar and that she
would buy poison and asked me to drink and die. Then my parents left the room
and came back after some time and asked me to go with the advocate to
Madathukulam Police Station. Then that advocate cameand, I went to
Madathukkulam Police Station with him. I made a phone call to Sankar, and
Sankar came to Madathukkulam Police Station and took me. Again we went to
Komaralingam and continued our family life. Within two weeks, Kothaiyammal,
the mother of my mother often visited Sankar’s house. She brought some snacks
34
for me. Sankar and myself wanted to take a scan for my periods problem. My
grandmother overheard and told that she would also come with us. When we
went to Kavitha Srinivasan hospital at Udumalpet, the doctor was not there and so
we returned. While returning back, in the turning of the road, a Scorpio car came
and I saw that the sister of A1, Uma was sitting in the car. I told Sankar that they
have come to kill us and that we should start running. We both ran and we stood
near the fruits shop in front of AVM Backery. My mother, my father’s sister
Vanitha, her husband Gunasekaran, got down from the car and pulled my hands
to come with them. Myself and Sankar raised alarm to save us. A crowd gathered
and the Udumalpet Police also came there and took us to the Udumalpet Police
Station. Immediately my mother and my relatives left the place. The Udumalpet
Police took us to the All Women Police Station, Udumalpet and the All Women
Police told us that they can’t do anything against my parents and warned us to be
safe. After Sankar’s father came to Police Station and we went along with him to
Shankar’s house. After 1 ½ months and before two weeks prior to the
occurrence, my mother, father, grandmother Kothaiyammal and my father’s friend
Palraj came to Sankar’s house and called me. Again I told that I would only live
with Sankar and I will not come. My parents told me that the relatives are angry
that she married a Pallanand, that they told why she has been allowed to live and
they warned me, that if someone would do something to us, they will not be
responsible for that. Prior few days to 13.3.2016, the neighbors told me that
A3 , my maternal uncle, came near my house and noted as to how many houses
are there near my house and how many doors are there for my house and that
who are residing in the house, and they warned me that they are planning to do
something against Shankar and me. Sankar told me that we will go to buy dress
since the college Annual Day function falls on 14.3.2016 and hence on 13.3.2016
at about 12 O’ clock we went to Udumalpet by bus and we got down at Udumalpet
35
Bus Stand and bought a shirt in “super collection” shop for Sankar and after
buying the shirt we proceeded towards Udumalpet Bus Stand and we were waiting
at Palani – Pollachi road, in front of Eswari department stores near Bus Stand. It
may be around 2.15 P.M. At that time, Manikandan stabbed with a Aruval knife in
the back side neck of Sankar and pulled him back and pushed Shankar down.
After that Selvakumar cut Sankar repeatedly with Aruval knife. Then Michael @
Mathan who was wearing helmet cut me on my head and pushed me down.
Manikandan, Jagatheesan, Selvakumar cut Sankar repeatedly, Sankar fell down
and rolled on the ground. After that Manikandan, Selvakumar and
Kalaithamilvanan cut Sankar continuously. Selvakumar and Jagatheesan cut me
with Aruval several times, while Selvakumar and Jagatheesan were cutting
Sankar by uttering “ Palla thayozhi magane, Are you loving, get rid”. When
Jagatheesan cut me he told me to get rid of the world. They went in two motor
cycles with their weapons after thinking that we were dead. I knew the names of
the persons who have assaulted me and Sankar only later when the Magistrate
conducted identification parade at Central Prison, Coimbatore. The Magistrate
while asked me to identify the persons who have cut me by touching them, I as
per her directions, I identified 5 persons who were involved in the occurrence,
by touching them. The Magistrate asked their names and confirmed and then
wrote their names after I identified them. That’s why I am able to tell the names of
the accused who have cut me and Sankar. The accused Jagatheesan(4th accused),
Manikandan(5th accused), Selvakumar(6th accused), Kalaithamilvanan(7th accused)
and Mathan @ Michael(8th accused), who have cut me and Sankar on the
occurrence day, are present in the Court today. (The witness identified accused 4
to 8). The accused 4 to 8 who used the Aruval, knives to cut me and Sankar are
available in this Court. The said Aruval and knives are M.O.Nos. 1 to 5. I have
cut wounds on my head and my fingers were also cut in my two hands. After
36
the accused assaulting me I fell down and was lying on the ground for some time
and when I raised an Auto driver came and tied a towel on my head. Even when
the accused was cutting me, an old auto driver ran and tried to prevent them. But
Jagatheesan threatened him that he will also cut him. After getting up I went
and saw Sankar. His right side neck was open. There were many cuts. Myself
and Sankar were taken to Government Hospital, Udumalpet by an ambulance. We
were given first aid there and were sent to Government Hospital, Coimbatore by
the ambulance. In the ambulance, I spoke to Sankar and Sankar told me, pappa,
nothing will happen to him and that he will not leave me. He was trying to
convince me till passing over Kinathukadavu. After that he did not speak. I
thought that Sankar was unconscious. After arriving at Coimbatore hospital, the
doctors checked and told me that Sankar was dead. After that I was taken to
intensive care unit and I was kept there. I was given treatment for 11 days at CMC
Hospital Coimbatore. On 13.03.2016 the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet came to
the Hospital at Coimbatore at about 4 to 4.15 P.M. and the person who
accompanied the Inspector wrote the statement given by me. I signed it and the
complaint statement shown to me is given by me. Complaint statement is Ex. P4.
On that day, mid night, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet examined
me. On 16th , the D.S.P. received my blood stained clothes. I handed over my
shawl, Chudithar tops and pant. Chudithar tops is M.O. 6, Pant is M.O.7 and
Thupatta is M.O.8. On that day Sankar wore Blue colour T Shirt, Blue Pant
Jeansand, Blue colour jatti. The clothes shown to me in the Court are the clothes
worn by Sankar. Sankar’s T shirt is M.O.9, Jeans Pant is M.O.10 and Jatti is
M.O.11. On 21.03.2016 I went to Palladam Judicial Magistrate Court and gave
statement to the Magistrate. After that on 22.03.2016 identification parade was
conducted in the presence of Lady Magistrate at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
There I have identified 4 accused. I have identified Jagatheesan (4th accused),
37
Selvakumar (6th acused), Manikandan(5th accused)and, Mathan @ Michael(8th

accusecd). On 22.03.2016 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet,
examined me. On 12.04.2016, when identification parade was conducted in the
presence of lady Magistrate at Central Prison Coimbatore, I have identified
Kalaithamilvanan(7th accused). On the next day, on 13.04.2016 the D.S.P.
examined me. I am residing at Sankar’s house till now and I am in the Police
Bandobust till now.
On the side of prosecution, one of the eye witness, Venugopal, has

been examined as PW2. PW2 has deposed in his evidence as follows:
I have my own Auto T.N. 72 W8290 for hire. I parked my auto in

front of U.K.P. Complex near Bus Stand and on 13.03.16 at about 2.15 P.M. when
I was waiting in my auto for the passenger to come back who had gone to buy
some articlesand, at that time, a boy and a girl were standing in front of Eswari
departments road, to cross the road. PW1 is the girl who accompanied the boy on
that day. Later I came to know the name of the boy as Sankar who came with
PW1. At that time a bike came from west to east and parked before my auto.
That person’s name is Jegathees. Later I came to know his name. After that,
two persons came in a motor cycle and the same was also parked. Their names are
Michael and Kalaithamilvanan. I came to know their names later. Two other
persons came from front of the complex near my auto and they are Manikandan
and Selvakumar. Later only I came to know their names. At that time
Manikandan went behind Sankar and stabbed with a knife in the right side neck
of Sankar and pulled him down. After that Selvakumar and Jagatheesan cut
Sankar with Aruval knife repeatedly. At once Sanakar rolled down towards the
left side of the parked vehicle of Eswari department stores. While Sankar rolled,
Selvakumar and Jagatheesan cut him repeatedly. PW1 raised hues and cries not to
38
cut Shankar. At that time, Michael who was wearing helmet pushed down PW1
on the red car parked near my auto. After that PW1 fell down and Selvakumar
and Jagatheesan cut her repeatedly. Again Kalaithamilvanan and Manikandan
went and cut Sankar. Then Jagatheesan rode his motor cycle parked in front of my
auto and behind him Manikandan and Selvakumar sat and by showing the knife
upwards the bike turned and proceeded towards west. The motor cycle came
behind was ridden by Kalaithamilvanan, and Michael sat behind him and they
left towards west. The number of the pulsar vehicle parked in front of my auto
was TN 57 AS 2340. The number of the motor cycle parked behind it was not
noticed by me. After that an ambulance came and took PW1 and Sankar. I left
the scene of occurrence since the passenger came. Jagatheesan (4th accused),
Manikandan(5th accused), Selvakumar (6th accused), Kalaithamilvanan (7th
accused) and Michael @ Mathan ( 8th accused) are present in the Court today.
( The witness has identified the accused 4 to 8). After dropping the passengers, I
returned to the occurrence place at about 7.30 P.M., The Udumalpet D.S.P.
examined me. On 21.03.2016 I gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate,
Palladam. On 22.03.2016 I have identified 4 of the accused at identification
parade in the presence of Magistrate at Central Prison, Coimbatore. I have
identified the 4th accused Jagatheesan, 5th accused Manikandan, 6th accused
Selvakumar and 8th accused Michael by touching them. After my identification,
the Magistrate asked their names whom I touched and Magistrate confirmed the
names and only then I came to know their names. On 23.03.2016 the D.S.P.
examined me. On 12.04.2016 I have identified the 7th accused at identification
parade at Central Prison, Coimbatore, by touching him. On that day, after my
identification by touching the person, the Magistrate asked the name of that
person and confirmed and only then I came to know his name. The accused 4 to 8
have used the weapons M.O.Nos. 1 to 5 to cut PW1 and Sankar. On 14.03.2016
39
the D.S.P. has examined me. The pulsar motor cycle having registration number
TN 57 AS 2340 and the motor cycle without registration number in the Court,
are the vehicles used by accused 4 to 8 on that day. Pulsar motor cycle having
registration number TN 57 AS 2340 is M.O. No.12 the motor cycle (bajaj
discover) without registration is M.O.No.13.
One of the eye witnesses, Ramasamy, has been examined as PW3.
PW3 has deposed as follows:
I am residing at Udumalpet with family. I am a fruit vendor. I am
doing business through a trolley, in front of U.K.P. complex, on the south side of
Palani-Pollachi road. I have seen the occurrence directly, on 13.03.2016 at about
2.15 P.M. while I was selling fruits in front of U.K.P. Complex. Eswari
departments stores is situated in U.K.P Complex. I came to know the name of
Sankar and Kowsalya only later. Shankar and Kowsalya while standing and
waiting in front of department store road to cross Pollachi-Palani road, since there
was traffic, one person came from west to east and his name is Jegathees, whose
name I came to know later. After that two persons came in a bike and they are
Michael @ Mathan and Tamilvanan, whose names I came to know later.
Selvakumar and Manikandan came to the road from the front of the complex and
proceeded towards north and Manikandan spoke something with the person
who came in the motor cycle came first and Manikandan went behind Sankar
and stabbed with a knife on the left side neck of Sankar and pulled down. After
that Sankar fell down, Selvakumar and Jagatheesan cut him with Aruval
repeatedly. Jagatheesan and Tamilvanan cut him repeatedly by saying,
“ whether love marriage is necessary for a Pallan boy? die with this”. I came to
know the names of the accused later . When I tried to prevent Jegathees he
threatened me that he will cut me also. Kowsalya raised hues and cries as to
save them. At that time Michael @ Mathan, who was wearing helmet, whose
40
name I came to know later, pushed down Kowsalya and said “To cut her and let
her to die. Selvakumar and Jegathees cut Kowsalya repeatedly with Aruval
knives. Kowsalya fell down near the auto. Manikandan cut Sankar with a small knife.
After that he took a big Aruval knife from the bike behind, and cut Sankar repeatedly
who was lying down. After that , two persons went away in the motor cycle parked
behind, towards west. Three persons went in the motor cycle parked in front, towards
west. The face of Michael @ Mathan seems to be clear since he lifted the front side
of the helmet upward. Myself and auto driver Venugopal have seen the occurrence. He
also tried to prevent. Then the public and ourselves sent Kowsalya and Sankar in an
ambulance. The five persons who had involved in the occurrence are present in the
Court today. I am identifying the 4th accused Jegathees, 5th accused Manikandan, 6th
accused Selvakumar, 7th accused Tamilvanan, Michael @ Mathan, were involved in the
occurrence. On the occurrence day, at about 7 P.M. the D.S.P. Came to the occurrence
place and has prepared a sketch and has examined me. On 21.03.2016 I have given
statement in Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, on receipt summons. Then I have
received summons for 22.03.2016 to come to Central Prison, Coimbatore. On that
basis, I have gone to Central Prison and a lady magistrate was there. In her presence, I
have identified the 4th accused Jegatheesh, 5th accused Manikandan, 6th accused
Selvakumar and 8th accused Mathan @ Michael, by touching them. At that time, the
magistrate asked their names and confirmed and only then I came to know their names.
On the next day, 23.3.2016, the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined me. Again on
12.4.2016 I was summoned to come to Central Prison, Coimbatore. There, I have
identified the 7th accused Kalaithamilvanan in the presence of lady magistrate. At that
time the magistrate asked his name and has confirmed and only then I came to know his
name. On the next day, 13.4.2016, the D.S.P. examined me. The M.O.No.5, knife was
used by Manikandan at first to stab and cut Sankar. The M.O.No.2 is the knife which
was taken by Manikandan from the vehicle parked behind and was used to cut Sankar
repeatedly after he fell down. The 6th accused Selvakumar has used the M.O.No.3,
Aruval knife to cut Sankar and Kowsalya. The M.O.No.4, knife, was used by the 7th
41
accused Kalaithamilvanan, to cut. The M.O.No.1, knife was used by Jegatheesh, to cut.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police examined me with regard to this case.
One Nasurutheen, who has recorded in his cell phone, the departure of
the accused from the occurrence place after the occurrence, has been examined as
P.W.4.
P.W.4 has deposed that on 13.3.2016 at about 2.15 p.m., when he had
parked his car in front of the Eswari Department Stores situated at U.K.P.
Complex, and that when he was sitting in his car, Sankar and Kowsalya were
standing just before his car to cross the road, and that at that time a person wearing
red colour shirt stabbed in the neck of Shankar with a knife and Shankar fell down
at once, and that the accused wearing yellow colour shirt and green colour shirt
cut Shankar repeatedly with weapons like arivaal and knife, and the accused who
wore helmet pushed down Kowsalya on the ground. The persons wearing red
colour shirt and white checked shirt cut Shankar and Kowsalya raised alarm. The
persons who wore yellow colour shirt and white colour shirt cut her repeatedly.
The person with the helmet and person with the white colour shirt boarded their
parked bike, and left in Pollachi road. In another bike, three accused boarded and
went on Pollachi road. While sitting in the car, he has taken video of the accused
who went in bike, after the occurrence. He has recorded the video in his Micro
Max 120 mobile phone. Phone was shown to him, and he identified the same in
the Court. The car in which he went with his family bore registration number TN
42 9263, Versa while colour. On 17.3.2016 he went to Udumalpet Police Station
and has shown the video taken by him and has handed over the phone with
memory card. He has taken away the SIM cards owned by him. The signature in
the Form.91 prepared by the Police for seizure of the phone from him has been
identified by him. Micro Max A 120 Cellphone with memory card is M.O.No.14
42
series, that the form.91 is Ex.P.5. On 22.3.16 he has identified the four accused
who were involved in the occurrence, in the presence of lady magistrate at Central
Prison, Coimbatore, by touching them. He identified the accused in the Court who
stood in 4th place as of wearing green colour shirt on the occurrence day, and that
the person standing as 5th accused, as wearing red colour shirt and a towel around
his neck on the occurrence day and the person standing as 6th, was identified as the
person wearing yellow colour shirt on the occurrence day and the person standing
as 8th was identified as the person who wore the helmet and the witness has stated
that his face was clear since there was no front glass in the helmet. He has
identified the person standing as 7th, as wearing white colour small checked shirt at
the time of occurrence. The witness touched the accused in the Court while
identifying each of them.
The prosecution examined another eye witness Gunasekaran as P.W.5.
PW5 has deposed that he sells fruits in Handcart, and used to sell
fruits in front of Anandha Hotel near Bus Stand on the Udumalpet - Pollachi High
Road. He has further deposed that on 13.3.2016 from 2.15 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., when
he was selling fruits in front of Anantha Hotel, near Udumalpet Bus Stand, that
place was found sensational as someone has been assaulted in front of U.K.P.
Complex, and at that time one person (the A.9 Dhanraj) came in a motor cycle
from the direction of Pollachi and stood in front of his fruit shop without switching
off the engine of the vehicle and was seen very nervous, and at that time one
person (A.10 Prasannakumar) came running and sat behind in the vehicle of A.9
and, that the motor cycle immediately had gone towards Palani and, he had
noticed that the person who came running and stood behind in the vehicle also
seemed to be very tense. He has further deposed that, when he sees the person, he
will be able to identify both of them, and has stated that the Deputy Superintendent
43
of Police, Udumalpet, had enquired him on 21.03.2016, and that on receipt of the
summons from the Court, he had gone to the Central Prison, Coimbatore on
06.04.2016 and identified the person who came driving the motor cycle before the
Magistrate by touching him (A.9) and that at that time the Magistrate had asked
and confirmed the name of the person he identified and at that time only he came
to know that the name of the person he identified was Dhanraj. He has further
deposed that, on that evening itself, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had
enquired him. He has further deposed that, on summons, he had gone to the
Borstal School at Pollachi on 07.04.2016, where he identified the person (A10),
who came running and sat behind the motor cycle during the occurrence, before
the Magistrate, by touching him, and that when the Magistrate confirmed the name
of the said person, she told the name of the person as Prasannakumar and because
of that only he knew the name of the concerned (A10). He has deposed that on the
evening itself the Deputy Superintendent of Police had enquired him in this regard,
and that he can identify both of them, and he confirmed that the 9 th Accused
Dhanraj who was present in the Court was the one who came fast in the motor
vehile and stood before his Handcart Fruitshop and that the accused
Prasannakumar who was present in the Court is the person who came running and
sat behind in the Motor Vehicle of A9 (PW.5 clearly identified the Accused 9 and
10), and further deposed that he was enquired by the Police in this regard.
One Logithasan, Salesman of Eswari Departmental Store, cited as

Observation Mahazar Witness by the prosecution, was examined as P.W.6.
PW6 has deposed that at present he is residing at Pasupathy Street,

Udumalpet, and that he is working as a Salesman in the Eswari Department Stores
located at UKP Complex opposite to the Bus Stand, and that on 13.3.2016 at about
7.30 p.m., the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Udumalpet, had come and was
44
inspecting the occurrence place situated in front of his store, and at that time
himself and one Kabilan who was working with him in the shop was standing in
the crowd and prepared the Observation Mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.6 and
Rough Sketch in the presence of both of them and that the Police had obtained
their signatures in the Observation Mahazar. He has further deposed that the D.S.P.
had seized the blood stained soil under the parked mini door vehicle belonging to
the Eswari Departmental Stores and the sample soil and blood stained soil was
taken in their presence and that the Seizure Mahazar was prepared and the same
was marked as Ex.P.7 and that he and Kabilan signed as witnesses. The above said
seized articles are M.O.Nos. 15 to 18.
One Thiru.Amarnath, who is the proprietor of Eswari Department

Stores, was examined as P.W.7.
P.W.7 has deposed that, on 16.3.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., the D.S.P. of
Udumalpet came to his shop with a technician working in government office and,
had asked him to hand over the hard disk of CCTV camera installed in front of his
Departmental Stores in which the recordings with regard to the occurrence of the
assault of Sankar and Kowsalya that took place on 13.3.2016 in front of his shop
which was said to have been recorded and, that the DSP seized the DVR in which
CCTV was fixed and the hard disk fixed in it and adopter, in the presence of
himself and one Siva and Sutharsanraj who were working in his shop through a
Seizure Mahazar. He has further deposed that he and the workers Siva and
Sutharsanraj along with the Government Technician Thiru.Thangavelu, had signed
in that Seizure Mahazar and, that the Seizure Mahazar was marked as Ex.P.8 and,
the hard disk with D.V.R. was marked as M.O.No.19 and adopter as M.O.No.20.
45
Thiru.Thangavelu, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,

has been examined as P.W.8.
P.W.8 has deposed that he is the assistant director of the Mobile

Forensic Unit at Erode and holding additional charge for Tiruppur District also.
The witness deposed about his assisting the investigating officer in the seizure of
M.O.19 and M.O.20, the CCTV Camera with hard disk from Eswari Departmental
Store. He has identified his signature in Ex.P8.
One Vigneshwaran, who is the younger brother of deceased Shankar,

was examined as P.W.9.
P.W.9 has deposed that, on the next day of 22.7.2015, when he had
returned from the college, his grand mother told him that his brother’s wife
Kowsalya and his sister Mariammal, had gone with Jayaraman, the grand father of
Kowsalya, and have not returned home, and that only Mariammal had returned
home at about 10.00. p.m. He has further deposed that Mariammal had told that
Kowsalya’s grandfather took them in the scooty, by telling her that they will return
after getting money, and that Mariammal was standing in the Bus Stand for a long
time, and that since they did not return, she had come back home. He has further
deposed that on 24.7.2014, his brother Shankar had lodged a complaint to secure
his wife Kowsalya who was missing, and that on 26.7.2015, the Police informed
over phone that Kowsalya has come to the Police Station and, that his brother and
his father went to Madathukulam Police Station and took his brother’s wife and
after that she was in their house. He has further deposed that on 13.3.2016, Sunday,
he was in his home and, that his brother Shankar and his wife Kowsalya went to
Udumalpet to buy dresses at about 12.30 p.m. and, that at about 3.00 p.m., he came
to know that his brother Shankar and Kowsalya were assaulted near Udumalpet
Bus Stand and, that they have been taken away to C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore.
46
He has further deposed that, hearing about the assault of his brother and his in-law
Kowsalya, he and his father and his uncle rushed to C.M.C.Hospital, Coimbatore
and, there they were told that his brother had died and his body is kept in the
mortuary and, that he along with his father and uncle saw the body of Shankar in
the mortuary and, that his in-law Kowsalya was on treatment in the intensive care
unit at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore. He has further deposed that the D.S.P. had
examined him on 14.3.2016 during the inquest.
Thiru.Thirumalaisamy, Village Administrative Officer,

Kanakkampalayam, was examined as P.W.10.
P.W.10 has deposed that on 25.3.2016 at about 6.30 a.m., the D.S.P. of
Udumalpet had called him over phone and told that he needs to enquire one
Prasanna @ Prasannakumar with regard to the murder that happened on
13.03.2016 near the Udumalpet Bus Stand and had requested to come to
Udumalpet Police Station with regard to the enquiry and, that he and his Assistant
Parameswaran went there and, that at that time, the D.S.P. enquired A10
Prasannakumar in their presence and, that at that time A10 gave a confession
statement and the same was recorded in a computer and he also had identified A10
in the Court. He has further deposed that A10 in his confession had stated that he
had concealed pant, shirt and cellphone in his house and, that if he was taken there,
he will hand over all those things and, after that PW10 and his assistant had signed
in that confession statement. PW10 has further deposed that the signature found in
the confession statement was his signature and, that the admitted and underlined
portion in the confession was marked as Ex.P.10. He has further deposed that
when D.S.P. played the video recordings of the occurrence, A10 saw and identified
the person who was wearing the helmet as Mathan @ Michael and, the person
who was riding the second bike as Kalaithamilvanan and, the person who rode the
47
bike from west to east as Dhanraj, and that after the occurrence he had gone in the
motor cycle with Dhanraj.
Thiru. Eswaran, Village Administrative Officer, Rahalbavi, was

examined as P.W.11.
P.W.11 has deposed that on 15.3.2016 at about 12.15 p.m., he and his
Village Assistant Chockalingam were coming near Mukkonam - Anaimalai Road
Railway Gate and, that there the D.S.P. of Udumalpet was examining A6
Selvakumar, A8 Mathan @ Michael and A11 Manikandan with regard to the
murder that took place on 13.3.2016 and, that the three accused voluntarily gave
confession statements to the D.S.P. in their presence. (The witness identified A6,
A8, and A11 in the Court). He has further deposed that during the examination of
A6 Selvakumar, the Police seized a Bajaj Discovery two wheeler which was
without registration number from him in their presence and, that the accused
Selvakumar stated in his confession that one Jegadeesh gave him Rs.20,000/- for
the occurrence and handed over the money to the D.S.P. and, that the D.S.P. seized
the motor cycle and money under Seizure Mahazar marked as Ex.P.11, in their
presence and, that the motor cycle was marked as M.O.No.13 and, that the cash
Rs.20,000/- was marked as M.O.No.21 series and, that the accused Selvakumar in
his confession stated that he concealed black and yellow checked full hand shirt
worn by him at the time of occurrence and the knife, below the P.A.P. canal sluice
near Ganapathipalayam road and, that if he was taken there, he would hand over
them and, that he and the Village Assistant signed in the confession statement and,
that the admitted and underlined portion in confession statement was marked as
Ex.P.12. Thiru. Eswaran, has further deposed that the D.S.P. recorded the
confession statement of Mathan @ Michael in their presence and, that the accused
Mathan @ Michael stated in his confession that he had concealed blue, orange,
48
wooden colour checked, full hand shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence and
blood stained knife in a bush under a Velam tree in the Chinna Vaikkal Itteri on the
south side of Sadayapalayam Pirivu and, that if he was taken there, he would
identify and hand over them and, that he and his Village Assistant signed in the
confession statement and that the admitted and underlined portion in the confession
statement was marked as Ex.P.13. He has further deposed that Mathan @ Michael
handed over his full hand shirt and knife as per his confession and, that the shirt
was marked as M.O.No.22 and the knife was marked as M.O.No.4 and, that they
had signed in the seizure mahazar prepared by the D.S.P. that was marked as
Ex.P.15. He has further deposed that the D.S.P. examined A11 Manikandan in their
presence and he confessed that he gave shelter in his house at Pattiveeranpatti to
A6 Selvakumar, A4 Jegadeesh, A8 Mathan @ Michael and, A5 Palani Manikandan
who were involved in the occurrence and would identify his house. Thiru.Eswaran
and his Village Assistant signed in the confession statement and, that the admitted
and underlined portion in the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.14.
Thiru.Thowbiq Raja, Village Administrative Officer, Somavarampatti

Village was examined as PW12.
P.W.12 has deposed, that on 15.03.2016 at about 8.30 a.m., he and his
assistant Vijayakumar had gone to the temporary check post, Pethapampatti and,
that the accused Jagatheesh and Manikandan were there (the witness identified A4
and A5 who were present in the Court) and, that they were giving confession
statements to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The V.A.O. has further
deposed that the D.S.P. seized the Bajaj Pulsar No.TN 57 AS 2340, marked as
M.O.No.12 and driven by Jagatheesan and, that the accused Jagatheesan in his
confession had stated that he has concealed the green colour shirt worn by him at
the time of occurrence and the knife used by him and, yellow and black checked
49
shirt worn by accused Selvakumar at the time of occurrence and the knife used by
Selvakumar under the P.A.P. Channel sluice, situated 4 k.m. away from the
Ganapathipalayam road, Pollachi main road, and if he is taken there, he will hand
over them. The V.A.O. has further deposed that he and his assistant signed in the
confession statement and, that the admitted underlined portion in the confession
statement was marked as Ex.P.16 and, that the accused A4 Jagatheesan in his
confession had told that Chinnasamy gave him a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him for the
occurrence and, that he gave Rs.20,000/- to his companion and apart from the
spent amount he was having Rs.24,000/- and, that the D.S.P. had seized motor
cycle and Rs.24,000/- from the accused Jagatheesan in their presence and prepared
Seizure Mahazar that was marked as Ex.P.17 and, that had they signed in it and, the
amount of Rs.24,000/- was marked as M.O.No.23 series.
P.W.12 has further deposed that they signed in the confession

statement of A5 Manikandan in which A5 has confessed that he had hidden the
maroon colour shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence and sandal colour towel
and the knife used by him during the occurrence under the P.A.P. Channel sluice, 4
kms. away from the Ganapathipalayam road, Pollachi main road, and that if he was
taken there, he will hand over them and, that the admitted underlined portion in
the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.18 and, that they went to the said
place and the accused handed over the green colour shirt of Jagatheesan marked as
M.O.24 and, the knife marked as M.O.No.1 and, that the accused Jagatheesan
handed over the shirt worn by accused Selvakumar at the time of occurrence,
marked as M.O.25 and, the knife used by A6 Selvakumar, marked as M.O.No.3.
He has further deposed that the accused Manikandan handed over Maroon colour
shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence marked as M.O.No.26 and, the sandal
colour towel marked as M.O.No.27 and, the knife marked as M.O.No.2, which
50
were seized from the same place by the D.S.P. through the Seizure Mahazar
marked as Ex.P19 and, that he and his assistant signed in the Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.19.
Thiru. Syed Ibrahim, Village Administrative Officer, Udumalpet

Town, was examined as P.W.13.
P.W.13 has deposed, that on 22.3.2016, he and his village assistant

Muruganandham went to Udumalpet Police Station on the request of the D.S.P. and
there the accused A3 Pandithurai gave a confession statement to the D.S.P. in their
presence (the witness identified A3 Pandithurai). Further, PW13 has deposed that
on 24.3.2016 at about 2 hours, he and his village Assistant went to Udumalpet
Police Station at the intimation of the D.S.P. and, that there A1 gave confession
statement to the D.S.P. in their presence (the witness identified A1 Chinnasamy)
and, that in his confession A1 stated that he had mental agony since his daughter’s
love marriage and, that he knew Jagatheesan for the past 3 years and, that Mathan
@ Michael is his relative and, Jagatheesan is also his relative. The accused
Chinnasamy further confessed that he told Pandithurai about the mental agony he
was having due to his daughter’s love marriage and, that he gave a Bajaj Discover
vehicle without number to Jagatheesan who took Mathan @ Michael to
Komaralingam and identified Shankar and his house to him. A1 further confessed
that after that in a park situated at Kodaikanal Pirivu at Dindigul to Palani Bye
pass, Jagatheesan, Selvakumar, Michael @ Mathan, Manikandan and Chinnasamy
made conspiracy and, that he made the above said 4 persons to stay at Bakya
Lodge, Palani by paying money and, that in the last week of the previous month
before the occurrence A1 drew amount in denomination of Rs.10,000/- in A.T.M.
and asked Jagatheesan to come to his house and paid Rs.50,000/- as advance and
has further deposed that if he was taken, he will identify the place where they
51
entered into conspiracy. P.W.13 and his assistant signed in the confession
statement of A1 and stated that the signature in the confession statement was his
signature.
P.W.13 has further deposed that on 29.3.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., the
Deputy Superintendent of Police called him over phone to come to Udumalpet
Police Station and, that he and his assistant went to Udumalpet Police Station and,
that the accused Jagatheesan and accused Manikandan were there in the Station
and, that the D.S.P. examined them, (the witness identified Jagatheesan and
Manikandan who were present in the Court). P.W.13 has further deposed that the
D.S.P. showed the video recordings of the scenes containing the assault on Shankar
and Kowsalya on 13.3.2016, in the laptop and, that the accused Jagatheesan and
Manikandan identified themselves and the other accused concerned in that video
recordings and, that he and his assistant signed in the confession statements given
by them. He has further deposed that on 30.3.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. he and his
assistant went to Udumalpet Police Station on the requisition of the D.S.P. and,
that the accused Selvakumar and accused Mathan @ Michael were there in the
Station (the witness identified A6 Selvakumar and A8 Mathan @ Michael present
in the Court) and, that D.S.P. showed the video recordings having the scene of
Shankar and Kowsalya being assaulted near Udumalpet Bus Stand on 13.3.2016, in
the laptop and, that the accused Selvakumar and Mathan @ Michael identified
themselves and the other accused who took part in occurrence in that video
recordings and that the D.S.P. obtained signatures from himself and his assistant in
the confession statements given by them.
Thiru.Baskaran, proprietor of Bakya Mahal Lodge at Palani was

examined as P.W.14.
52
P.W.14 has deposed, that his lodge is situated near the Tourist Bus
Stand from where the rope car starts and, that A1 Chinnasamy drives car for hire
and he used to bring parties to his lodge and on that basis he knew Chinnasamy
very well. He has further deposed that since Manikandan’s father Marimuthu sells
banians by keeping them in a T.V.S.50 in front of his lodge, he also knew
Manikandan very well ( the witness identified A1 Chinnasamy and A5
Manikandan). Thiru. Manoharan, who is the brother of P.W.14 was examined as
P.W.15 and he corroborated the above said evidence of P.W.14 and, that he also
identified A1 Chinnasamy, A5 Manikandan and A8 Mathan @ Michael. P.W.14
has further deposed that on 05.3.2016, Chinnasamy and Manikandan came with
another person and asked a room for hire and, that A1 was staying in the room for
some time and then he went away and, that Manikandan and the other person
stayed there and, that he knew that the name of that person was Mathan since
Chinnasamy and Manikandan called him as “Mathan”. PW14 has further deposed
that the register (total 45 pages) containing the details of persons who are staying
in the lodge was marked as Ex.P.20 and, that in the 2nd page of the said register,
the particulars of allotment of room number 8 to the accused Manikandan was
written by himself and was marked as Ex.P.21. He has further deposed that since
he was met with an accident on 09.03.2016 and was on treatment in a Hospital, his
brother Manoharan took care of the Lodge and used to visit the Hospital daily, and
that he had told him that two to three young aged persons would come and see
Manikandan and Mathan in the lodge often. PW14 has further deposed that on
13.06.2016, his brother visited the hospital at about 7.00 p.m., and when asked
about lodge details he told him that Manikandan had vacated the room and had
handed over the key at about 5.00 p.m. PW14 has further deposed that on
25.3.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., the Udumalpet Deputy Superintendent of Police
came to his lodge and examined him and, that when D.S.P. asked the register,
53
marked as Ex.P.20 he handed over the same and had put his signature and, that the
endorsement made by him for such handing over was marked as Ex.P.22 and, that
D.S.P. prepared a Seizure Mahazar for it. PW14 has further deposed that since
Manikandan’s Father was known to him, he did not get the signature of
Manikandan in the Register and that he had not issued any receipt both for
Rs.100/- received as advance and the amount of Rs.2000/- paid after vacating the
room by the concerned.
One Manoharan who was examined as P.W.15 has corroborated the

above said evidence of P.W.14.
P.W.15 has deposed, that he and his brother Baskaran and one
Chokkaraj put their signatures in the Seizure Mahazar and that was marked as
Ex.P.23. P.W.15 has further deposed that on 13.3.2016 at about 10.00 a.m.
Chinnasamy, Mathan and Manikandan went out in two motor cycles and, that at
about 5.00 p.m. Manikandan and Chinnasamy came back and paid the rental
arrears of Rs.2000/-and handed over the key and vacated the room.
One Raja has been examined as P.W.16.
P.W.16 has deposed, that he is residing at Palani and knew

Thirumalaisamy, S/o.Nagaraj and, that before 6 months, the said Thirumalaisamy
had mortgaged his Bajaj Discover motor cycle No.TN 57 AZ 3957 to him, but did
not hand over the R.C. Book to him. Thirumalaisamy, who was examined as
P.W.17 corroborated the above said evidence of P.W.16. Raja has further deposed
that he knew the A5 Manikandan and, that the accused was doing mason work
under him (the witness identified A5 Manikandan). P.W.16 has further deposed
that on 13.3.2016 at about 11.00 a.m. Thirumalaisamy took the said motor cycle
for going to shop and returned the same at about 4 / 5 p.m. on the same day. He
has further deposed that on 28.3.2016, the D.S.P. Udumalpet came to his house,
54
examined him and seized Bajaj Discover vehicle bearing No. TN 57 AZ 3759 by
preparing a Seizure Mahazar in which Thirumalaisamy and his uncle Rajendran
put their signatures and that the motor cycle Bajaj Discover bearing registration
No. TN 37 AZ 3957 was marked as M.O.No.28. P.W.17, Thirumalaisamy
corroborated the above said evidence of Raja (P.W.16).
Thiru.Thirumalaisamy has been examined as P.W.17.
P.W.17 has deposed, that the Bajaj Discover 150 numbered TN 58 AZ

3957 belongs to him and he had bought the same by loan and the R.C.book of the
vehicle is with the Financier, and that he knows Raja who was his Maesthiri and he
had pledged his vehicle for Rs.10,000/- before 6 months, and since then the Vehicle
is with Raja only. He has further deposed that on 28.03.2016, he had gone to the
house of Raja around 6 o’clock in the evening and at that time the DSP of
Udumalpet had come to the House of Raja and had seized his above said bike in
Seizure Mahazar in Ex.P24, and assured that the said motor cycle is M.O.No.28.
One Murugesan has been examined as P.W.18.
P.W.18 has deposed, that he and his daughter were constructing a

house on the west side in the street behind the house of Annalakshmi and
Chinnasamy and, that on 1.4.2016 at about 1.00 p.m. when he was supervising the
construction work, Annalakshmi handed over a parrot green and black colour
cellphone to the D.S.P., Udumalpet, who came to their house and, that D.S.P.
obtained signatures in the Mahazar prepared for it from himself and one
Sathishkumar who was residing opposite to her house, and that was marked as
Ex.P.25 and, that the said parrot green and black colour cellphone on which it has
been written as ‘enfin’ with Vodafone Sim Card was marked as M.O.No.29.
55
One Gopalakrishnan, Panchayat Deputy President, Kurichikottai, has

been examined as P.W.19.
P.W.19 has deposed, that on 06.04.2016 at about 7.30 a.m. he met his
friend Gandhi Selvam near Udumalai Bus Stand and, that since the DSP called
them at that time, they had gone to the Udumalpet Police Station where the D.S.P.
was examining one Kalaithamilvaanan (the witness identified the accused
Kalaithamilvaanan). He has further deposed that he and his friend Ganthiselvam
were present at the time when D.S.P. played the video recordings in the laptop
having the scene of murder of Shankar near Udumalai Bus Stand and, that
Kalaithamilvaanan identified himself as the person who rode the motor cycle in
that video recording and that had told that he will hand over the knife from the
place it was concealed, and that the confession statement of Kalaithamilvaanan
was taken by the DSP and that PW19 and Gandhi Selvam had signed in as witness
and that the admissible underlined portion in his confession statement was marked
as Ex.P.26.
One Suresh, has been examined as P.W.20.
P.W.20 has deposed, that on 6.4.2016 at about 1.15 p.m. when he and
his friend Vignesh were going by Tata Ace vehicle from Komaralingam to
Nallannagoundenpudur and around 01.50 p.m. when they were travelling by
Kumarlingam to Palani road, near Kuthiraiyar bridge, they saw the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet standing with one Kalai ( the witness
identified A7 in the Court) and, that the said Kalai took them towards the front of
the itteri lying on the right side of Kuthiraiyar bridge and took the knife marked as
M.O.No.5 from the thorny fence there and handed over the same to the D.S.P. and,
that the D.S.P. prepared the Seizure Mahazar marked as Ex.P.27, for seizing it and
obtained witness signatures from himself and one Vignesh.
56
One Kalidass has been examined as P.W.21.
P.W.21 has deposed, that he used to park his auto in Thiru Nagar Auto
stand at Dindigul Road and, that A1 Chinnasamy used to park his car in the
opposite car stand (the witness identified A1 Chinnasamy in Court) and, that A1
Chinnasamy is well known to him and that A1 had told him that his daughter
Kowsalya had love marriage with one Shankar because of which he was feeling
very embarrassed and feels very ashamed since his daughter had married a male
belonging to scheduled caste community and hence colloquially told him that both
of them have to be, for which PW21 used to console A1 that it is usual and
convinced him to let them live. P.W.21 has further deposed that 20 days before the
murder of Shankar, when he was coming in the bye-pass around Palani in his auto,
at about 6.00 p.m., he saw A1 Chinnasamy standing with four youngsters near
Children Park and, that he knew Jagatheesan and Manikandan since he already had
seen them with Chinnasamy and, that he did not know the names of other two
persons (the witness identified accused Jagatheesan and Manikandan as they are in
the Court) and, that Chinnasamy was asking them about what they will do for the
shame caused by his daughter’s marriage with Shankar and, that PW21 thought
that Chinnasamy was speaking angrily as usual and hence had left that place.
PW.21 has further deposed that he came to know about Shankar and Kowsalya
being admitted in hospital after assault against them on 14.03.2016 only after
reading the newspaper, and on 25.03.2016, that the DSP while enquiring others in
the stand had enquired him also.
One Anbazhagan, who is the 9th ward councellor of Komaralingam

Panchayat, has been examined as P.W.22.
57
P.W.22 has deposed, that Komaralingam is the native place of Shankar

who was murdered in this case and, that Shankar was studying in a college and,
that he belongs to Hindu, Pallar community and, that he himself also belongs to
the same community. He has further deposed that Shankar loved Kowsalya and
married her and, that Kowsalya was from Palani and belong to Hindu, Thevar
community and that her parents did not accept the marriage. P.W.22 has further
deposed that after marriage with Shankar, Kowsalya was in the house of Shankar
and, that after two months of marriage, Kowsalya’s parents and grandmother came
to the house of Shankar and asked Kowsalya to come with them, but Kowsalya
told that she would live only with her husband Shankar and, that on 12.03.2016,
the last Saturday before the murder of Shankar, at about 5.00 p.m., he saw
Chinnasamy speaking angrily with 4 to 5 youngsters in front of the place where the
rope car starts at Palani and that he did not knew about what they were speaking,
and that he knew Chinnasamy and would be able to identify the 4 other persons
(the witness identified A5 Manikandan, A6 Selvakumar, A7 Kalaithamilvanan and
A9 Dhanraj by touching them) and that the identified persons only were spearking
with A1 Chinnasamy near the rope car terminus on 12.03.2016 around 5 p.m. and
that had gone away since A1 was angirily speaking and that while going for work,
the next day on 13.03.2016 evening, he came to know that both the Shankar and
Kowsalya have got assaulted, and that the DSP had enquired him after 2 days in
this regard.
Karunanithi, Village Administrative Officer, has been examined as

P.W.23.
P.W.23 has deposed, that on 25.3.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., when he

and his village assistant were going to Karikaranputhur, the Deputy Superintendent
of Police was seen examining A10 Prasannakumar at Karikaranputhur (PW23
58
identified A10 in the Court). He has further deposed that Prasannakumar went
inside the house and brought a cellphone, pant, and shirt worn by him during the
occurrence day and handed over them to the D.S.P. and, that the blue colour Nokia
phone was marked as M.O.No.30 and, that the shirt and pant of Prasannakumar
was marked as M.O.Nos.31 and 32 respectively and, that the DSP had prepared
seizure mahazar for seizure of the above in which he and his assistant had signed in
and the same is marked as Ex.P.28. P.W.23 has further deposed that on 28.3.2016,
he and his assistant Kalimuthu went to Vandivaikkal area on the request of the
D.S.P. at about 3.45 hours and, that the D.S.P. and accused Dhanraj were there with
the Police party (the witness identified A9 Dhanraj in the Court). He has further
deposed that the DSP enquired Dhanraj in their presence and that Dhanraj gave
confession statement in which he and his assistant had signed and, that the said
Dhanraj took three cell phones out of a blue colour bag he had kept in his hand
and, that the DSP had prepared seizure mahazar for the same and that they signed
in the Seizure Mahazar marked as Ex.P.29 and, that the blue colour bag was
marked as M.O.No.33, that White colour Lava phone was marked as M.O.No.34,
that Red colour Samsung phone was marked as M.O.No.35, that Red and Silver
colour Cellphone was marked as M.O.No.35, and that Gray colour Samsung phone
was marked as M.O.No.36 and, that A9 Dhanraj told that he would identify the
Discovery motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 57 AZ 3957 parked in the house of
Raja, Maesthiri, situated at Sathya Nagar, Palani and that the underlined admitted
portion in the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.30 and, that he and his
assistant had put their signatures in that confession statement.
One Ranganathan, who was the classmate of A10 Prasanna @

Prasannakumar, was examined as P.W.24.
59
P.W.24 has deposed, that he is studying in his third year of B.Com.,

C.A. in Vidyasagar College, Udumalpet and, that the A10 Prasannakumar was
studying in his class and he was his classmate ( the witness identified the A10 in
the Court). He has further stated that on 13.3.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., when he
was walking through the Komaralingam Bus Stand, Prasannakumar and another
person were drinking tea in the Rasi Bakery situated south to the Bus Stand and,
that at that time Shankar and Kowsalya were found waiting there for bus and, that
the Udumalai bus came and both Shankar and Kowsalya boarded in that bus and
Prasanna also boarded in that bus. P.W.24 has further deposed that he did not go in
that bus and, that the person accompanied Prasanna followed the bus by a motor
cycle and, that the person who had spoken with Prasanna was present in the Court
and identified A9 Dhanraj.
One Duraisamy was examined as P.W.25.
P.W.25 has stated in his evidence that he knew A1 Chinnasamy for the
past 7 years and that on hearing the news that the daughter of Chinnasamy had
married Shankar, he met Chinnasamy in a tea shop at Palani after two days and,
that Chinnasamy was telling with tears in his eyes that such a happening took place
in his family and his wife was behaving like an insane without taking food. PW25
has further deposed that he tried to console Chinnasamy with convincing words but
there was no effect and that after one month he came to know about the occurrence
by seeing television ( the witness identified A1 Chinnasamy in the Court).
One Arumugam who is running a tailoring shop at Komaralingam,

P.W.26 has deposed that he is residing in Komaralingam and is

running a tailoring shop and, that he knows the family of deceased Shankar.
P.W.26 has further deposed that he heard that Shankar married one Kowsalya and it
60
was a love marriage and that after the marriage, Kowsalya was living in the house
of Shankar and, that the parents of Kowsalya came to the house of Shankar two or
three times and were trying to take Kowsalya with them and, that Kowsalya told
them that she will be in the house of Shankar and lived there and she did not go
with her parents. P.W.26 has further stated in his evidence that one week before
the murder, when he was standing in front of the petty shop near Shankar’s house,
Kowsalya’s father Chinnasamy came with a boy in a motor cycle and identified the
house of Shankar to that boy (the witness identified A1 Chinnasamy in the Court).
One Mahendran was examined as P.W.27.
P.W.27 has deposed that he is residing in Perumal Kovil Street,

Karikaranputhur, Palani and, that he does know Prasannakumar from childhood.
He has further deposed that Prasannakumar was residing in his street and, that he
did not give Prasannakumar either cellphone or SIM card and that he came to
know about the occurrence through What’s app. The prosecution prayed
permission to treat him as hostile witness and permission was granted.
One Karthick was examined as P.W.28.
P.W.28 has deposed that before two years ago he bought Bajaj
Discover TN 57 AR 0569 two wheeler by getting loan from Sriram Finance at
Palani and, that he borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from Chinnasamy and his wife
Annalakshmi belonging to Palani for his sister’s marriage ( the witness identified
Chinnasamy and Annalakshmi in the Court), and that he had repaid Rs.20,000/- to
A1 and since he could not pay the remaining loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, A1 took
away the said Bajaj Discover TN 57 AR 0569 vehicle and, that on 27.02.2016
when he went to the house of Chinnasamy for giving money, A1 Chinnasamy told
him that he handed over the said motor cycle to his relative Dindigul Jagatheesan
for an important work and asked him to come after 10 days. P.W.28 has further
61
deposed that again on 16.3.16 when he went to the house of Chinnasamy, it was
found locked and, that since he came to know that the owner of the vehicle was
wanted in the Shankar murder case, he met the D.S.P. of Udumalpet on 27.3.2016
and told all the details and, that the vehicle that was in the Court which was
marked as M.O.No.13 was his vehicle and, that when he handed over the vehicle to
A1 Chinnasamy, the number of the vehicle was available written and that when he
saw his vehicle in the Court, the number was found to be erased.
One Venkatesan, is an Advocate and the owner of black colour Pulsar

motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 59 AV 2766, and he was examined as P.W.29.
P.W.29 has deposed that on 26.02.16 at about 8.45 p.m., he had parked
his vehicle in front of the Bilal Hotel opposite to Mattuthavani Bus Stand at
Madurai and had gone for eating and, that when he returned back after eating, he
found his vehicle to be missing and, that he searched for his vehicle in the nearby
places and then gave a complaint before Madurai K.Puthur Police Station on
27.2.2016 and, that the same has been registered as CSR.No.83. He has further
deposed that on 8.4.2016, the Udumalpet D.S.P. told that his vehicle was involved
in Shankar murder case and, that on 9.4.16 he went to Udumalpet Police Station
and identified his vehicle there and, further deposed that another number was
written in his vehicle instead of its original Registration Number TN 59 AV 2766
and that the vehicle was marked as M.O.No.12 in the Court was his vehicle.
One Balasubramaniam, who is an auto driver was examined as

P.W.30.
P.W.30 has deposed that he used to run his auto in Tirunagar, Palani,
and used to park his auto in Tirunagar Auto Stand, and that on 25.03.2016
Afternoon at 1.30 p.m., was enquiring at Children Park, Arulmigu Dandayuthapani
Thirukovil, situated at Dindigul Bye-pass road, and that he and one Selvaraj went
62
there and, found Chinnasamy there and, that A1 Chinnasamy was showing a place
to the D.S.P. and the D.S.P. prepared Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P.32, in
their presence and they put their signatures in it and that he knows A1 Chinnasamy
since he used to park his taxi opposite to his stand (the witness identified A1
Chinnasamy in the Court).
One Mohanapriya, who was the then Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Transport Office, Palani, was examined as P.W.31.
P.W.31 has deposed that Udumalpet Deputy Superintendent of Police

called her to confirm whether the details of engine number and chasis number of
the concerned Bajaj Discover motor cycle were PAZWEL 96016 and MD 2A
57AZ5EWL20537 respectively and, that on that basis she saw the registers
concerned with that vehicle and issued the certified copy of B Register having the
details of that vehicle and that was marked as Ex.P.32.
One Malathi, who was the then Motor Vehicle Inspector - I, Regional
Transport Office, Udumalpet, was examined as PW.32.
P.W.32 has deposed that the Judicial Magistrate No.I directed her to
examine whether the motor cycles having registration numbers TN 59 AB 2766
and TN 57 AZ 3957 and another motor cycle without registration number are in a
condition to ride in a road and, that on 12.4.2016, she went to Udumalpet Police
Station and examined the above said three vehicles. She has further deposed that
she identified the registration number of the vehicle without registration number as
TN 57 AR 0569 by feeding it’s engine and chasis numbers online and, that she told
that detail to the D.S.P. and, that she took the pencil prints of the chasis numbers
of all the three vehicles and affixed them in her certificate and, that she drove all
the said three vehicles and certified that all the three vehicles were in a condition to
ride on the road and the certificate issued by her was marked as Ex.P.33.
63
One Tamilselvi, who was the then Inspector of All Women Police
Station, Udumalpet, was examined as PW.33.
P.W.33 has deposed that a complaint was given by one Kouslaya,

W/o.Shankar on 12.7.15 at about 11.00 a.m. and that was marked as Ex.P.1. and
that CSR.No.310/15 was assigned to the complaint and she conducted enquiry on
the Complaint and, that for enquiry, she asked Kowsalya, Shankar, Shankar’s
father Velusamy and Kowsalya’s father Chinnasamy to come to Police Station and
made enquiry and, that Kowsalya gave a letter marked as Ex.P.3 that she was not
willing to go with her father and, that she wanted to live with her husband Shankar
and, that Shankar also gave a letter marked as Ex.P.2, in which it has been stated
that he will look after his wife Kowsalya well and took her with him and that A1
Chinnasamy also gave a letter that he will not interfere in her daughter Kowsalya’s
life matter since his daughter decided to live with Shankar. She has further
deposed that Kowsalya handed over 1 sovereign gold chain, one pair of studs
worth ½ sovereign, one pair of silver foot chain and a wrist watch worn by her to
her father and, that the petition was closed since A1 Chinnasamy gave a letter that
he will not create any problem. She has further deposed that Kowsalya gave a
letter marked as Ex.P.3 in the presence of 4 witnesses as no steps were taken on her
complaint and, that she made an endorsement that the petition was closed on the
basis of Ex.P.3 and the certified copy of her endorsement was marked as Ex.P.34.
One Muthulakshmi, who was the then Sub-inspector of Police, Palani

Town Police Station, was examined as P.W.34.
P.W.34 has deposed that on 11.7.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., A1

Chinnasamy gave a complaint that one Shankar kidnapped her daughter Kowsalya
and the same was registered as Cr.No.647/15 u/s. 366 I.P.C. and the certified copy
of the first information report registered by her was marked as Ex.P.35. She has
64
further stated in her evidence that on 2.3.2016, the Palani Town Police arrested A8
Mathan @ Mathankumar and A4 Jagan on suspicion and were brought to the
Station and a case was registered against them and, that after that A1 Chinnasamy
came to the Station and gave a letter that they were known to him and were his
relatives and, that on that basis, they were sent with him. She has further deposed
that the certified copy of the F.I.R. registered against Mathan @ Mathankumar was
marked as Ex.P.36 and that the certified copy of the F.I.R. registered against Jagan
was marked as Ex.P.37 ( the witness identified the accused Chinnasamy, Mathan @
Michael and Jagatheesan as they were present in the Court).
One Pugazhenthi, who was the then Inspector of Police, Palani Town
Police Station, was examined as PW.35.
P.W.35 has deposed that on 11.7.2015, he took the case in

Cr.No.647/15 u/s. 366 I.P.C. for investigation and, that he went to the occurrence
place and examined the witnesses and, that on 13.7.2015, Kowsalya, who is said
to be kidnapped, voluntarily came to the Station and gave a statement that no one
kidnapped her and she married Shankar who studied with her in the college and,
that he recorded her statement and produced the said Kowsalya before the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Palani and, that the Court permitted Kowsalya to go with
Shankar since she gave her statement in Court that she wanted to go with Shankar
whom she married and on that basis he quit the enquiry and a final report was sent
to the Court and the certified copy of final report was marked as Ex.P.38.
One Parthiban, who was the then Madathukulam Circle Inspector, was
examined as PW.36.
P.W.36 has deposed that on 24.7.2015 at about 6.00 p.m. Shankar

appeared before Madathukulam Police Station and gave a complaint that his wife
Kowsalya who went to Madathukulam was missing from 23.7.15, 12.30 p.m.
65
onwards for which he registered a case in Cr.No.320/15 as woman missing and,

that he took the case for investigation and, that on 27.7.15, Tmt.Kowsalya, who
was said to be missing, voluntarily appeared before the Station and stated that she
was with her father-in-law since he was not doing well and, she came there after
knowing that her husband gave a complaint that she was missing. The PW.36 has
further deposed that he recorded her statement and sent her with her husband and
relatives and, that he quit the enquiry and filed a final report in the Judicial
Magistrate No.II Court, Udumalpet on the same day and, that the certified copy of
F.I.R. registered on the basis of complaint given by Shankar was marked as Ex.P.39
and that the certified copy of final report filed by him was marked as Ex.P.40.
One Kumar, who was working in the Personal Section of State Bank
of India, Palani Branch, was examined as P.W.37.
P.W.37 has deposed that he gave the Statement of Accounts with

regard to the joint savings account No. 31133252662 held by A1 Chinnasamy and
A2 Annalakshmi, for the period from 1.2.2016 to 14.2.2016 and that the certified
copy of statement of accounts was marked as Ex.P.41.
One Palanisamy, who was the then Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Palani,
was examined as PW.38.
P.W.38 has deposed that he issued community certificate marked as

Ex.P.42 to A5 Manikandan in which it has been certified that A5 belong to Hindu,
Boyar, most backward community and issued community certificate marked as
Ex.P.43 to A10 Prasannakumar, in which it has been certified that A10 belong to
Hindu, Agamudaiyar, backward class community.
One Muthusamy, who was the then Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar -2,
Palani, was examined as P.W.39.
66
P.W.39 has deposed that Kowsalya, A1 Chinnasamy and A2

Annalakshmi belong to Hindu, Piramalai Kallar community, which is a denotified
community, i.e. they do not belong to scheduled caste and that the community
certificates of Kowsalya, Chinnasamy and Annalakshmi were marked as Ex.P.44 to
Ex.P.46 respectively.
One Meenadevi, who was the then Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar,

Dindigual West Taluk Office, was examined as P.W.40.
P.W.40 has deposed that she issued a community certificate marked as

Ex.P.47 to A8 Mathan @ Michael certifying that he belong to Piramalai Kallar
community, which is recognized as a De-notified Community and the community
certificate for Selvakumar was marked as Ex.P.48. She has further deposed that
she issued the community certificate marked as Ex.P.49 to A3 Pandithurai
certifying that he belonged to Piramalai Kallar community which is de-notified
community and issued the community certificate marked as Ex.P.50 to A9 Stephen
Dhanraj certifying that he belonged to Vanniyakula Sathiriyar which is a most
backward community and he did not belong to de-notified community. She has
further deposed in her evidence that she issued the community certificate marked
as Ex.P.51 to A7 Kalaitamilvanan certifying that he belonged to Vanniyakula
Sathiriyar, most backward community and he also did not belong to de-notified
community.
Thiru.Sivakumar, Tahsildhar of Dindigul, was examined as P.W.41.
P.W.41 has deposed, that he is working as Tahsildar of Dindigul from

12.02.2016 to till date, and that on the request of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police of Udumalpet on 18.03.2016 to issue community certificate for one
Jagadeesan, S/o Pandithurai, Balakrishnapuram village, Dindigul East, he made an
Enquiry and issued a community certificate to Jagadeesan that he belongs to
67
Piramalai Kallar Caste which comes under the communal category of Denotified
Community, and that the community certificate has been marked as Ex.P.52, and
that the said community is not a scheduled caste.
Thiru.Kalimuthu, working as Tahsildhar of Nilakottai, was examined

as P.W.42.
P.W.42 has deposed, that he is working as Nilakkottai Tahsildar since

19.06.2015, and that on 19.03.2016, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of
Udumalpet had requested him to issue community certificate for one Manikandan,
S/o Madasamy, Ilangovadigal Street, Anna Nagar, Pattiveeranpatti, Sevugampatti,
Nilakkottai Taluk, and on that request he made an enquiry on the community of
A11 Manikandan and issued a community certificate that he belongs to Hindu -
Nadar caste, and that was marked as Ex.P.53, and that the said caste comes under
backward community, and that it is not a scheduled caste.
Thiru. Muthuraman, Tahsildhar of Madathukulam, was examined as

PW.43.
P.W.43 has deposed, that he is working as Tahsildar of Madathukulam

since 18.03.2016, and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, had
requested him to issue the community certificate for one Shankar, S/o Velusamy,
D.No.3/2, Savadi Street, Komaralingam Village East, Madathukulam Taluk, and
that with regard to the request, he made an enquiry on the community of Shankar
and then issued a community certificate to the deceased Shankar certifying that he
belongs to Hindu-Pallan community which is scheduled caste community, and the
community certificate has been marked as Ex.P.54.
Dr.Priyalakshmi, Assistant Doctor, Government Hospital, Udumalpet,

has been examined as P.W.44.
68
P.W.44 has deposed, that she is working as Assistant Doctor at

Government Hospital of Udumalpet, and that at about 2.15 p.m. on 13.03.2016, the
injured Shankar and Kowsalya were brought to the Hospital through ambulance, at
which time, they were in a condition to speak, and that there were wounds on them,
and that Kowsalya had stated to her that she had been injured due to the assault
against her by some persons with knife near the Udumalpet Bus Stand, and that
Shankar also told her that he and Kowsalya were assaulted by some persons by
Knife at about 2.10 p.m. near the Udumalpet Bus Stand. PW44 has further
deposed that there were many desperate (damaged) wounds on the head of
Kowsalya, and that on the right side of the neck of Shankar, there was a deep cut
wound, with blood vessels and flesh in damaged condition, and that he had various
damaged wounds on his right forearm andbones were seen exposed in the forearm
and the index finger, ring finger and center finger in the left hand of Shankar were
in a crushed condition. P.W.44 has further deposed, that since they were having lot
of injuries, first aid was given to both of them and since they needed further next
level treatment urgently,they were referred and sent to Coimbatore Government
Hospital, and that the copy of the Accident Register issued by her to Shankar was
marked as Ex.P.55.
P.W.44 has further deposed, that she had perused the C.T. Scan taken
on Kowsalya at Coimbatore Hospital, and saw fractures in the head of Kowsalya,
and hence issued Wound Certificate that was marked as Ex.P.56, with an opinion,
that the injuries caused to Kowsalya were grievous in nature, and that the injuries
caused to Kowsalya and Shankar may have been caused by Aruval Knives marked
as M.O.Nos. 1 to 5.
69
Dr. K.Muthuraja, who was working as Tutor in Trauma, and doctor in

emergency care unit in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, was examined as
P.W.45.
P.W.45 has deposed, that Kowsalya, W/o. Shankar was under

treatment in the hospital as in-patient from 13.03.2016 to 28.03.2016, and that the
case sheet for the treatment given to her is with him, and that while giving
treatment to her, C.T. Scan was taken on 13.3.2016. He has further deposed that
when he examined Kowsalya, a “V” shaped cut injurywas seen on the front side of
her head. Further, there were cut injuries on the left side of her head, back side of
her head, in the left hand and in the left ring finger, and that the Brain and
Neurology doctors had given her further treatment to her, since she had injuries in
her head. P.W.45 has further deposed, that X-ray and C.T. Scan were taken on her,
and that on perusal of the x-ray of the hand it was noted that there were no fractures
in her hand, and that on perusal of the CT scan of the head, it was noted that due to
the cut wound in the front head, there was fracture and treatment was given to
Kowsalya for that fracture, that the injuries caused to Kowsalya were grievous in
nature, and that with regard to the same, he had sent the C.T. Scan report to the
Government Hospital, Udumalpet offering his opinion, and that the injuries caused
to Kowsalya may have been caused by M.O.Nos.1 to 5 weapons, and that the
injuries may have been caused on 13.3.2016 at about 2.15 p.m.
Dr. Kulanthaivelu, Senior Civil Surgeon, Medico Legal Department,

Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, was examined as P.W.46.
P.W.46 has deposed, that on 14.03.2016, when he was on duty, he

conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Shankar, aged about 22
years, concerned in Cr.No.194/2016,as per the request of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, and the dead body was identified by PC
70
1038, Kannappan, at 12.45 p.m. He has further deposed that in his Post-Mortem
Report, he has noted that there were about 32 injuries found on the body of the
deceased Shankar, and that the blood was found clotted on those injuries, and that
the inner organs were sent for chemical analysis and blood sample was taken. He
has further deposed,that the deceased Shankar would have died because of the
shock and hemorrhage due to various cut and stabbed injuries caused to him, and
that he might have died 12 to 24 hours before post-mortem, and that on perusal of
the chemical analysis report, there was no report regarding any toxic elements, and
that the post-mortem report issued by him was marked as Ex.P.57, and that the final
opinion was marked as Ex.P.58. He has further deposed that Shankar could have
been alive for one hour after getting injured, and that the cut and stabbed wounds
on Shankar might have been caused by M.O. Nos. 1 to 5, and that the injuries 1 to
16 and 18 to 27 might have been caused by using M.O.Nos.1 to 5, and that the
injuries 12, 13 and 15 might have been caused by using the sharp parts of
M.O.Nos.1 to 5, and that the injury no.14 might have been caused due to him
falling down on stones, and that the injuries 17, 28 to 32 might have been caused
due to rolling on the ground by Shankar.
Thiru.Venkateswaran, Scientific Officer in Coimbatore Forensic

Science Laboratory, was examined as P.W.47.
P.W.47 has deposed, that for the past 15 years he has been working in
Forensic Department examining various criminal case related blood, semen,
sputum, and hair samples and submitting his report regarding the same. He has
further deposed that on 21.3.2016, he received a letter No.373/2016 dated
18.3.2016 addressed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, that has been
marked as Ex.P.59,along with one Court sealed card board box containing 15
material objects concerned in this case, and he analysed them, and that on
71
analysis,he detected that there was blood in item Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 8, 10, 11, 13, 14
and 15 shown in the report, and that there was no blood stain in item nos. 2, 4, 9
and 12, and that he sent the sample blood stains to the Director of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chennai, to get a serology report for detecting theblood group and
category, and that he sent his biological report in RT No.8096/16/CBE/BIOL 96/16
dated 22.03.2016 marked as Ex.P.60 to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.
He has further deposed that he received the sample blood stain concerned in this
case sent by the Professor, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and the Medico
Legal officer, who conducted the post-mortem, and sent those blood stains to the
Director, Forensic Science Department, Chennai for obtaining a serology report, so
as to detect the blood group, and that a biological report in RT.No.8097/16
CBE/BIOL/97/16 dated 22.3.2016 was sent to that Professor with regard to the
same.
PW47 has further deposed, that on 13.04.2016, he received a letter in

D.No.556/2016 dated 13.04.2016 from Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet along
with one Court-Sealed paper parcel concerned in Udumalpet PS. Cr.No. 194/2016.
PW47 has further deposed, that he had examined the 36.5 cm knife with wooden
handle contained in the parcel, and on analysis,he had found that there was no
blood stain in that knife and submitted his serology report to the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Udumalpet, and the said report has been marked as Ex.P.61, and the
concerned knife certified of having no blood stains is M.O.No.5.
Tmt.Shenbagavalli, Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,

Udumalpet, was examined as P.W.48.
P.W.48 has deposed, that on 13.4.2016, the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Udumalpet, gave a requisition letter to send a blood stained knife (36.5 c.m.
in length) for chemical analysis, and that based on the request and as per the order
72
of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, she sent the above said knife to
Forensic Science Laboratory at Coimbatore, and that the covering letter for that
was marked as Ex.P.62. She has further deposed,that on 18.3.2016, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, gave another requisition letter to send the
item Nos. 1 to 16 noted in the letter for chemical analysis, and that based on that
request and as per the orders of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, she had
sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory at Coimbatore, and that the covering
letter for sending them was marked as Ex.P.59.
One Naveen, who was the Maruti Omni ambulance driver in which the
deceased Shankar and Kowsalya were taken to the hospital, was examined as
P.W.49.
P.W.49 has deposed, that on 13.03.2016 at about 2.15 p.m., he had as

usual parked his ambulance in front of the Government Hospital, Udumalpet, and
that at that time,on the intimation from Karuppusamy, the owner of the vehicle that
two persons were assaulted near Udumalpet Bus Stand and he should go there and
that he went to the south side of Udumalpet Bus Stand and boarded Shankar and
Kowsalya ((name later known) and took them to the Government Hospital,
Udumalpet, and that they were examined by the doctors there, and were given first
aid, andas told by the doctors, the victims were taken to the C.M.C. Hospital at
Coimbatore, at about 4.00 p.m. He has further deposed that the doctors at CMC
Hospital examined Shankar, and confirmed that he has died on the way, and that
Kowsalya was admitted for further treatment, and that afterwards he returned to
Udumalpet, and in this regard, the DSP had enquired him.
Thiru.Kamal Sherif, who is the owner of Super Collection Cloth shop,

73
P.W.50 has deposed, that on 13.03.2016, after return to his home, he

saw a video in his Television in which one Shankar and Kowsalya were seen
assaulted before the UKP Complex at Udumalpet, and that he identified them as the
boy and girl who came to his shop on 13.3.2016 at about 1.30 p.m. and bought a
readymade shirt for that boy. On 13.04.2016, the DSP had enquired him.
One Kannappan, who was the then Head Constable, Udumalpet Police
Station, was examined as P.W.51.
P.W.51 has deposed, that on 13.03.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., when he

was at Station on duty, he received an information from the Government Hospital,
Udumalpet, that a boy and a girl have been admitted there with cut injuries, and
thatwhen he went there at once he was told that they have been sent to Coimbatore
Government Hospital for further treatment, and that he had returned to the Station
at about 3.30 p.m. and told the information to 1161 Head Constable Savithri who
was in-charge of the Station at that time. Savithiri examined as P.W.52 has also
corroborated the above said evidence of P.W.51.and has further deposed that the
information for that injury was marked as Ex.P.65. P.W.51 has further deposed that
as called for by the CMC Hospital on 14.3.2016, he went there at about 12.30 p.m.,
and that there the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, handed over the
dead body of deceased Shankar to him with a requisition letter for doing post-
mortem andthat he handed over the requisition letter to the concerned duty doctor
for post-mortem and identified the body and accompanied during the post-mortem
and that the Pant, T-shirt and Jatti on the dead body marked as M.O.Nos.9 to 11,
were handed over to him and that after post-mortem, the dead body was handed
over toShankar’s father Velusamyand that he handed over the said three cloths to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police with his Special Report marked as Ex.P.63 at
Udumalpet Police Station and the Form 91 in which the Deputy Superintendent of
74
Police seized them was marked as Ex.P.64 and that he has signed in the Form 91,
and that the DSP had enquired him.
Tmt.Savithri, the then Head Constable of Udumalpet Police Station

P.W.52 has deposed, that on 13.3.2016 at about 3.45 p.m., based on

the information she received from Government Hospital, Udumalpet, she had sent
one Kannappan (P.W.51), Constable, to the Hospital, and that the constable went to
the Hospital and returned back to the Police Station at about 3.30 p.m., stating that
both the injured victims have been sent to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore,
and the intimation given by the Government Hospital to Udumalpet Police Station
was marked as Ex.P.65, and that afterwards she had received an information
through wireless phone from the Outpatient unit of C.M.C. Hospital that Shankar
has died at about 3.45 p.m. on 13.03.2016and that she informed the same to
Thavamani, Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station through Phone, and that
the DSP had enquired her in this regard.
Thiru.Rajendran, the then Head Constable, Udumalpet Police Station,

P.W.53 has deposed, that on 13.3.2016 at about 7.15 p.m., the

Inspector, Udumalpet Police Station, handed over the F.I.R. in Cr.No.194/16 to
him, and directed to submit the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet,
and that he went to the house of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet at about
7.45 p.m., and waited there, and when the Judicial Magistrate returned home at
11.30 p.m,, he handed over the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate, and obtained her
signature in his passport, and the Judicial Magistrate had noted the time of the
receipt in the F.I.R, and that the DSP had enquired him in this regard.
75
Tmt.A.Thavamani, Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station was

examined as P.W.54.
P.W.54 has deposed, that on 13.3.2016 at about 3.50 p.m. the writer of
the Station, P.W.52 Savithri, informed her over phone that one Shankar concerned
in Udumalpet P.S. case had died in Government Hospital, Coimbatore, and another
victim Kowsalya was under further treatment. P.W.54 has further deposed, that she
went to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and examined Kowsalya and
recorded her statement marked as Ex.P.4, and that the victim Kowsalya read the
statement and signed in it and that based on the statement, she returned to the
Station at about 18.30 hours, and registered a case in Cr.No.194/2016 u/s. 147, 148,
307, 302 and 109 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2)(v)(a) of SC ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015and that the F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.66. She has further deposed that she
sent the printed F.I.R. and the complaint statement to the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Udumalpet, and handed over other copies to the Deputy Superintendent of Police
for further investigation.
Thiru.Kalyanakumar, who was working as the Regional Transport

Officer, Madurai North Regional Transport Office, was examined as P.W.55.
P.W.55 has deposed, that on 17.3.2016, he received an application

from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, requesting for issue of
certified copies of the details with regard to the motor cycle having chasis number
MD 2 DHDHZZVCD 87558, details of the owner of the bike, and a copy of the
R.C.Book of the bike. He has further deposed, that on verification, the registration
number of the vehicle having chasis number MD 2 DHDHZZVCD 87558 was
found as TN 59 AV 2766 as per the details in the computer, and that the vehicle was
a Pulsar 150 Bajaj vehicle, and that the name of the owner was G.Venkatesan,
Madurai, and that the owner’s address is 68, MariammanKovil 1 st Street, Madurai –
76
625007, and that the financier of the vehicle was HDFC Bank Ltd located at 34,
Nithyakalyani Towers North Veli Street, Madurai – 625001. He deposed that he
issued the B Register Extract of that vehicle containing the above details, and the
same was marked as Ex.P.67, and that the DSP had enquired him in this regard.
Thiru.S.Sunil, Nodal Officer of Nodal Team, Chennai Vodafone

Mobile Services Ltd., was examined as P.W.56.
P.W.56 has deposed, that he received an e-mail on 04.04.2016 from the

Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur to send the call details, details of owner,
application form and other connected records with regard to the Vodafone number
7094532388, and that on 5.4.2016 he replied toconcerned mail id with the required
details, and thatas per the request of the DSP, Udumalpet, 17 pages of certified
copy of the above said details with regard to Vodaphone No. 7094532388 was also
given, and that was marked as Ex.P.68 series. P.W.56 has further deposed that the
Cellphone No. 7094532388 was in the name of Stephen Dhanraj, S/o Kailasam,
8/197B, Pudupatti, Pallapatti, Dindigul District – 624 002, and that the address and
details with regard to activation on 01.2.2016, was found in page No.4, and that the
same has been marked as Ex.P.69, and that on 13.03.2016, the cell phone has been
operated at about 14 hours, 20 minutes, 55 seconds, through the tower at C.K.Road,
Dhali road, Udumalpet, and that was an incoming call received from 7305363926.
P.W.56 has further deposed that the mobile number 7094532388 used IMEI
No.359375061577160, and that the conversation had taken place for 17 seconds,
and that he had put the seal and signature in each and every page of the certified
copy, and that he had signed and sealed in the 65 b certificate which has been
marked as Ex.P.70, and that is in the third page, and the same was marked as
Ex.P.70, and that the DSP had inquired him in this regard.
77
Thiru.Vijayakumar Raja, Assistant Manager, Legal & Regulatory and

Nodal Officer, Aircel Company, Chennai, was examined as P.W.57.

Police, Udumalpet, gave an application requesting for details regarding two Aircel
numbers 8526009506 and 9715829615 viz. CDR (call detailed recorder) from
01.02.2016 to 15.03.2016, applications, ID proof, and address proof and the date of
activation. P.W.57 has deposed, that on perusal of the details with regard to the
above said numbers, he had given reply on 07.4.2016 and that the Aircel number
9715829615 was in the name of N.Barathiraja, Pollachi-6, and that it was activated
on 3.1.2015, and that totally 12 pages having the incoming and outgoing call
details from 01.2.2016 to 15.3.2016 with regard to Aircel no. 9715829615 and
marked as Ex.P.72 series, was given with his signature and seal on each page, and
that the details with regard to the owner, address, and date of activation of Aircel
no. 9715829615 seen in the 13th and 14th pages were marked as Ex.P.73 series,
and that the IMEI No. of the cellphone having Aircel number 9715829615 was
IMEI No.359375060269440, and that an incoming call was received in this cell
phone on 13.3.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. 4 minutes, 32 seconds from Uralpatti post,
Kozhumam, Udumalpet. He has further deposed that the Aircel number
8526009506 was in the name of P.Mahendiran, Karikaranputhur, Periyammapatti,
Palani – 624 615 and was activated on 22.5.2015, and that totally 158 pages having
call details of Aircel number 8526009506 from 1.2.2016 to 15.3.2016 and marked
as Ex.P.74 series was given with his signature and seal on each page, and that the
details with regard to the name of the owner, address and date of activation of
Aircel no. 8526009506 was seen in the pages 157 and 158 and has been marked as
Ex.P.75 series., and that the IMEI Number of the Aircel no. 8526009506 was
351750061572570, and that an incoming call was received on 13.3.2016 at about
78
2.00 p.m. 11 minutes, 1 second, within the coverage of Palani road, Malaiamman
Buildings, Bye-pass road, Udumalpet, and that the call was received from
8428117309, and that the conversation was for 65 seconds and the above said
detailswere marked as Ex.P.76. He has further stated in his evidence that on
13.3.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., 4 minutes and 32 seconds, an incoming call was
received by Aircel number 9715829615 from 9944615949, and that the
conversation took place for 19 seconds, and the above said detail was marked as
Ex.P.77. P.W.57, has further deposed that he had given assurance regarding the
genuineness of the above details by issuing 65 B certificate, and that has been
marked as Ex.P.78, and that the details of the two tower locations have been noted
separatelyin two separate sheets, and they have been marked as Ex.P.79 series, and
that the DSP had enquired him in this regard.
Tmt.Pushparani, Scientific officer, Forensic Science Laboratory,

Chennai, was examined as P.W.58.
Tmt.Pushparani, Scientific officer, Forensic Science Laboratory,

Chennai, was examined as P.W.58.
P.W.58 has deposed, that she has 15 years’ experience in “individual

identification / Anthropology” section, and that she received the articles concerned
in this case with a letter addressed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet,
through Jawahar Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police on 18.03.2016 and that among
them 4 numbers of colour photos of Jagatheesan,were marked as item Nos. 1 to 4
(M.O.No. 37 series), and that the colour photographs of one Manikandan were
marked as item Nos. 5 to 8 (M.O.No.38 series)and that the four colour photographs
of one Selvakumar were marked as item Nos. 9 to 12 (M.O.No.39 series), and that
the colour photographs of one Mathan @ Michael were marked as item Nos. 13 to
16 ( M.O.No.40 series).
79
P.W.58 has further deposed that she received a D.V.R., Power Adopter
and one small C.D. from the Physics Branch of her laboratory, and that they were
marked as item No.17 (M.O.Nos.19, 20 and 41) respectively, and that one black
colour Micro Max Cellphone with memory card was marked as item No.18
(M.O.No.14), and that the memory card was inside the phone. She has further
deposed, that she carefully examined the item Nos. 1 to 18, and made out a list of
morphological features of faces of Jagatheesan, Manikandan, Selvakumar, Mathan
@ Michael, who were found in item Nos. 1 to 16 photographs.
P.W.58 has further deposed, that as per the letter of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, the video recordings recorded on 13.3.2016 from 2.00
p.m. to 2.20 p.m. in camera No.10 in item No.17, D.V.R. was analyzed, and that out
of the 65 videos recorded in the folder DCIM in the memory card of item No.18,
the Cellphone, a video running for 1 minute and 27 seconds recorded as VID –
20160314 / 141953 was analyzed to identify the above said persons, and that the
memory card in the cell phone was marked as M.O.No.42, and that the two video
recordings were run in computer through the software VLC Player, and were
analyzed, and that snap shots and screen shots were taken from the morphological
features of the faces who appeared in the video recordings, and then the video
recordings were run very slowly and in its normal speed, and then was analyzed
frame by frame, and that not only their morphological features but also their hair
style, nature of physique, and gait pattern and the minute features of their dresses
were analyzed carefully, and the said factors were used as additional para meters to
identify the persons.
P.W.58 has further deposed that, in her analysis, at first, the

identification of the persons seen in the Photographs in item Nos.1 to 16 and in the
video recordings in item No.17 was done and that she has noted down the video
80
recordings concerned in this case out of the total scenes available in that
recordings.
1) At 2:00:00 P.M., the video footage in Camera No.10 shows the view of
one active market place,
2) At 2:11:36 PM the victims (a boy wearing blue T-shirt and a girl wearing
pinkish salwarkameez) come in the view of the camera and are seen proceeding
towards the road.
3) At 2:11:50 PM two men, one wearing a maroon full sleeved shirt, light
blue jeans with yellow towel around the neck and the other wearing white base full
sleeved shirt with dark colour cross stripes and dark blue jeans, enter the view of
the camera one by one.
4) At 2:11:54 PM another man wearing white based full sleeved shirt with
dark colour vertical stripes enter the view of the camera and approaches the two
men mentioned in point no.3.
5) At 2:12:00 PM a man on a bike wearing green colour full sleeved shirt

enters the view of the camera. He parks the bike near the road behind the victims.
6) At 2:12:04 PM two men enter the view of the camera in another bike, one
wearing helmet and the other wearing white shirt with stripes.
7) Between 2:12:22 PM and 2:12:47 PM the two men mentioned in point

no.3 along with the man mentioned in point no.5 and the man wearing helmet
mentioned in point no.5 are seen brutally attacking the victims.
8) At 2:12:50 PM the two men mentioned in point no.6 leave the scene by a
bike.
81
9) At 2:13:16 PM the two men mentioned in point no.3 along with the man
mentioned in point no.5 leave the scene by another bike.
P.W.58 has further deposed that since the morphological (facial)

features of the individuals in the video recordings in camera No.10 could not be
studied clearly, the other parameters such as their hair style, the physique, the gait
pattern and the details of clothing of the individuals appearing in the video footages
have been carefully observed and recognized and in order to explain it Annexure -1
is enclosed with her report.
P.W.58 has further deposed that the video footage in item No.18 runs
for 1 minute and 27 seconds, and the following scenes were established through
it :-
1) At 00:00 sec. a man in full sleeved shirt with multicolour cross stripes
with dark blue jeans wearing helmet starts moving towards the camera.
2) At 00:02 sec. a man wearing a maroon full sleeved shirt with light blue
jeans and yellow towel around the neck and holding a sword like weapon in his
right hand starts moving towards the camera and turns away from the camera view
at 00:03 sec.
3) At 00:06 sec. the man mentioned in point no.1 along with a man wearing
white base full sleeved shirt with dark colour stripes are seen getting on the bike
and going out of the view at 00:10 sec.
4) At 00:16 sec. a man wearing full sleeved shirt with grey, white and yellow
colour cross stripes with dark blue jeans and holding a sword like weapon in his
right hand starts moving towards the camera and turns away from camera view at
00:18 sec.
82
5) At 00:28 sec. a man wearing green colour full sleeved shirt with dark blue
jeans, starts moving on a single bike along with the two men mentioned in the point
nos. 2 & 4 and go out of the view of the camera at 00:32 sec.
6) At 01:13 sec. camera starts focusing on one of the victims wearing blue
colour T-shirt and blue jeans lying in a pool of blood.
P.W.58 has further deposed that the face morphology of the persons in
the video footage in item no.18 was very clear, and that they were compared with
the persons found in item nos. 1 to 16, and that the face morphology of Jagatheesan
found in item nos. 1 to 4 photographs well correlated with the individual wearing
full sleeved green colour shirt with dark blue jeans appearing in item 18 video
footage, and that the face morphology of Manikandan found in item nos. 5 to 8
photographs well correlated with the individual wearing full sleeved maroon colour
shirt with light blue jeans and yellow towel around the neck appearing in item 18
video footage, and that the face morphology of Selvakumar found in item nos. 9 to
12 photographs well correlated with the individual wearing full sleeved shirt with
grey, white and yellow colour cross stripes and dark blue jeans appearing in item 18
video footage, and that in order to explain correlation, annexure 2 was enclosed
with her report.
P.W.58 has further deposed that examination was made to find out the
correlation between the two video footages and the points established are:
1) The position of the vehicle TATA ACE with the name ஈஸ்வரி written on
it’s both sides, parked on the side of the road throughout the incident was used to
establish that the two cameras shot the incident at about 90 angle to each other and
annexure III was enclosed with the report in order to explain it.
83
2) A man wearing khaki colour shirt watching the incident from the
beginning raised his left hand up to his shoulder level twice with 16 seconds
interval in both the video footages and annexure IV was enclosed with the report in
order to explain it.
3) The man wearing full sleeved shirt with grey, whiteand yellow colour
cross stripes and dark blue jeans holding a sword like weapon in his right hand was
seen turning and walking towards the cell phone camera for two seconds and
turning back away from it and annexure V enclosed with the report in order to
explain it and that it is very clear that the two cameras had shot the same incident in
different angles.
P.W.58 has further deposed, that after conclusion of all the above
examinations, she has given her opinion in Anthro.52/16 dated 23.3.2016 as
follows:
1) The individual seen in the photographs, items 1 to 4 and the individual

wearing full sleeved green colour shirt with dark blue jeans appearing in the video
VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could be the same male individual.
2) The individual seen in photographs, items 5 to 8 and the individual

wearing full sleeved maroon colour shirt with light blue jeans and yellow towel
around the neck appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could
be the same male individual.

wearing full sleeved shirt with grey, white and yellow colour cross stripes and dark
blue jeans appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could be the
same male individual.
84
4) The identity of the individual wearing full sleeved shirt with multicolour
cross stripes and dark blue jeans appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953
in item 18 could not be established using the face morphology since he was
wearing a helmet.
5) The individuals seen in the photographs items 1-16 and the identified
individuals in the video footage item 18 and the individuals involved in the brutal
attack in the video footage item 17 could be the same male individuals. The
parameters mentioned other than face morphology were also considered for
establishing the identity of the individuals involved in the above incident.
P.W.58 has further deposed, that she received requisition letter from
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, dated 17.3.2016 with the articles
concerned in this case, and the history of case, and the requisition letter along with
connected records is marked as Ex.P.80 series (totally 9 pages), and that after the
confirmation that the video footages in the DVR and Cellphone were genuine by
the Physics branch of their laboratory, she received the said D.V.R and cellphone
from them, and examined the video footages recorded in them, and that her
examination was with regard to the above said four individuals, and that her report
dated 23.3.2016 with regard to it was sent to the Court, and that her report was
concerned with the individuals found in item nos. 1 to 16, and her report and
opinion dated 23.3.2016 containing totally 19 pages was marked as Ex.P.81.
P.W.58 has further deposed that she received the other files concerned
in Udumalpet P.S. crime number along with the letter of the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Udumalpet, through Sub Inspector Jawahar on 31.03.2016, and the same was
marked as Ex.P.82 series, and that the photographs of Prasannakumar received
were marked as items 1 to 5, and that they were M.O.No.43 series, and that the
eight photographs of Dhanraj @ Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj were marked as item
85
nos. 6 to 13 and the same were M.O.No.44 series. She has further deposed that the
face morphology of the said individuals were analyzed, and that those photographs
were compared with the two video footages already received, and since the video
footage mentioned as item no.17 in her report was not clear, she could not identify
their faces, and that the individuals with the same face morphology of the above
said persons did not appear in the video recorded in item no.18, the cellphone, and
that the same has been mentioned by her in her report Anthro.59/16 dated 4.4.2016,
and her report with opinion containing totally 4 pages was marked as Ex.P.83
series.
P.W.58 has further deposed that she received 10 number of

photographs of Kalaithamilvanan, through sub inspector Jawaharkumar with the
letter of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, dated 11.4.2016, and that the 10
photographs were marked as item nos. 1 to 10, and that the letter and the enclosures
received from the Court were Ex.P.84 series, and that the said 10 photographs of
Kalaithamilvanan were M.O.45 series, and that his face morphology was accurately
analyzed, and then his face morphology was compared with the video footages in
item nos.17 and 18 and that since the face morphologies of the individuals
appeared in item no.17 were not clear, the other parameters such as their hair style,
physique, gait pattern and the details of their clothing were taken into account, and
they were compared with the video footage in item no.18, and that in video footage
in item no.18, the face was clear, and that out of the two persons, one who wore
white colour striped shirt, mentioned in point no.6 in observation-1 in her report
52/1016, marked as Ex.P.80, well correlated with the morphological features of this
individual. She has further deposed, that she gave her opinion in Anthro.60/16
report dated 18.4.2016 stating that the individual seen in the photographs, items 1
to 10, and the male individual wearing white base full sleeved shirt with dark
86
colour stripes appearing in the video footage item 18, and the individual (already
mentioned in point no.6 under observation -1 of this office report Anthro
No.52/2016) involved in the brutal attack along with other individuals in the video
footage item 17 could be the same male individual, and that her report with opinion
with regard to Kalaithamilvanan dated 18.4.2016 was marked as Ex.P.85.
P.W.58 has deposed, that she identified the accused 4 to 8 in the Court
clearly as per her report by analysing the video footages with regard to each
accused, and that she mentioned that she had examined the video footages in the
hard disc in the D.V.R. and the video footages in the CCTV camera from 2.00 p.m.
to 2.00 hours, 13 minutes and 16 seconds which were marked as M.O.No.46.
P.W.58 has further deposed, that in the video footage in CCTV at

about 2:11:36 hours the victim male and female were going, and that at about
2:11:50 hours, Manikandan and Selvakumarwere going after them and that since
the face of the individual who had gone behind them was not clear, he could not be
identified, and that the individual who came in a bike wearing green colour shirt
was identified as Jagatheesan, and that out of the individuals who came in a bike
after that, the individual without helmet was identified as Kalaithamilvanan, and
the individual with helmet was identified as Mathan @ Michael by comparing them
with their colour photos.
P.W.58 has further deposed, that with regard to her examination by

observing the above said video footages and the accused in the snap shots and
comparison with the video footages, she has clearly identified the accused in the
Court and the video footage in cellphone was M.O.No.47. She has further deposed
that in the mobile video, the individual wearing multi colour checked shirt was
Mathan @ Michael, and that the individual turned in a bike wearing white colour
shirt was Kalaithamilvanan, and that the individual wearing maroon colour shirt
87
with a towel around his neck was Manikandan, and that the individual who came
with an Aruval in his hand wearing checked shirt was Selvakumar, and that the
individual wearing green colour shirt was Jagatheesan, and that the colour photos
of the above said individuals in her report well correlated with them. P.W.58 has
further deposed, that the video footage having scene that Shankar was lying down
after he was brutally attacked was M.O.No.48, and the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Udumalpet examined her twice.
Thiru.David Joseph Paulraj, who was working as the Deputy General

Manager and Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd., at Chennai, was examined as
P.W.59.

Police, Udumalpet, had asked the details with regard to the owners, their addresses,
and activated dates of two Airtel numbers 9677490925 and 9894575791. He has
further deposed that as per the request, he had given reply with regard to the two
numbers on 7.3.2016 stating that the Bharti Airtel number 9677490925 was given
to P.Chinnasamy, S/o.Balusamy, 174A, Kuppampalayam, Pappampatti, Palani,
Dindigul, and that the above said number was activated on 29.3.2009, and that the
IMEI number of the cellphone no. 9677490925 was 358589062435620. P.W.59
has further deposed that he has given the call details from 01.2.2016 to 15.3.2016,
and that on 13.3.2016, there were totally 37 incoming and outgoing calls, and that
the details given by him for the number 9677490925 was marked as Ex.P.86.
P.W.59 has further deposed that the Airtel Bharti number 989457591
has been received by one Marimuthu, S/o.Gurusamy, address old No.4, New No.1,
RamarKovil street, Palani, Dindigul, and that the said number was activated on
05.6.2014, and that the above said number was spoken from IMEI No.
353843066888690, and that the call data record details was given for the period
88
from 01.02.2016 to 15.03.2016 and that on 13.3.2016 a total of 23 incoming and

outgoing calls have been made.P.W.59 has further deposed that the details with
regard to 9894575791 were given on 7.4.2016, and that he had noted the date as
07.03.2016 instead of 07.04.2016 due to typing error, and he had intimated this in
the letter dated 05.04.2016, and that the details given by him with regard to the
above said number were marked as Ex.P.87. He has further deposed that with
regard to the above said details for the numbers 957749025 and 9894575791, he
has verified with the computer and certified the said downloaded details as correct,
and issued 65 B certificate which has been marked as Ex.P.88, and that the DSP had
enquired him in this regard.
Thiru.Ashokkumar, Village Administrative Officer, Suleswaranpatti,

Pollachi Taluk, was examined as P.W.60.

Police, Udumalpet requested him to give a report with regard to the genuineness of
the address of N.Barathiraj, Door No. 27, Alagappa colony, Suleswaranpatti,
Pollachi, and that on the same day, he made enquiry and came to know that no
person in the name of N.Barathiraj was residing in that address and gave a
certificate regarding the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and that was
marked as Ex.P.89, and that the DSP had enquired him in this regard.
Thiru.Santhanam, Grade I Constable, Cyber Crime Special Branch,

Tiruppur District, was examined as P.W.61.
P.W.61 has deposed, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Udumalpet, gave eight phone numbers viz. 8526009506, 9715829615,
8148917570, 7305363926, 9677490925, 9894575791, and 7094532388 and as
per his instruction, e-mails were sent to the concerned companies calling for details
89
with regard to the call details for the period from 01.2.2016 to 15.3.2016, their SIM
Addresses, Customer Application forms, ID Proofs and Address Proofs and scan
copies. P.W.61 has deposed, thatwith regard to the numbers 8526009506 and
9715829615, e-mail was sent to Aircel company, Chennai; and with regard to the
number 7305363926,email was sent to Reliance company at Chennai; and with
regard to the number 8148917570, email was sentto Tata Docomo company; and
with regard to the numbers 9677490925 and 9894575791,email was sent to Airtel
company at Chennai; and with regard to the number 7094532388, email was sent to
Vodafone company at Chennai; and that after getting replies regarding the details
requested for,from the above said companies, he had forwarded all those details to
the e-mail I.D. of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the DSP had enquired
him in this regard.
Tmt. Hemalatha, Assistant Director of Forensic Department, Head
Office, Chennai, was examined as P.W.62.
P.W.62 has deposed, that she received the items related to the case
concerned in Udumalpet P.S. Cr.No. 194/2016 in two sealed paper parcels, and a
requisition letter of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, in D.No. 369/2016
dated 17.03.2016 was received in the Physics Section of her Department with
request for confirmation of whether the video recordings in the Hard Disk and the
Memory Card were original, and to list out morphologically the murder
sequence,P.W.62 has further deposed, that the items in one parcel viz. the Black
colour 16 Channel CP PLUS (Plus) + Crypto Series Digital Video Recorder (DVR)
(Ex.P19) was marked as item No.1, and that the Black colour Power Adopter
(Ex.P20) was marked as item No.2, and that the Mini CD (Ex.P.41) was marked as
item 3. In the other parcel, the Micromax Brand Cell Phone (Ex.P14) without Sim
90
Card but with 8 GB Memory SD Card (Ex.P.42) and Battery were marked as item
No.4, and they were analyzed and the following details were identified:
1) The D.V.R., item 1 when connected to its power adaptor, item 2 was found
to be in working condition. It contained video recordings of camera No.10 from
about
i) 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 03.03.2016,
ii) 8.45 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. between 04.03.2016 and 08.03.2016; and
iii) 8.45 a.m. on 09.03.2016 to 11.30 a.m. on 16.03.2016.
2) The alleged incident which occurs on a road in front of a shopping

complex was found recorded in camera 10 on 13.03.2016 between 2.00 and 3.00
p.m. time shot.
3) This video recordings was examined using “AMPED FIVE” video and
image analysis software tool and was found to contain 89997 frames.
4) The time stamp in the video recording at which the victims ( a male and a
female individual) enters the field, of view of camera 10 is 02:11:37 p.m. and were
taken away from the scene of occurrence in an ambulance, after the alleged
incident at 02:17:36.
5) For easy identification each of the victims and suspects involved in the
alleged incident has been designated codes based on the attire they were wearing.
The details of them along with the codes assigned are enumerated hereunder:-
a) The code assigned for a male individual in blue T-shirt and blue jeans was
V-1,
b) The code assigned for a female individual in violet/brownish salwar—

kameez was V 2,
91
c) The code assigned for a male individual in reddish brown shirt with a
yellowish cloth around his neck was S1
d) The code assigned for a male individual in a cross striped whitish shirt
was S2
e) The code assigned for a male individual in thick striped whitish shirt was
S3
f) The code assigned for a male individual in greenish shirt was S4
g) The code assigned for a male individual in whitish shirt was S5
h) The code assigned for a male individual wearing helmet was S6
The details of the sequence of events of the alleged incident that took place
on 13.03.2016, involving the above mentioned individuals are furnished below:
1) Victims (V1 & V2) enters the field of view of camera 10 from left side at
about 02:11:37 p.m. in frame number 17423
2) S1 and S2 enters the field of view of camera 10 from left side at about
02:11:50 p.m. in frame number 17758
3) S3 comes running from left side and joins S1 & S2 who are standing and
conversing in front of the shop at about 02.11.55 p.m. in frame no. 17895
4) S4 enters the field of view at a distance, on the road, from the left side, on
a motor cycle (M1) at about 02:11:57 p.m. in frame no. 17923
5) Victims V1 and V2 come to a halt near a parked red car and keeps waiting
at 02:11:59 p.m. in frame no. 17986
6) S4 moves towards the red car in motorcycle (M1) and another motor cycle
(M2) carrying S5 and S6 enters the field of view and is parked behind a Stationary
white van bearing letters, “...ஈஸ்வரி…” at about 02:12:03 p.m. in frame no. 18075
92
7) S4 stops his motorcycle (M1) by the side of the parked red car at about
02:12:09 p.m. in frame no. 18245
8) S1 and S2 walk towards S4 and all the three of them stand beside the
parked red car and converse at about 02:12:13 in frame no.18337
9) S2 moves towards the parked motorcycle (M2) and appears to take

something from the motorcycle M2, while S5 remains near the motorcycle M2 &
S6 moves towards the victim V1 & V2 at about 02:12:19 p.m. in frame no.18479
10) S1, S2, S4 and S6 attacks the victims V1 and V2 at about 02:12:22 p.m.
in frame no. 18565
11) Victims V1 is attacked by S1, S4 and S5 and he rolls after the attack and
goes behind the parked white van, “...ஈஸ்வரி…” and is out of field of view; at the
same time S2 and S6 keeps attacking the victim V2 near the parked red car at about
02:12:29 p.m. in frame no. 18743
12) S4 turns back and starts attacking the victim V2 repeatedly at about
02:12:38 p.m. in frame no. 18963
13) S1 walks beside the red car towards left side at about 02:12:48 p.m. in
frame no. 19199
14) S5 and S6 gets on to the motorcycle (M2) driven by S5 and S6 as pillion

rider. The motorcycle takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence on the
left side at about 02:12:50 p.m. in frame no. 19263
15) S1, S2 and S4 assemble near the motorcycle (M1) and the victim V2 is
found lying on the road in front of them at about 02:12:59 p.m. in the frame no.
19483
93
16) S2 walks away from the motorcycle (M1) towards the left side at about
02:13:01 p.m. in frame no.19543
17) S2 turns back and walks towards the motorcycle (M1) at about 02:13:02
p.m. in frame no. 19564
18) S1 & S2 gets on to the motorcycle (M1) behind S4 who rides it at about
02:13:09 p.m. in frame no. 19742
19) The motorcycle (M1) with S1, S2 & S4 takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the
scene of occurrence on left side at about 02:13:17 p.m. in frame no. 19935
20) Police entering the scene of occurrence from the right side at about
02:15:33 p.m. in frame no. 23325
21) Ambulance leaves the scene of occurrence on the left side along with the
victims V1 and V2 at about 02:17:36 p.m. in frame no. 26413
P.W.62 has further deposed that the memory card of the cell phone, item 4,
contains two video files of the alleged incident in the sub folder, “Camera” of
folder ‘DCIM’, and the details of the said video filed are as below:
1) Name of the video file is VID 20160314 141953.3gp and the duration is
1:26 minutes and number of frames are 2595
2) Name of the video file is VID 20160314 142023.3gp and the duration is
0:24 minutes and number of frames are 721
P.W.62 has further deposed, that the above detailed video files were
examined using “AMPED FIVE” image and video analysis software tool, and the
sequence of events are detailed below:
94
A) The details of sequence of events of file VID 20160314 141953.3gp is as

below:
1) S1 with knife walk along the red car toward camera and the time interval
is 00:02:74 minutes and the event took place in frame no. 82,
2) S5 and S6 gets to the motor cycle (M2) driven by S5 and S6 as pillion

rider. The motor cycle takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence on the
left side and the time interval is 00:13:71 minutes and the event took place in
frame no.243
3) S1, S2 and S4 assemble and converse near the motorcycle (M1) and the
victim V2 is found lying on the road in front of them and the time interval is
00:13:71 minutes and the event took place in frame no. 410
4) S2 along with long knife moves away from the motorcycle (M1) and
walks towards the camera and the time interval is 00:15:59 minutes and the event
took place in frame no. 466
5) S2 turns back and walks towards the motorcycle (M1) and the time
interval is 00:18:06 minutes and the event took place in frame no.540
6) S1 and S2 gets on to the motorcycle (M1) behind S4 who rides it and the
time interval is 00:24:45 minutes and the event took place in frame no.731
7) The motor cycle (M1) takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence
on the left side and the time interval is 00:31:14 minutes and the event took place in
frame no. 931
8) On lookers gather near the victim and watch and the time interval is
00:31:38 minutes and the even took place in frame no. 958
95
9) Victim V1 lying on the ground to the left side of the parked white van, “....
ஈஸ்வரிடிபார்ட்மெண்ட்ஸ்ட ார்… இலவச … திருெணம்ெற்றும்அனைத்து …..” and
the time interval is 01:12.96 minutes and the event took place in frame no. 2181.
B) The details of the file VID 20160314 142023.3gp is as below:
The entire video recording shows the victim V1 lying on the ground with
bleeding injuries in the left side of the parked white van, “….இலவச … திருெணம்
ெற்றும் அனைத்து …..”
P.W.62 has further deposed that the correlation of the alleged video
recordings found in the DVR i.e. item 1 and Cell phone i.e. item 4 is as below:
The alleged incident found recorded in the DVR (item 1) on 13.03.2016

between 02:00 and 03:00 p.m. time slot contained the entire sequence of events
viz., the victims entering the scene, suspects attacking the victims, scene after
attack, suspects fleeing off the scene in motorcycles and the victims being taken in
an ambulance with the assistance of Police, whereas, the video recordings of the
video files, “VID…20160314…141953.3gp” and “VID…20160314…142023.3gp”
contained the sequence of events after the attack and the fleeing off suspects. The
events mentioned against serial number 13 to 19 in the video recording of the
alleged serial number 1 to 7 in the video file “VID…20160314…141953.3gp” are
same in respect of the following:
i) Sequence
ii) Movement and action of individuals S1, S2, S4, S5 and S6
iii) Position of the victims V1 and V2 after attack
iv) The attire of the onlookers and
v) Other objects/events in the backdrop of the scene of occurrence

96
Further, the event mentioned in S.No.9 of the video file,

“VID…20160314…141953.3gp” and the event in the video file
“VID…20160314…142023.3gp” are the same.
The above observations suggest, that the alleged incident recorded in

the DVR (item 1) and the aforesaid video files in the memory card of the cell phone
(item 4), are the same events recorded by two different cameras (camera 10 of
CCTV and the cell phone (item 4) with variable field of view) positioned at two
different angles and locations.
P.W.62 has further deposed with regard to the authenticity of the video
recordings as below:
The video recordings of the alleged incident found recorded in the DVR (item
1) and memory card of the cell phone(item 4) exhibits continuity in sequence of
events, lighting conditions, background events, histogram of adjacent frames, and
resolution. Further, no evidence of editing/manipulation was found in the above
video recordings.
Opinion:
Based on the above observations, it is opined that the video recordings in the
DVR (item 1) recorded on 13.3.2016 between 02.00 and 03.00 p.m. time slot and
the video files, “VID…20160314…141953.3gp” and
“VID…20160314…142023.3gp” are :
i) The recordings of the one and the same alleged incident; and
ii) Genuine video recordings and are not doctored ones.

97
Please note that :
i) The male individual assigned with code ‘S3’ was found conversing with S1
and S2 before the alleged incident and was found watching the incident from a
distance;
ii) the mini CD, item 3, contains the player software of the DVR;
iii) the soft and hard copy of the sequence of events mentioned in para 3.1 B,
3.2 A, 3.2 Band correlation of events mentioned in para 3.3 are furnished in
Annexures I, II, III and IV, respectively; and
P.W.62 has further deposed, that a report (Anthropology Report

Ex.P.90) was sent by Anthropology Division to the Court separately, and that the
analysis report issued by her with annexure I to IV was marked as Ex.P.91, and that
the CD containing the soft copy of Annexure I to IV was marked as M.O.No.49.
She has further deposed that the D.S.P. Udumalpet examined her, and that the date
and time selected by the cell phone user will be the date and time in the video
recording file while saving it.
Thiru.Saravanan, the then Inspector of Police, Madathukulam P.S.,

P.W.63 has deposed, that on 21.3.2016, he was appointed as Special

Officer as per the proceedings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet,
to trace out the absconding accused Pandithurai, Annalakshmi and Dhanraj,
concerned in Udumalpet P.S.Cr.No.194/2016, and that as per the order, he made
enquiry in Palani, Oddanchathiram, and Dindigul areas on 21.3.2016, and that on
22.3.2016, on the information received from the informer at about 11.00 a.m., he
enquired a person,identified by the informer, standing in front of the Income Tax
office in Dindigul Bye-pass road and since the person told that his name as
98
Pandithurai, he took him to the Udumalpet Police Station and handed over him to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police present there at about 1.00 p.m. with his
special report marked as Ex.P.92, and that the DSP had enquired him in this regard.
Tmt.Chithra, Village Assistant, Kanakkampalayam, was examined as

P.W.64.
P.W.64 has deposed, that on 01.04.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., the

Tahsildhar of Udumalpet made her a phone call and asked her to come to All
Women Police Station, Udumalpet, and that on that basis, she went there at about
8.30 a.m., where the Deputy Superintendent of Police was examining one
Annalakshmi, andthat at that time Annalakshmi had confessed that if she was taken
to her house, she would take out the cellphone used in the occurrence that was
hidden by her in her house, and that the admitted portion in her confession
statement was marked as Ex.P.93, and that herself and one Arumugam had put their
signatures in that confession statement (the witness did identify the 2nd accused
Annalakshmi).
One Balamurugan, who was the house owner of the 11th accused
Manikandan, was examined as P.W.65.
P.W.65 has deposed, that he is working as Mechanic in the Periakulam

branch of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul, and that he had built a
house in ElangoAdigalaar street, 10th ward, Pattiveeranpatti, in the year 2006 and
one Manikandan and his wife were residing in that house from 2016 onwards for a
rent of Rs.1500/- and that the said Manikandan was present in the Court on that day
(identified the 11th accused)and that Manikandan used to give the rent lately and
that since Manikandan had not given the rent for the month, he and his wife went to
the house of Manikandan on 14.3.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., and that at that time saw
99
Manikandan in the house, and also four persons were speaking with Manikandan
inside the house and that when he asked Manikandan about whom they are, he told
him that they are his friends and they have come as guests, and that since
Manikandan used to give the rent lately and had unnecessarily allowed those
persons to stay in the house, he had told Manikandan to vacate the house and had
returned back, and that after two or three days, when he read the newspaper, he
came to know that the Police had arrested those persons who were with A11
Manikandan in his house at Pattiveeranpatti, and that in the newspaper it has been
specifically mentioned as “Pattiveeranpatti Manikandan, and that he could identify
the persons with Manikandan and that he identified A4 Jagatheesan, A5
Manikandan, A6 Selvakumar and A8 Mathan @ Michael, and that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police had enquired him in this regard and that the accused A11
Manikandan had vacated the house after one week of the occurrence and had
handed over the key of the house through his wife.
Tmt.Sutha, who was the then Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet

and who had conducted the identification parade in this case was examined as
P.W.66.
P.W.66 has deposed, that the orders passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade to identify the suspects
accused in this case by the witnesses at Coimbatore Central prison, was received by
her on 18.3.2016, and that an identification parade was conducted on 22.03.2016 to
identify the suspected accused Jagatheesan, Manikandan, SelvakumarandMathan
@ Michael by the witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy, Ibrahim,
andNasurutheen at Central prison, Coimbatore, and that on that day at about 11.10
a.m., she chose the place to conduct the parade and initiated the parade at about
11.30 a.m., and that she conducted the parade for totally 36 persons including the
100
suspected accused with the other convicts in the central prison in 1:8 ratio, and that
5 witnesses PW1, PW2,PW3, PW4, and PW13 identified the 1st suspected accused
Jagatheesan (stood as 15th person), the 2nd suspected accused Manikandan (stood
as 25th person), and the third suspected accusedSelvakumar(stood as 9th person),
in the first round, for the first time, by touching them, and that except the 2nd
witness PW2 Venugopal, the other 4 witnesses identified the suspected
accusedMathan @ Michael, (stood as 34th person), for the first time, by touching
him.
P.W.66 has further deposed, that in the second round of parade

conducted on 22.3.2016, the witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy, Ibrahim,
and Nasurutheen identified the 1st suspected accused Jagatheesan, who stood as
17th person, the 2nd suspected accused Manikandan, who stood as 8th person, and
the third suspected accusedSelvakumar, who stood as 31st person, for the second
time, by touching them, and that except the witness Venugopal, the four other
witnesses identified the suspected accusedMathan @ Michael, (stood as 25th
person), for the second time, by touching him.
P.W.66 has further deposed, that in the third round of parade

conducted on 22.3.2016, the witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy, Ibrahim,
and Nasurutheen, identified the 1stsuspected accused Jagatheesan, who stood as
10th person, the 2nd suspected accused Manikandan, who stood as 33rd person,
and the third suspected accusedSelvakumar, who stood as 16th person, for the third
time, by touching them, and that except the witness Venugopal, the other four
witnesses had identified the suspected accusedMathan @ Michael, who stood as
28th person, for the third time, by touching him, and the witness Venugopal
identified him for the first time, by touching him, and that the hand written
identification parade report prepared by her on 22.3.2016 and the identification
101
parade report typed in a computer in C.M.P.No.1890/2016 have been marked as

Ex.P.94.
P.W.66 has further deposed, that the orders passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade to identify the
suspected accused Dhanraj @ Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj in this case by the
witnesses Marimuthu and P.W. 5 Gunasekaran at Coimbatore Central prison, was
received by her on 31.3.2016, and that an identification parade was conducted on
6.4.2016 at Central Prison, Coimbatore, and that on that day at about 2.00 p.m., she
chose the place to conduct the parade, and initiated the parade at about 2.10 p.m.,
and that she conducted the parade for totally 9 persons including the suspected
accused with the other convicts in the central prison in 1:8 ratio, and that both the
witnesses Marimuthu and Gunasekaran identified the suspected accused Dhanraj @
Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj, who stood as 3rd person in the 1st round, 8th person in
the second round, and 6th person in the third round, and in all the three rounds, by
touching him and that the hand written identification parade report prepared by her
on 6.4.2016 and the identification parade report typed in a computer in
C.M.P.No.2181/2016 have been marked as Ex.P.95.
P.W.66 has further deposed, that the orders passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade to identify the
suspected accusedPrasanna @ Prasannakumar in this case by the witnesses
Marimuthu and Gunasekaran at Pollachi Borstal School, was received by her on
31.03.2016, and that an identification parade was conducted on 07.4.2016 at
Borstal School, Pollachi, and that on that day at about 1.50 p.m., she chose the
place to conduct the parade and initiated the parade at about 1.55 p.m., P.W.66 has
further deposed that she conducted identification parade for totally 9 persons
including the suspected accused with the other convicts in the central prison in 1:8
102
ratio, and that both the witnesses Marimuthu and Gunasekaran identified the
suspected accused Dhanraj @ Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj, who stood as 3rd person
in the 1st round, 9th person in the second round, 6th person in the third round, in all
the three rounds, by touching him, and that the hand written identification parade
report prepared by her on 07.04.2016 and the identification parade report typed in a
computer in C.M.P.No.2182/2016 have been marked as Ex.P.96.
P.W.66 has further deposed, thatthe orders passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade to identify the suspected
accused Kalaithamilvanan @ Tamil @ Kalai, in this case by the witnesses
Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy, Ibrahim, Nasurutheen and Nagasundaram at
Central Prison, Coimbatore, was received by her on 11.04.2016, and that an
identification parade was conducted on 12.4.2016 at Central Prison, Coimbatore,
and that except the witness Nasurutheen, all other witnesses were present, and on
that day at about 1.10 p.m., she chose the place to conduct the parade and had
initiated the parade at about 1.30 p.m., and that she conducted a parade for totally 9
persons including the suspected accused with the other convicts in the central
prison in 1:8 ratio, and that the witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy,
Ibrahim and Nagasundaram identified the suspected accused Kalaithamilvanan @
Tamil @ Kalai, who stood as 3rd person in the 1st round, 6th person in the second
round, 4th person in the third round, and in all the three rounds, by touching him,
and that the hand written identification parade report prepared by her on
12.04.2016 and the identification parade report typed in a computer in
C.M.P.No.2283/2016 have been marked as Ex.P.97.
Thiru.Vivekanandan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet

and investigating officer of this case, was examined as P.W.67.
103
P.W.67 has deposed, that on 13.3.2016, when he was on duty as

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet, he had gone to Udumalpet Police
Station at about 7.20 p.m., and had received a copy of F.I.R. registered by
Thavamani, the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station and that he received
the order from the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District, at about 7.25 p.m.
with instruction to take this case for investigation and the said order was marked as
Ex.P.102.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he went to the occurrence place at

7.30 p.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P.6, in the presence
of witnesses Kabilan and Logithasan, and obtained their signatures in Observation
Mahazar, and then he prepared the rough sketch marked as Ex.P.103. After that, on
the identification of the witnesses present in the occurrence place, he seized the soil
having blood stains of deceased Shankar, and the sample soil and the soil having
blood stains of injured Kowsalya and sample soil in the presence of the witnesses
Kabilan and Logithasan at about 8.30 p.m. and prepared Seizure Mahazar marked
as Ex.P.7 and obtained the signatures from the witnesses and that he has sent the
seized articles in Form 91 marked as Ex.P.104, to the Court.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he examined the eye witnesses auto
driver Venugopal, fruits merchant Ramasamy, observation mahazar witnesses
Kabilan and Logithasan and recorded their statements separately. After that, he
went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and examined P.W.1 Kowsalya, who
was under treatment there, at about 1.30 p.m., and recorded her statement, and at
that time the said Kowsalya was conscious.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he went to Oddanchathiram and

Palani, to find out the accused 1 to 3 but they had absconded. Further, on
104
14.3.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., he went to Coimbatore Government Medical College

hospital and made inquest enquiry on the dead body of deceased Shankar kept in
the mortuary in the presence of Panchayatars, and prepared the inquest enquiry
report marked as Ex.P.105, and that he examined each of the witnesses Velusamy,
Vigneshwaran, Gopal, Murugan, and Kathiresanseparately, and recorded their
statements. During the inquest enquiry, the panchayatars revealed their opinion
that the deceased Shankar belong to Pallar caste, and that Kowsalya whom he
married belong to PiramalaiKallar caste, and that both of them developed love
when they were studying at Pollachi P.A. College, and that they married in July
2015 against the wish of their parents. The Panchayatars had further stated that the
accused 1 and 2 who are the parents of Kowsalya, the 3rd accused, who is the
maternal uncle of Kowsalya, have compelled to leave Shankar and come with
them, and that since Kowsalya refused todo so, they got angry it and have
conspired, and that on that basis on 13.3.2016 at about 2.10 p.m., the 6 murderers
have assaulted Shankar and Kowsalya with Aruval knives in front of the Eswari
Department Storeandopposite to Udumalpet Bus Stand and that due to that the
injured Shankar was taken to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet and then was
taken to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for further treatment but he died on
the way to hospital, and that the injured Kowsalya was under treatment as in-
patient in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he sent the requisition for post-
mortem of the dead body of Shankar to the Professor and Police Surgeon,
Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, through P.W.51, Head
Constable 1038 Kannappan at about 12.30 p.m., and he accompanied at the time of
post-mortem and handed over the dead body to the Head Constable Kannappan.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he went to the occurrence place and examined
105
each of the witnesses Ibrahim, Marimuthu, Sundaram, and Karuppusamy and

recorded their statements, individually. He has further deposed that he had seized
M.O.Nos.9 to 11, the blood stained dresses of deceased Shankar, through Form 91,
marked as Ex.P.64,at about 9.00 p.m., from P.W.51, Head Constable 1038
Kannappan in Udumalpet Police Station, and that P.W.51 submitted special report
(Ex.P.51), and that he examined P.W.51 and recorded his statement, and sent the
seized articles to the Court in Form 91.
P.W.67, the investigating officer, has further deposed, that on

15.3.2016, he made further investigation, and that he received intimation through
wireless at about 7.00 a.m. that the Udumalpet Crime Branch Inspector
Venkatraman secured A4 and A5 concerned in this case at Pethapampatti temporary
check post, and that he went to Pethapampatti check post at about 7.45 a.m. and
examined A4 and A5, and arrested them at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.67 has further
deposed, that he informed P.W.12, Thowbiq Raja, V.A.O. and his village assistant
Vijayakumar, to come there through phone, and he examined A4 Jagatheesan, in the
presence of the above said witnesses, and recorded the confession statement given
by A4 voluntarily, and obtained the signatures from the witnesses. A4 had
confessed that out of Rs.50,000/- given by A1, he spent Rs.5,000/-, and in the
remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- he took Rs.24,000/- and gave Rs.20,000/- to A6
Selvakumar, and has further stated that he concealed the three knives used by them
in the blood stained shirts of himself, Selvakumar and Manikandan, and had kept
under the sluice in Ganpathipalayam road.
P.W.67 has further deposed that A4 admitted in his confession that he

himself, Palani Manikandan, Selvakumar, andMathan @ Michael went to the house
of Pattiveeranpatti Manikandan, and told him about the occurrence and that Police
was searching for them, for which Pattiveeranpatti Manikandan consented for their
106
stay in his house, and that A4 took Rs.24,000/- from Rs.50,000/- given by
Chinnasamy, and if he was taken, he will hand over Rs.24,000/- concealed by him,
and that he also consented to hand over the TN 57 AZ 2340 Pulsar Motor cycle, the
green colour shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence, and the knife used by him
from the place where he concealed them, and that he also consented to identify the
place where he has concealed the full hand shirt worn by Selvakumar at the time of
occurrence, and the knife used by Selvakumar, and hand over the same.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 15.03.2016 at about 9.30 a.m. he

examined A5 in the presence of the witnesses Thowbiq Raja and Vijayakumar, and
that A5 voluntarily gave the confession statement, and that he recorded the same
and obtained the signatures from the witnesses in it, and that in his confession
statement, A5 consented to identify the place where he concealed his shirt and
towel worn by him at the time of occurrence, and the knife used by him in the
occurrence and handed over the same.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 15.03.2016 at about 10.30 a.m.,

A4 Jagatheesan handed over Rs.24,000/- (M.O.No.23), taken from his right side
pant packet, and TN 57 AZ 2340 Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle (M.O.No.12) to him, and
that he seized them in Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.17), in the presence of witnesses
P.W.12 Thowbiq Raja, Vijayakumar, and obtained their signatures in it. P.W.67 has
further deposed that he along with A4 and A5 and witnesses Thowbiq Raja and
Vijayakumar went to the sluice situated on the east of P.A.P. Canal, 4 k.m. away
from Ganapathipalayam road which was split from Udumalai to Pollachi road, in
jeep, on the identification of A4 and A5 and that A4 identified and handed over
green colour shirt (M.O.No.24) and blood stained knife (M.O.No.1) measuring 41
cm and that A5 identified and handed over maroon colour shirt (M.O.26) and
saffron colour towel (M.O.No.27) and blood stained knife (M.O.No.2), measuring
107
65.5 cmand that A4 Jagatheesan handed over yellow and black big checked full
hand shirt of A6 Selvakumar (M.O.No.25), cutting knife (M.O.No.3) measuring
51.5 cm concealed under the sluice and that he seized those articles in Seizure
Mahazar (Ex.P.19) at about 11.15 a.m. in the presence of the witnesses and
obtained signatures from those witnesses.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on information, he went to the railway

gate situated in the road from Udumalpet to Anaimalai through Mukkonam with
Police party and that he arrested A6, A8 and A11 at about 12.15 p.m. who came in
Discover Motor Cycle (M.O.No.13) without registration number and that he
examined A6 Selvakumar in the presence of P.W.11 and his village assistant who
came there casually and recorded his confession statement and got signatures from
the witnesses and that in the confession statement, A6 Selvakumar stated that if
they would come with him, he would identify the place where he concealed the full
hand shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence and the knife used by him for the
murder and will hand over the same.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that when he examined A8 Mathan @

Michael in the presence of the witnesses Eswaran and Chokkalingam at about 1.15
p.m., A8 voluntarily gave confession statement, and that he recorded the same and
got the signatures of the witnesses, and that in the confession statement, A8 stated
that he hidden his shirt and blood stained knife in the bush under Vela tree on the
east of the ChinnaVaikkalItteri on the south of SadayapalayamPirivu in Mukkonam
to Anaimalai road, in Pollachi road, and that if he was taken there, he would hand
over the above said articles.
P.W.67 has further deposed that when he examined A11 at about 2.30
p.m. in the presence of the witnesses Eswaran and Chokkalingam, he voluntarily
108
gave confession statement, and that he recorded the same and obtained the
signatures from the witnesses, and that in his confession statement, A11 stated that,
he permitted the accused Jagatheesan, Manikandan, Selvakumar, and Mathan @
Michael to stay in his house at Pattiveeranpatti, and if he was taken there, he will
identify his house.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 15.3.2016 at about 3.30 p.m., he

seized cash of Rs.20,000/- (M.O.No.21) and Bajaj Discover Motor cycle
(M.O.No.13) without registration number from A6 Selvakumar, in the presence of
witnesses Eswaran and Chokkalingam, in Seizure Mahazar marked as Ex.P.11, and
obtained signatures from the witnesses in the Mahazar. Further, he has deposed,
that on identification of A8, they went to ChinnaVaikkalItteri on the south of
Sadayapalayam in Udumalai to Anamalai road, and that A8 went to the Vela tree on
the east of the said itteri, and took the knife (M.O.No.4) and full hand shirt
(M.O.No.22) from the bush, and handed over the same, and that he seized them in
Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.15), at about 4.15 p.m. and got the signatures from the
witnesses in it.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he brought a Police van from
Udumalpet and boarded A4, A5, A6, A8 and A11 in it, and that masks were worn to
the accused for non-identification of their face, and that when he went with the said
accused, A6 identified the place where he concealed his shirt and knife, and that he
has sent the two seized motor cycles to Udumalpet Police Station through the
Police constable who came with him, and that he went to the Udumalpet Police
Station at about 6.30 p.m. with A4, A5, A6, A8 and A11 who were arrested and kept
them under safe custody.
P.W.67 has further deposed that, at the Udumalpet Police Station, he

asked A4, A5, A6, A8 and A11 to wear their shirts said to be worn at the time of
109
occurrence, and took photos in 4 angles in Police Station camera for the purpose of
investigation, and that two sets of photos were printed through Police photographer
in photo scanner brought to the Police Station, in his presence, and that the
photographs of A4, A5, A6 and A8 were marked as M.O.Nos.37 to 40. Further, he
has deposed, that he changed the sections of offence to sections 147, 148, 307, 302,
109, 212 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and
sent the Alteration Report marked as Ex.P.106, to the Court. He has further
deposed that he examined the witnesses Thowbiq Raja, Vijayakumar, Eswaran, and
Chokalingam in Udumalpet Police Station separately and recorded their statements.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 16.3.2016 at about 6.00 a.m., he

produced A4, A5, A6, A8 and A11 arrested by him, before the Judicial Magistrate
No.I, for remand with the confession statements, Seizure Mahazars, and remand
report, and that he got them remanded and sent them to the Central Prison,
Coimbatore, and that while taking the above said accused from the Station to the
Court and from the Court to the Prison, they have been given masks in order to
non-identify them with escort, and that he sent the seized articles and two sets of
photographs of A4, A5, A6 and A8 in separate sealed covers, in Form 91, marked as
Ex.P.107, to the Court.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he went to the Coimbatore Medical

College Hospital, and seized M.O.Nos.6 to 8, the blood stained dresses worn by
Kowsalya at the time of occurrence, from P.W.1, Kowsalya, who was in-patient
there, in the presence of the witnesses Velusamy and Vigneswaran, by preparing
Ex.P.9, Seizure Mahazar, at about 9.30 a.m. and re-examined the witnesses
Kowsalya, Velusamy and Vigneswaran and recorded their statements. He has
further deposed that he examined P.W.46, Dr.K.Kulanthaivelu, who conducted the
110
post-mortem of the deceased Shankar and recorded his statement and received
Ex.P.57, post-mortem report.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he went to Eswari Department Stores

situated opposite to Udumalpet Bus Stand and seized the CCTV camera
(M.O.No.19) and hard disk (M.O.No.20) in the presence of witnesses Sudharsanraj,
Siva, P.W.7 Amarnath, and P.W.8 Thangavelu Forensic Science Lab officer, Erode
District, at about 5.00 p.m. in Ex.P.8, Seizure Mahazar, and obtained the signatures
from the witnesses, and that he sent the seized articles in Form 91, marked as
Ex.P.108, to the Court, and that he examined the witnesses Sudharsanraj, Siva,
Amarnath and Thangavel, and recorded their statements.
P.W.67 has further deposed that, on 17.3.2016, he submitted a

requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification
parade for A4, A5, A6 and A8 who were in the Coimbatore Central Prison through
P.W.1 to P.W.4. He has further deposed that he submitted a requisition to the
Judicial Magistrate, Palladam,to record the statements of witnesses Kowsalya,
Venugopal, Ramasamy, Ibrahim, Sundaram and Karuppusamy u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
Further he has deposed, that he submitted a requisition letter to the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, for sending the seized blood stained articles and
weapons to the Coimbatore Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 17.3.2016 at about 4.00 p.m.,

P.W.4, witness Nasurutheen came to Udumalpet Police Station and stated that he
recorded the occurrence in his camera cellphone and voluntarily handed over
M.O.No.14, Micro Max A 120 cellphone and M.O.No.42, memory card, and the
same were seized by him in Ex.P.5, Seizure Mahazar, through Form 91, and
obtained the signature from the witness Nasurutheen. He has further deposed that
111
he submitted a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, to send

the seized DVR, hard disk, and cellphone memory card and video recordings for
analysis, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai, for comparision of the faces
found in the video recordings recorded in the DVR hard disk and cell phone
memory card with that of the photographs of A4, A5, A6 and A8 and to know about
the genuineness of the video recordings. On the same day, he sent a requisition
letter to the Revenue Tahsildhar, Madathukulam, for the issuance of community
certificate to the deceased Shankar. Further he has deposed, that he sent requisition
letters to the Tahsildhar of Dindigul, to know the caste of A4, A6 and A8, and to the
Tahsildhar of Nilakottai, to know the caste of A11.
Further, P.W.67 has deposed, that he submitted a requisition to the

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, to issue warrant and to produce A1, who
surrendered in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, and was under custody in
the Central Prison, Madurai, and on 21.3.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., he examined the
witnesses Appathurai and P.W.4 Nasurutheen in the Udumalpet Police Station, and
recorded their statements. He has further deposed, that he took A1 from the
Central Prison, Madurai through the Police and produced before the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.I, and that he filed a proof affidavit in that Court and took A1
at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day in Police custody for 7 days to examine him,
and brought him to the Udumalpet Police Station and put him under safe custody.
He has further deposed that he appointed P.W.63, Saravanan, Inspector of Police,
Madathukulam, as Special officer to trace out the absconding accused
Annalakshmi, Pandithurai, and Dhanraj and to produce them for examination. He
has further deposed, that on that day, he examined the witnesses P.W.5
Gunasekaran and Marimuthu at the occurrence place and recorded their statements
separately.
112
Further, P.W.67 has deposed, that on 22.03.2016 at about 1.00 p.m.,

P.W.63 Saravanan, Inspector of Police, Madathukulam, came to Udumalpet Police
Station and produced A3 for investigation with his special report, Ex.P.92, and that
he arrested him, and called P.W.12, Udumalpet V.A.O., and his village assistant
Muruganandam over phone to come there to be the witnesses, and that at about
1.15 p.m., he examined A3 in the presence of the said witnesses, and that A3
voluntarily gave confession statement, and that he recorded the same and obtained
the signatures from the witnesses, and that he examined the witnesses Syed Ibrahim
and Muruganantham separately, and recorded their statements.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he examined the witnesses Head
Constable 1161 Savithri (PW52), Head Constable 1216 Rajendran (PW53), Police
Inspector Thavamani (PW54), AWPS Constable Selvi, AWPS SI Tamilselvi
(PW33), and Madathukulam PS Inspector Saravanan (PW63) and recorded their
statements. He has further deposed, that he remanded A3 Pandithurai to the Central
Prison, Coimbatore and received the certified copies of the statements recorded by
witness Tamilselvi with regard to Petition Receipt No. 310/15 and the marriage
photograph of Shankar and Kowsalya. He has further deposed that he gave
requisition to the Tahsildhar, Palani to get the community certificates of A1 and A2
and gave requisition to the Tahsildhar, Dindigul, to get community certificate of
A3. He has deposed, that on 23.3.2016, he went to the Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital, and re-examined the witness Kowsalya, who was in-patient there,
with regard to her statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, on
21.3.2016, and her participation in the identification parade conducted by the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, to identify
A4, A5, A6 and A8 on 22.3.2016, and recorded her statement.
113
Further, P.W.67 has deposed, that he returned to Udumalpet and re-

examined the witnesses Venugopal, Sundaram, Ramasamy, Ibrahim and
Nasurutheen with regard to their statement given to the Judicial Magistrate and
their participation in the identification parade, and recorded their statements. He
has further deposed that, on that day, A10 was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate CourtNo.I, Udumalpet, who surrendered before the Nilakottai Judicial
Magistrate Court, Dindigul District on 18.3.2016, and that he took A10 in Police
custody for 5 days, and he took him to the Udumalpet Police Station and kept him
under safe custody.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 24.03.2016 at about 2.30, when he

examined A1, who was in Police custody, in the presence of the witnesses Syed
Ibrahim and Muruganantham, A1 voluntarily gave a confession statement, and that
he recorded the same and got the signatures from the witnesses. P.W.67 has further
deposed that, A1, in his confession statement, had stated that he was in mental
agony since his daughter Kowsalya made love marriage, and that he knew
Jagatheesan for three years, and that Mathan @ Michael and Jagatheesan were also
his relatives, and that he told his mental agony with regard to his daughter’s love
marriage to A3 Pandithurai, and that Pandithurai threatened Kowsalya that
Kowsalya shall not marry a boy belonging to other caste, and she will have to leave
Shankar or otherwise both of them will not be alive, and that they will engage
cooligan and will finish them off. A1 has further confessed that he gave M.O.13,
Bajaj Discover two wheeler to Jagatheesan with regard to it, and that he took
Mathan @ Michael to Komaralingam with him and identified Shankar and his
house, and that he made criminal conspiracy with Jagatheesan, Manikandan,
Selvakumar and Mathan @ Michael in the park at KodaikkanalPirivu road, situated
at Dindigul to Palani Bye-pass road, and then he made the above said four persons
114
to stay in Bakya Lodge at Palani at his own cost, and that in the last week of the
month prior to the occurrence he withdrew a total of Rs.65,000/- in denomination
as Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/- through A.T.M., and that he then had asked Jagatheesan
to come to his house and gave Rs.50,000/- to him, and that if he was taken to that
place, he will identify the same.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that A1 identified the Bajaj Motor Cycle
without registration number which was kept in the Station under safe custody as per
court order, and he examined the witnesses Syed Ibrahim andMuruganandam
separately, and recorded their statements. He has further deposed, that on
25.3.2016, he examined A10 Prasannakumar who was taken in Police custody in
the presence of the witness Thirumalaisamy and his assistant Parameswaran at
about 7.00 a.m., and that A10 gave a confession statement, and he obtained
signatures from the witnesses, and that A10, in his confession statement, stated that
if they come with him, he will identify the place in his house where he has
concealed the cellphone used by him, and his pant and shirt, and will hand over
them.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he showed the occurrence video scene
to A10 Prasannakumar, and that A10 identified that the person who wore helmet
was Mathan @ Michael, and that the person who rode motor cycle was
Kalaithamilvanan, and that the person who went in a motor cycle in Palani road
towards east was Dhanraj. PW67 has further stated, that he went to Palani with
Police party, A1 and A10 in jeep, and that on 25.3.2016, he seized M.O.No.30,
Nokia Cellphone, M.O.No.31 Shirt, and M.O.No.32 Pant which were identified and
handed over by A10 at about 11.15 a.m. from his house at Karikaranputhur in the
presence of the witnesses Karunanithi and Kalimuthu at about 11.30 a.m. P.W.67
has further deposed that he prepared Seizure MahazarEx.P.28, and obtained
115
signatures from the said witnesses, and then he examined the witnesses Karunanithi
and Kalimuthu and recorded their statements, and then he took A10 Prasannakumar
in the jeep.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he went to Bakiya Lodge at Palani on

the identification of A1, and that on the basis of the confession statement given by
A1, the owner of Bakiya Lodge, handed over Guest Attendance Register marked as
Ex.P.20 containing page Nos. 1 to 45, and that he perused the same, and that in that
register, entries have been made hand written, and that in the second page, it was
entered that room number 8 was registered by Manikandan, S/o.Marimuthu,
Kottaimedu street, Palani. PW.67 has further deposed, that he seized theGuest
Attendance Register at about 1.00 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses Sokkaraj
and Manokaran in Seizure MahazarEx.P.23, and sent it to the Court through Form
91, and that the Form 91 was marked as Ex.P.110, and that himself and Baskaran
put witness signatures for the seizure of Guest Attendance Register, and that he
obtained signatures from the witnesses Baskaran, Sokkaraj, and Manokaran in the
Mahazar.
P.W.67 has further deposed that as identified by A1, he went to the

Dhandayuthapani Swami Park in Palani Bye-pass road and prepared Observation
Mahazar Ex.P.31, and rough sketchEx.P.109, in the presence of the witnesses
Subramaniam and Selvaraj with regard to that park, andthen he examined the
witnesses Baskaran, Sokkaraj, Manokaran, Balasubramaniam, Selvaraj, Kalidass
Duraisamy and Senthilkumar separately, and recorded their statements.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he then went to

NeikkaranpattiKarikaranputhur and examined the witnesses Mahendran,
Mathankumar and Arumugam, and recorded their statements, and then he went to
Udumalpet Police Station with the A1 and A10 at about 10.00 p.m. and kept them
116
under safe custody, and that on 25.3.2016, he sent the articles seized from A10 in
Form 91, marked as Ex.P.111, and that when A10 was taken from the Court to the
Police Station and other outer places for the purpose of investigation, a mask was
given to him in order to conceal his face and for non-identification.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 26.3.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he

went to Kumaralingam, and that he examined witness Ranganathan and recorded
his statement. Further, on 27.03.2016, at about 10.00 a.m., he went to Coimbatore
Medical College Hospital and examined Forensic Science Department Professor
Dr.Jayasingh, and recorded his statement. He has further deposed that he then
examined the witness Karthick, at Udumalpet Police Station and recorded his
statement, and that the said Karthick identified Bajaj Discover Bike
(M.O.No.13)that was kept in Udumalpet Police Station in safe custody, as per court
order. He has further deposed, that on 28.3.2016, he gave requisition to the Judicial
Magistrate, Palladam, to record the statements of the witnesses Kalidass, Baskaran,
Arumugam, Duraisamy, and Senthilkumar u/s. 164 Cr.P.C.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that photographs of A1 and A10 were

taken in Udumalpet Police Station with Police Station camera, and that the
photographs of A10 were taken in five angles (M.O.No.43 series), and two sets of
the said photos were printed by Police photographer in photo scanner, and that the
photographs of A10 Prasannakumar were put in a sealed cover and sent to Court in
Form 91marked as Ex.P.112, andthen he remanded A1 and A10 to judicial custody,
who were in Police custody.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he filed proof affidavit before the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, to take A4 to A6 and A8 in Police
custody,from Central Prison, Coimbatore. He has further deposed, that on
28.03.2016, at about 3.30 p.m., on secret information, he arrested A9 in the bus
117
stop at Palani Vandivaikkal, and that he examined A9 in the presence of the

witnesses Karunanithi and Kalimuthu, and that he recorded the same and got the
signatures from the witnesses. He has further deposed that A9, in his confession,
had stated that he will produce three cell phones hidden in the bag, and that if they
would accompany him, he will identify the house of mason Raja in Sathya Nagar,
Palani and will also identify M.O.28 Discover Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No.TN
57 AZ 3957. A9 then produced M.O.34 cellphone used by Selvakumar, M.O.35
cellphone used by Mathan @ Michael and M.O.36 cellphone used by Manikandan
and M.O.33 light blue colour bag in which A9 had kept the said three cellphones,
and that on 28.3.16 at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.67 seized the above said articles in
Seizure MahazarEx.P.29, in Palani Vandivaikkal bus stop in the presence of
witnesses and got signatures from the witnesses for seizure.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that A9 Stephen Dhanraj then identified

the house of P.W.16 witness Raja at Palani, and that he handed over M.O.No.28
Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 57 AZ 3957 parked in front of
P.W.16’s house, and that P.W.67 seized it at about 6.00 p.m. in the presence of the
witnesses Thirumalaisamy and Rajendran in Seizure MahazarEx.P.24, and obtained
signatures from the witnesses, and that he then examined the witnesses and
recorded their statements, and then again they came to Palani Vandivaikkal bus stop
and re-examined the witnesses Karunanithi and Kalimuthu and recorded their
statements. P.W.67 has further deposed, that he came to Udumalpet Police Station
at about 12.00 p.m., and kept A9 under safe custody, and that he sent the seized
three cellphones and one cloth bag in Form 91marked as Ex.P.113, and that the
Form 91 prepared for sending the two wheeler bearing no. TN 57 AZ 3957 was
marked as Ex.P.114, and that he sent the said two Form 91s and the seized articles
to the Judicial Magistrate CourtNo.I, Udumalpet.
118
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 29.03.2016 at about 9.00 a.m.

photographs of A9 were taken at 8 angles in Udumalpet Police Station, and that the
said photographs were printed, and two sets (M.O.No.44 series) were taken by the
Police photographer in his presence, and that the photographs of A9 were put in a
sealed cover, and was sent to Court in Ex.P.115, Form 91, and then A9 was
remanded to judicial custody, and is in Coimbatore Central Prison.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that on 29.3.2016 at about 4.00 p.m., he

took A4, A5, A6 and A8 who were in Central Prison, Coimbatore, in Police custody
for 3 days for investigation, and that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., he
examined A4 in the presence of witnesses P.W.13, Syed Ibrahim and
Muruganandam, and that A4 gave confession statement, and the same was recorded
by him, and obtained the signatures of the witnesses.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he showed the video of occurrence in

which Shankar and Kowsalya were assaulted and which already came in What’s Up
application to A4, in laptop, and that A4 identified that the person wearing the
white colour striped shirt was Kalaithamilvanan. He has further deposed that on
29.3.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., he examined A5 in the presence of the witnesses
Syed Ibrahim and Muruganandam, and that he recorded the confession statement
given by A5, and obtained the signatures from the witnesses, and that he showed
the video clippings received in his cellphone through What’s Up application in the
laptop, and that A5 confessed that Kalaithamilvanan, belonged to Dindigul, was
also concerned in this case and identified him.
P.W.67 has further deposed, that he gave requisition to the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade for A9 and A10 who
were arrested in this case, for identification by the witnesses P.W.5 Gunasekaran
and Marimuthu at Prison. He has further deposed, that on 30.03.2016, at about
119
8.00 a.m., he examined A6 in the presence of the witnesses P.W.13 Ibrahim and
Muruganandam in Udumalpet Police Station, and that he recorded the confession
statement given by him, and he obtained the signatures from the witnesses in his
confession statement. He has further deposed, that he has received the video
clippings with regard to the occurrence through What’s Up application in his
cellphone, and showed the same in laptop, and that when he showed the what’s
application video in laptop, A6 identified Kalaithamilvanan. He has further
deposed that on 30.03.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he examined A8 in the presence of
Ibrahim and Muruganandam and recorded the confession statement given by him
and obtained signatures from the witnesses.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he received the video clippings with
regard to the occurrence through What’s Up application, and showed the same in
laptop to A8 and that A8 identified Kalaithamilvanan. He has further deposed that
on 30.3.16, he examined the witnesses Rajeshsunkusre, Rathesyan and Sivakumar,
and then he re-examined the witness Syed Ibrahim and recorded his statement.
Further, he has deposed, that he remanded A4, A5, A6 and A8, who were in Police
custody,in the same court, and that the reason for which he showed the What’s Up
application videos to the above four accused was to confirm with regard to
investigation.
P.W.67 has deposed, that on 30.3.2016, he submitted a requisition

letter to the Court for the analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai by
comparing the photographs of A9 and A10 with the video of the occurrence. He
has further deposed that he gave a requisition letter calling for the particulars with
regard to the savings account of A1 Chinnasamy in State Bank of India and the
transactions between 1.2.2016 and 30.3.2016.
120
P.W.67 has deposed, that on 31.3.16, A2, who surrendered before the
Judicial Magistrate, Theni, on 28.3.2016, and was in Madurai Central Women
Prison, was produced by the Police before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet,
for investigation and that on the same day he took A2 in Police custody for two
days and kept her in safe custody in All Women Police Station. He has further
deposed that on 1.4.2016 at about 8.30 a.m. he examined A2 in the presence of the
witnesses P.W.64 Chithra, Arumugam and that he recorded the confession
statement given by A2 and obtained the signatures from the witnesses and that in
her confession, A2 stated that if she will be taken to her house, she will hand over
the cellphone hidden by her and that on her identification they went to the house of
A2 and that A2 handed over M.O.No.29 cellphone in the presence of the witnesses
P.W.18 Murugesan, Sathishkumar on 1.4.16 at about 1.00 p.m. and he prepared
Ex.P.25, Seizure Mahazarand that he examined the said witnesses and recorded
their statements and that then he remanded A2 Annalakshmi to judicial custody
after Police custody and that the Form 91 prepared with regard to M.O.No.29 was
marked as Ex.P.116 and that he sent the material object with Form 91 to the
Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Udumalpet.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 2.4.16 he went to the Coimbatore

Medical College Hospital and examined the witnesses Dr.Muthuraj,
Dr.Kulanthaivel and recorded their statements and that again he re-examined them
and recorded their statements and that Dr.Muthuraj gave his medico legal opinion
with regard to the injuries caused to Kowsalya and Dr.Kulanthaivel gave Ex.P.58,
his final opinion with regard to the post-mortem of Shankar. Further, he has
deposed, that on 3.4.2016 at about 10.00 a.m. he examined the other witnesses in
the occurrence place, Udumalpet. Then he deposed that on 4.4.2016 he examined
the witnesses Pichaimani and P.W.65 Balamurugan and recorded their statements at
121
Pattiveeranpatti, Dindigul District and that he examined the Dindigul District

Revenue Officers, witnesses Kalimuthu, Meenadevi, Sivakumar, Palanisamy and
Muthusamy and recorded their statements and that he examined Muthuraman,
Tahsildhar, Madathukulam, and recorded his statement. Then he has deposed, that
he examined witness Muthulakshmi, Sub-inspector of Police, Palani Town Police
Station.
P.W.67 has further deposed that he examined witness Muthulakshmi,

Sub-inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station and recorded her statement and
received the certified copies of F.I.Rs. in Cr.Nos.647/15, 211/16 and 212/16, Palani
Town Police Station and other documents from her and then he examined the
witness Revathi at Dindigul and recorded her statement. Then he has deposed, that
on 5.4.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., he went to Government hospital, Udumalpet and
examined Dr.Priyalakshmi, recorded her statement and obtained Ex.P.56, wound
certificate.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 2.4.2016 A7 Kalaithamilvanan was

produced in the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Udumalpet, for investigation, who
surrendered in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District and was
in Central Prison, Madurai and that he took A7 in Police custody for 2 days. He
has further deposed that he sent requisition letters through the Special Branch
Inspector, Cyber Crime, District Police Office to the concerned cell phone
companies to know about the call details of cell phone numbers 1)8526009506, 2)
9715829615, 3)8148917570, 4) 7305363926 , 5) 9677490925, 6)9894575791,
7)7094532388 concerned in this case.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 6.4.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. he

examined A7 in the presence of the witnesses Gopalakrishnan and
Ganthiselvamand that A7 voluntarily gave a confession statement and he recorded
122
the same and got signatures from the witnesses and that in his confession, A7 stated
that if he will be taken he will identify M.O.5 knife hidden by him and will hand
over the same and that he examined the said witnesses and recorded their
statements and that on the identification of A7, they went to itteri on the right side
of Kuthiraiyaru bridge, Komaralingamand that A7 took M.O.5 knife from the
thorny bush in the said itteri in the presence of the witnesses Suresh and Vignesh at
about 1.30 p.m. and that the same was seized by him in Ex.P.27, Seizure
Mahazarand that he obtained signatures and that he examined the witnesses and
recorded their statements and that he went to Udumalpet Police Station with A7 and
the articles seized and that the Form 91 prepared for the seizure of the said knife
was marked as Ex.P.117 and that he sent the material object with Form 91 to the
Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Udumalpet and that then he went to Komaralingam
and examined the witness Anbazhagan and recorded his statement and that he
examined the witnesses Gunasekaran and Marimuthu in Udumalpet Police Station
and recorded their statements.
P.W.67 has further deposed that photographs of A7 were taken at 10

angles in Udumalpet Police Station in his presence and that the said photographs
were printed and two sets were taken by the Police photographer in photo scanner
andthat the photographs of A7 were put in a sealed cover and sent to Court in
Ex.P.118, Form 91 and then A7 was remanded to judicial custody and was in
Coimbatore Central Prison and that a face mask was given to A7 in order to non
identification of his face when he was taken from the Court to the Police Station
and was taken for investigation. He has further deposed that on 7.4.2016 he re-
examined the witnesses Gunasekaran and Marimuthu and recorded their
statements.
123
P.W.67 has further deposed that he submitted a requisition letter to the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, to conduct identification parade for A7 at
Central Prison through the witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy,
Nasurutheen, Ibrahim and Nagasundaram. He has further deposed that he sent a
requisition letter to the Court to get an analysis report from the Forensic Science
Department, Chennai, by comparing the photographs of A7 with the video
recordings of the occurrence of murder in mobile camera and in the CCTV Camera.
He has further deposed that on 8.4.2016 he gave to Chennai and examined the
witnesses Sunil, Kalaimahal, Dayalan, Vijayakumar raja and David Joseph Paulraj,
who were the nodal officers of different cellphone companies, and recorded their
statements and that the said witnesses handed over the certified copies of the call
details, subscriber application form and address and identification proofs certified
u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
P.W.67 has further deposed that A5 Manikandan used the cell numbers
9894575791, 9715829615, that A6 Selvakumar used the cell number, that A8
Mathan @ Michael used the cell number 7305363926, that A9 Stephen Dhanraj
used the cell number 7094532388, that A10 Prasannakumar used the cell number
8526009506 on 13.3.2016, the occurrence day, at the time of occurrence and that
when the tower details of the cellphone calls were perused and it came to know that
all the said accused were there in Udumalpet at the time of occurrence.
P.W.67 has further deposed that documents for being A1 spoken with
A8, A9 and A2, for being A5 spoken with A6 and A9, for being A6 spoken with A8,
for being A8 spoken with A5, for being A9 spoken with A5, for being A6 spoken
with A10, for being A10 spoken with A6, on the occurrence day and before the
occurrence day often and that cellphone call details received from Kalaimagal and
Dhayananth were submitted to Court and that the details with regard to Tata
124
Docoma cellphone number 8148917570 containing 13 pages submitted by

Dhayananth was marked as Ex.P.119 and that the details with regard to Reliance
cellphone number 7305363926 submitted by Kalaimagal was marked as Ex.P.120
series and that the above said two documents were received u/s. 65 B Indian
Evidence Act.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 9.4.2016 he examined the

witnesses Santhanam, Venkatesan and recorded their statements and that the
complaint given by witness Venkatesan to K.Puthur Police Station, Madurai, as his
two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN 59 AV 2766 was missing, has been registered
as CSR.No.83/2016 and that he knew about the owner of the vehicle through
R.T.O. and made a phone call to the said Venkatesanand that Venkatesan came to
Udumalpet Police Station and gave the copy of C.S.R.No.83/2016 to him and that
the two wheeler bearing Regn. No. TN 59 AV 2766 was marked as M.O.No.12 and
that Venkatesan identified the two wheeler which was kept in safe custody was his
vehicle and that he intimated the same to K.Puthur Police Station.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 11.4.2016 he examined the witness

Mohanapriya, concerned Motor vehicle inspector and Kalyanakumar and recorded
their statements and he obtained the certified copies of B Register with regard to
motor vehicle.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 12.4.2016 he sent the requisition to
the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Coimbatore for chemical analysis and
on that day he examined the witness Venkatesan and recorded his statement.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 13.4.2016 he re-examined the

witnesses Kowsalya, Venugopal, Ramasamy and Ibrahim and recorded their
statements and that he examined the witness Malathi, Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Udumalpet and recorded her statement.
125
P.W.67 has further deposed that he went to the Forensic Science

Laboratory at Chennai on 15.4.2016 and examined the witnesses Hemalatha,
Pushparani and Nalina and the Serology Report issued by the witness Nalina was
marked as Ex.P.121.
P.W.67 has further deposed that in Ex.P.123 report it was mentioned
that the blood in item Nos.1,3,5 to 10, 11 and 13 to 15 was human blood and the
group of blood in item Nos.5,8,10,11,14 and 15 was “O Group”.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 17.4.2016 he examined the witness

Venkatramanand that on 18.4.2016 he examined the witnesses Ashok kumar,
Kumar, Athiveerapandian, Meenadevi, Pugazhenthi and recorded their statements
and that he received the copy of final Report in Cr.No.647/2015, Palani Town P.S.
u/s. 366 I.P.C. from that witness.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 10/4/2016 he examined the

witnesses Senbagavalli, Naveen, Ramaraj, Annam and recorded their statements
and that after that he examined a witness by name Parthiban and recorded his
statement and received the copies of F.I.R. and Final Report in Cr.No.320/2015,
Madathukulam P.S. from that witness.
P.W.67 has further deposed that on 20.4.2016 he went to Chennai and
examined the witnessPushparani and recorded her re statement.
P.W.67 has further deposed that after completing investigation in this

case, on 23.4.2016 he filed final report against A1 to A11 for offence punishable
u/s. 120-B, 147, 148, 307, 307 r/w.149, 307 r/w.149/109, 302, 302 r/w.149/109, 212
I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) (s) and 3(2)(va) SC ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 in the
Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Udumalpet.
126
P.W.67 has further deposed that he recorded the statement of P.W.27

Mahendran as he said, that in his statement he stated that he gave SIM No.
8526009506 in his name to A10 Prasanna and Prasanna used it.
5) A1 to A11 were questioned u/s 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. by Court. A1 to

A11 have denied the incriminating evidence as against them. A1, A2, A4 to A11
have filed written statement u/s. 313(5) Cr.P.C. at the time of questioning u/s.
313(1) (b) Cr.P.C.
6) DEFENCE:-
On the side of defence, D.W.1 to D.W.6 have been examined, and Ex.D.1
to D.10 have been marked. No material objects have been marked on the side of
defence.
Thiru.Sarojkumar Thakkur, who was working as Superintendent of

Police, Tiruppur, at the time of occurrence, was examined as D.W.1.
D.W.1 has deposed, that he was working as Superintendent of Police,

Tiruppur on 13.3.2016, and that the said occurrence took place at 14.14 hours on
13.3.2016, and that he received information with regard to the occurrence at about
3.00 p.m., and that immediately he had directed the Special Branch to maintain
Law and order at the occurrence place, and that he does not remember the name of
the officer whom he had directed so. He has further deposed, that he did not watch
this case occurrence in the TV, and that he had received the Express First
Information Report at 7.00 p.m., and went to the occurrence place at 8.30 p.m.
DW1 has stated that under his control 5 Deputy Superintendent of Police were
functioning and that among them, Vivekandan was the junior most Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He has further stated that he only has issued Ex.P.102
order, and that he had signed the same at 7.20 p.m. and sent it to the Deputy
127
Superintendent of Police through electronic media and express post, and also
through What’s App and fax. He has further stated that even before his reaching
the SOC, that he had appointed DSP Vivekanandan. D.W.1 has stated that he had
seen DSP Vivekanandan several times and had noted the way of handling the cases
by the DSP, and accordingly appointed him. Further he has stated that he had been
supervising with regard to the investigation of this case by Thiru.Vivekanandan.
D.W.1 has further deposed that he had heard that complaints was given at Palani,
Madathukulam and Udumalpet by P.W.1 and deceased Shankar prior to the
occurrence, and that he was informed about those complaints only after the
incident. D.W.1 has stated that he is a member of District SC/ST Monitory
committee, and that he is not aware about the dismissal of the Goondas Act by the
Hon’ble High Court recommended by him to the Collector.
Further he has stated that at the end of July 2016, he was transferred
from Tiruppur, and that compensation was given to P.W.1 as per SC/ST Act on his
recommendation, and that he does not remember now, as to whether Vivekanandan,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, recommended with regard to that compensation.
He has further stated that he does not remember as to whether he had sent the
Special Report to the Special Court.
D.W.1 has further deposed that he did not issue any proceedings as per
15A(VII) SC ST Act, and that he was not aware about the rule that as per 15A (x)
SC ST Act, video recording has to be made with regard to this case, and that he
does not remember if the Deputy Superintendent of Police had video recorded with
the investigation. He has further deposed that the charge sheet was filed on
23.4.2016, with a delay of one month, and that he did not call for any explanation
from the Deputy Superintendent of Police for filing the charge sheet only on
23.4.2016. He has further deposd that after filing of charge sheet in the court, he
128
had supervised to get the case number for it, and that he is unable to recall whether
he had sent the copy of charge sheet to the Home Departmentand DDP. He has
admitted that there is a Department for SC ST Protection Cell at Tiruppur, and that
there are nodal officers for the same and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
was the nodal officer, and that there is also a Special Deputy Superintendent of
Police as nodal officer, and that he does not remember their names. He has further
deposed that he does not know whether the Special Officer, Nodal Officer,
Protection Cell can tackle this case, and that he is not aware whether the witnesses
are furnished with travelling batta. DW1 has denied the suggestion that only due
to the negligence of Police Department, this occurrence had taken place, and that it
is not correct to say that the SC ST Act rules have been violated, and he did not
properly watch about those violations of the SC/ST rules.
One Jayaraman, who is the father of A2, has been examined as D.W.2.
D.W.2 has deposed, that he resides at Pappampatti near Palani, and

that A2 is his daughter, and that he is doing agriculture, and that A1 is his sister’s
son and that his wife’s name is Kothaiammal, and that Kothaiammal, before
marrying him, had married one Pandi and has one son through her first marriage,
and that son is A3, and that Pandi had remarried and took A3 with him. D.W.2 has
further deposed, that he then married Kothaiammal, and that he is not aware
whether Kothaiammal had got divorce as per law, and that Kothaiammal had got
divorce as per her community custom (துரும்னபகிள்ளிப்டபாட்டு), and that his
elder son is Vijay, and that the second daughter is A2 Annalakshami. He has stated
that Vijay is the maternal uncle of Kowsalya, and that there is no relation between
A3 and his daughter, and that the father of A3 is another man, and that A2 and
Vijay are his children born to one mother.
129
D.W.2 has further deposed, that on 04.02.2006, his son Vijay had died
in an accident, and that Chinnasamy and Annalakshmi have two children, daughter
Kowsalya and son Gowthaman, and that Kowsalya’s date of birth is 12.04.1998,
and that usually he goes to the house of A1 and A2 once in a week. He has further
deposed that the distance between his house and the house of A1 and A2 is around
15 kms, and that the occupation of A1 is agriculture and has his own land, and that
A2 assists A1 in agricultural work.
D.W.2 has further deposed that since the birth of Kowsalya, she was
brought up by himself, and that after the death of his son, A1 and A2 had taken
Kowsalya to their house, and that Kowsalya did not wish to go with A1 and A2,
and that he had sent Kowsalya advising her that it will be appropriate for her to
grow with her parents. D.W.2 has further deposed that his wife Kothaiammal is
alive, and that since she has knee pain, he was the only person to take care of her.
He has deposed that, before 1 ½ or 2 years back, his daughter Annalakshmi had
called him over phone and had asked as to whether Kowsalya had come to his
house, and that he rushed to the house of A2, and that A1 gave a complaint at
Palani Police Station that his daughter was missing, and that on the next day a
phone call was received from All Women Police Station, Udumalpet, stating that
their daughter has come, and that himself, A1 and A2, went to Udumalpet All
Women Police Station, wherein the Inspector of All Women Police Station, had told
them that Kowsalya had married Shankar, and that they called Kowsalya to come
home with them, and that Kowsalya refused and gave in writing that she did not
want to go with the parents, and accordingly the Police obtained in writing from A1
that they do not have any more relationship with their daughter Kowsalya.
D.W.2 has further deposed that when they were called by

Madathukulam Police Station and Palani Police Station, that they did not want
130
Kowsalya back since she refused to come with them. He has further stated that he
had never had gone to Shankar’s house to see Kowsalya and that he saw Kowsalya
only in Police Station, and that he had not taken Kowsalya out anywhere, and has
denied that he had sent Kowsalya to Madathukulam Police Station through
advocate. He has stated since the Police had come to their house in search of them,
A1 and A2 had surrendered before Court, and that his grandson alone was there in
the house, and that now he and his wife are taking care of his grandson. Further he
has stated that Kowsalya had developed hatred towards her parents since they had
forcibly taken her away from him, and that it is false to say that A1 and A2 had
made arrangements to commit murder by giving money, and that A1 and A2 are
innocent.
One M.Vasuki, Head of Department, B.Com(C.A.) Department,

Udumalpet Vidyasagar College of Arts and Science, was examined as D.W.3.
D.W.3 has deposed, that she is working as Head of Department,

B.Com(C.A.) Department, Udumalpet Vidyasagar College of Arts and Science for
the past 11 years, and that on summons, she has come to the Court for giving
evidence, and that she has brought the attendance register noted in the summons,
and that it is correct that one Prasannakumar studied in II year B.Com. C.A. in her
college during the academic year 2015-2016, and that the person who was present
in the Court was Prasannakumar. She has further deposed that as a Head of the
Department, she maintains the attendance register, and that the college functioned
on 14.3.2016, Monday.
D.W.3 has further deposed that generally there will be five periods in a
working day, each for one hour, and that on 14.3.2016, only the first period was
conducted for II year B.Com. (C.A.) class. She has stated that Prasannakumar had
signed the attendance register, and that he attended the class for the first period.
131
She has further deposed, that since computer practical exams was to be conducted
on 14.3.2016, only one period of class was conducted, and that the remaining
periods were announced as leave for that department alone for exam preparations,
and that furthermore, leave was sanctioned for the day of 15.03.2016 for second
year B.Com. (C.A.) class students only. DW3 has stated that all those particulars
were available in the attendance register, and that she has brought the original
attendance register for comparision.
DW3 has further deposed that the name of the lecturer who took the
first period on 14.3.2016 was R.Kokilavani, and that her presence for that period
can be identified from her initial in the attendance register, and that she has
submitted the certified copy of the attendance register, since the original register is
required by the college (After verification of Original Attendance Register, certified
copy has been received), and that the certified copy of attendance register for the
month of March has been marked as Ex.D.6 ( having 10 pages)
One Senthilkumar, Editor and Publisher of Malaimalar magazine at

Chennai, has been examined as D.W.4.
D.W.4 has deposed, that he has been working as Editor and Publisher
of Malaimalar News magazine for the past 28 years, and that it is true that they
publish the news they gather then and there, and that there are journalists all over
Tamil Nadu and they would collect the news and send them to him and according
to the importance of the news received, they would be published. D.W.4 has
further deposed that their publishing offices are situated in 13 places in Tamilnadu,
and that with regard to crime news, they will be published only after visiting the
concerned spot and gathering information from the concerned persons, and that
they receive information through news reporters, and that he cannot tell how those
journalists collect the news, and that they do not receive any news directly from the
132
Police Department, and that they do not publish any news banned by the Police not
to be published in the newspapers.
D.W.4 has further deposed that he has appeared in this court on

summons, and that as intimated in the summons he has brought the newspaper
dated 16.3.2016, and that the newspaper is of Dindigul edition, and that a photo in
which 4 persons with a Police officer has been published by mentioning the names
as Jagatheesan, Manikandan, Selvakumar, and Michael, and that the newspaper
containing the said photo and news has been marked as Ex.D.7.
One Vijayakumar, Deputy News Editor, Coimbatore Edition of Dinamalar

Daily Newspaper, was examined as D.W.5.
D.W.5 has deposed, that he is working as Sub Editor in Coimbatore

Edition of Dinamalar Newspaper, and that he has come to give evidence on
summons, and that he has been given sufficient authority to give evidence, and that
the concerned authorization letter has been marked as Ex.D.8.
D.W.5 has further deposed that their newspaper is published in 10

places, and that their news is also broadcasted through internet, and that the news
collected and sent by the journalists is published according to their nature, and
importance state wide and national wide. He has further stated that a separate
journalist has been appointed with regard to Judicial Department related news, and
that journalists have been appointed for two high courts, and those journalists
would directly go to the Courts and only after witnessing directly, they would send
any news, and that he has brought the newspaper dated 17.03.2016, as noted in the
summons, and that the said newspaper is of Coimbatore Edition, and in page 7, the
news is as, “High Court Condemns,” and that the said news has been published in
all editions.
133
D.W.5 has further deposed that the High Court has condemned for
publishing the photographs of persons who were arrested in this case. DW5 has
admitted that the arguments by the prosecution and the proceedings of the court
were all published and that the arrest of five members on 15.3.2016 was mentioned
and that the Division Bench opinion was also published and the news published in
the 7th page of the newspaper dated 17.3.2016 has been marked as Ex.D.9.
Tmt.S.Jayanthi, former Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruppur,

was examined as D.W.6.
D.W.6 has deposed, that at present she is working as Joint Director of
Land Administration Department, Chennai, and that it is true that she was working
as District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruppur District on 13.3.2016, and
that she got transferred on 4.6.2017. She has further stated that she knows the
details about this case, and that she came to know about this case through the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Udumalpet, and she received the news through phone
at 8.00 p.m. on 13.3.2016, and that at once, she had directed the Sub Divisional
Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer to go to the occurrence place and make
inspection and send a report and also to take further steps.
D.W.6 has further deposed that on the afternoon of 14.3.2016, she
along with the Revenue Tahsildhar visited the spot, and that on that day the
Superintendent of Police spoke with her with regard to the case, and that she saw
the television on 14.03.2016 only, and did not see the Television on the previous
day, since she was engaged in her office work, and that on 14.3.2016, she received
the first information report through Revenue Divisional Officer, and that she went
to the occurrence place and inspected the same, and examined the people nearby,
and returned to her office and prepared a report and sent to the Government, and
that she advised the Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation of this
134
case, and that she passed orders to file Goondas Act against A1 to A9, and that
since a charge was omitted to be included in the orders passed by her, she included
the same and issued amended order, and the same has been marked as Ex.D.10, and
that she had signed the Ex.D.10 on 29.6.2016, and a copy of the said letter has been
sent to A2.
D.W.6 has further stated that the charge u/s 3(2)(Va) is noted in both
the orders issued by her, and that it is true that the Goondas order passed by her was
set aside by the Hon’ble High Court. She has further stated that he knew about the
heirs of Shankar through Revenue Divisional Officer, and that compensation was
given to Kowsalya and the family members of deceased Shankar.
D.W.6 has further deposed that she was not informed prior to the
occurrence, regarding the love affair of Shankar and Kowsalya, and that she has not
filed any report with regard to this case before the Special Court. She has deposed
that she did not specifically direct to take video recordings with regard to this case,
and that she does not know if any video recordings have been taken or not. She has
further stated that, concerning Tiruppur District, she has not received any
intimation from the Government as to any specific place to be prone to communal
riots, and that since there was no law and order problem in and around the
occurrence place, no ban was ordered, and that no necessity for an order to
surrender the weapons to the Police Department arose.
D.W.6 has further deposed that only after seeing the files, she can tell
about whether she has prepared any list of senior advocates to appear before the
Special Court in Special cases, and that Kowsalya had prayed to appoint an
advocate named Bhavani Mohan. She has denied that her recommendations of the
Special prosecutors are invalid, since they are retired Prosecutors.
D.W.6 has deposed, that the Vigilance and Monitory Committee are
functioning at Tiruppur District, and that special officer and nodal officer are
135
appointed for that committee, and that she has formed a District Level Committee
of “Vigilance and Monetary Committee,” and that the National Adi Dravida
Welfare Board has taken into consideration of this occurrence. She has further
deposed that preliminary report has been submitted to the National Human Rights
Commission, and that they have not given any advise basing on her report
submitted, and that one Chandra Praba was the officer of National Adi Dravida
Welfare Board at that time, and that she has given a report to the National Adi
Dravida Board. DW6 has denied the suggestion that she has not taken any proper
steps as District Magistrate in this case.
7) Decision for the point:
The prosecution case has projected this case as “Honour Killing”.
The prosecution has defined the same as homicide of a family due to perpetrators’
belief that the victim has brought shame and dishonour upon the family for having
violated the principles of a community and, for refusing to enter arranged marriage
within their community. Therefore, as per the prosecution, an upper caste Thevar
girl marrying a dhalith boy Shankar has lead to a gory incident in broad day light,
in full public view, on 13.03.2016, near the busy central Bus Stand, Udumlapet.
8) A1 Chinnasamy and A2 Annalakshmi are the parents of P.W.1

Kowsalya, and A3 Pandithurai is alleged to be her maternal uncle, and that A1 to
A3 since did not approve the marriage of P.W.1 Kowsalya with Shankar and also
having taken many efforts to separate P.W.1 Kowsalya from Shankar, and since
failed, the family perpetrators are alleged to have developed enmity against
Shankar and Kowsalya and decided to do away with both Shankar and Kowsalya.
9) It is alleged by the prosecution that A1, the father of P.W.1, knows

A4, and that A4 had association with A5 to A11, that prior to 13.03.2016, A1 to
A10 committed a criminal conspiracy at Palani by agreeing to murder Shankar and
136
Kowsalya. In pursuance of the conspiracy and to commit murder of Shankar and

P.W.1 Kowsalya, A1 and A2 are alleged to have withdrawn a total sum of
Rs.50,000/- from their joint account in State Bank of India, Palani Branch on
26.02.2016 and 28.02.2016, and alleged to have paid the said amount to A4 as a
remuneration for committing the said murders. As a result, it is alleged that on
13.03.2016, at about 2.10 p.m. when Shankar and P.W.1 Kowsalya where about to
cross the Palani- Pollachi main road, south of the Bus Stand at Udumalpet and in
front of Eswari Departmental Stores, A4 to A10 namely Jagatheesan, Manikandan,
Selvakumar, Kalaithamilvanan, Mathan @ Michael, Dhanraj @ Stepen Dhanraj
and Prasannakumar are alleged to have formed themselves as members of an
unlawful assembly with common objective to murder both P.W.1 Kowsalya and
Shankar, and it is further alleged that A10 identified P.W.1 and Shankar to A5 and
A6 who in turn with A4, A7 and A8 armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution
of common object of the said unlawful assembly, A4 to A8 are alleged to have
repeatedly attacked Shankar and Kowsalya with an intention to murder them with
M.O.1 to M.O.5, which is alleged to have caused profuse bleeding injuries which
has resulted Shankar’s death on the way to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital,
and that P.W.1 Kowsalya, has survived the attack with grievous injuries.
10) Further, the prosecution has stated that after the deadly attack, A4
to A8 who already came to the SOC in two motor cycles fled away after the
incident, and that A9 Dhanraj who came in his motorcycle is alleged to have given
a lift to Prasannakumar at a little distance from the SOC in his motor cycle. The
prosecution has alleged that, in case Shankar and Kowsalya escaped the attack of
A4 to A8, as a standby to commit the said murder, A9 Dhanraj is alleged to have
waited at the scene of occurrence.
137
11) Further, the prosecution has alleged that, while attacking Shankar,
A4 Jagatheesan insulted Shankar on the ground of being a member of a scheduled
caste in the public place in public view at the scene of occurrence, by uttering the
words
“பள்ைப் ளபயனுக்கு காதல் திருேணம் ஒரு மகடா”
12) Thereafter, on the night of 13.3.2016, it is alleged that A11

Manikandan gave asylum to A4 to A6 and A8 at his house at Pattiveeranpatti
knowing well that they have committed the above said offences, and horboured
them.
13) The prosecution has filed charge sheet as against A1 to A11

u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 302 r/w. 120(B) r/w.109, 302 r/w.149, 307, 307 r/w. 149,
307 r/w. 120(B) r/w.109, 212 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) r/w.3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 and 3(2)(va) of SCST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The
prosecution has cited 121 witnesses, but has examined 67 witnesses and has
marked Ex.P.1 to P.122 and 49 material objects. The defence has examined D.W.1
to D.W.6 and has marked Ex.D.1 to D.10.
14) This Court has framed charges against the accused as follows:
A1: u/s. 120(B), 302 r/w. 120(B) r/w. 109 and 307 r/w. 120(B)
r/w. 109 I.P.C.
r/w. 109 I.P.C.
r/w. 109 I.P.C.
A4: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w.3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
138
A5: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
A6: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C.,
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
A7: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
A8: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015
r/w. 149 I.P.C.
A9: u/s.120(B), 147, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C.,
A10: u/s.120(B), 147, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s)
r/w. 149 I.P.C.,
A11: u/s.212 I.P.C.
Further, this Court on noticing the charges u/s. 120(B) has since been
framed against A1 to A3, as per the schedule prescribed in the amended Act for
3(2)(va) of SC ST Act, 2015 are liable. Hence, on 13.06.2017, additional charge
u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 which was omitted to be
framed, has been framed against the accused 1 to 3 u/s. 216(1) Cr.P.C.
15) In this case, A1 and A2 are husband and wife and parents of P.W.1.
A3 is arrayed as an accused being maternal uncle of P.W.1. A4 to A.10 are not

related to either the deceased or P.W.1, but are projected as conspirators to the
commission of the offence. The main plank of the prosecution rests on the
allegation, that A1 to A10 conspired to do away with the deceased Shankar and in
this process P.W.1 who was with the deceased was severely injured amounting to
an attempt on her life.
139
16) Criminal conspiracy is normally hatched up in secrecy and hence

the production of their evidence to prove the conspiracy before the Court of law is
remote. Therefore, the criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances.
To establish conspiracy u/s. 120(B) I.P.C., the prosecution has examined P.W.1 in
Court, and she has specifically identified A1 to A3 as persons who have been the
conspirators, being driven by the motive, which they harboured against the
deceased and P.W.1. P.W.1 has married Shankar, the deceased, who belongs to the
scheduled caste and whereas, P.W.1 belongs to OBC (Thevar community). P.W.1
has deposed in detail as to how, A1 and A2 have persuaded her immediately after
their marriage to desert the deceased and to come with them. She has also spoken
about the move made by A1 and A2 in this direction through the father of A2,
Jayaraman, who is her grandfather. In respect of A3, P.W.1 has spoken incidents
whereby the prosecution has projected the role of A3 in the conspiracy.
17) A1 to A3 have been charged u/s.120(B), 302 r/w.120(B) r/w.109,

307 r/w.120(B) r/w.109 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015 as to the conspiracy u/s/120(B) and 302 r/w.120(B) r/w.109, 307 r/w.120(B)
r/w.109 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
18) As against A1, the discussion as to his role in commission of his

offence will be taken up later. Whether A2 and A3 are conspirators or not has to be
decided with the available evidence and documents.
19) P.W.1 has spoken that A2, her mother, made moves by taking her
to different places and relatives’ residence to persuade her to desert the deceased
and come with her. However, P.W.1 has not deposed anything concretely to hold
that A2 nurtured a motive to go to the extent of criminal assault or murder against
the deceased and P.W.1. The evidences as against A2 are made by P.W.1, P.W.9,
P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.18, P.W.37, P.W.39, P.W.59, P.W.64 and P.W.67. Further,
140
barring the lone evidence of P.W.1 regarding A2, there are no other circumstances
or evidence to show that A2 took subsequent steps, whereby she could be
attributed with the necessary intention to do away with the deceased or on making
an attempt on the life of P.W.1. At best, this Court feels that A2 can be saddled
only with knowledge that her husband (A1) may attempt something in furtherance
of conspiracy. There are no additional evidence or circumstances to show that A2
has further with the knowledge, harboured an intention to commit offences.
20) As far as P.W.9, Vigneswaran, the younger brother of Shankar is

concerned, the prosecution has stated that his evidence corroborates with the
evidence of P.W.1, with that of motive behind the murder. But, in the cross-
examination, P.W.9 has stated that he did not attend the marriage of P.W.1 and
Shankar, and that a marriage photo was seen by him, but, he has not produced the
same before Police Station. Further, he has stated that Kowsalya’s parents, when
called by the Udumalpet Police, basing on P.W.1 and Shankar asking for security,
they had given in writing that they have no more relationship with P.W.1. PW9 has
admitted that he was not present at home when Jayaraman came to their house.
Further, he has stated that A1 and A2 had warned Kowsalya that their relatives are
not happy about the marriage, and there is a chance for attempt of assault. Except
the above corroboration of warning, the other aspects of motive by A2 are not clear
from his evidence.
21) Further P.W.1’s grandmother and many other relatives are stated to
have accompanied A1 and A2, two weeks prior to the incident, when A1 and A2
warned Kowsalya. But, the grandmother of P.W.1 or other relatives who came
with A1 and A2 have not been impleaded as accused for conspiracy. As a mother,
that too daughter being in the age of just 19 years, an attempt by her to take away
her daughter from the deceased Shankar is a probable situation. The marriage
141
between P.W.1 and Shankar, at Paatha Vinayagar Temple, Palani, has not been
established by the prosecution. No receipt for marriage, neither photographs of
marriage have been marked in this case. Therefore, the mother’s effort to separate
P.W.1 and Shankar was a probable situation. The subsequent events or acts of A2
alone has to be considered whether conspiracy to do away P.W.1 and Shankar has
taken place or not. As far as A2 is concerned, no subsequent steps could be
attributed with her intention to do away with Shankar and P.W.1.
22) P.W.11’s evidence, as to the recovery of Rs.20,000/- from A6
Selvakumar through recovery mahazar Ex.P.11 and M.O.21, though spoken, has
not been cross-examined by A1 and A2. The bank account is stated to be the joint
account of A1 and A2. In such a case, the act of A2, conspiring with A1 to give
money to A4 Jagatheesan is not established. Further, A2 giving money to
Jagatheesan directly also is not established. Therefore, P.W.11’s evidence with
regard to A2 is not strong enough to consider that A2 is a conspirator. The same is
that of the evidence of P.W.12, where in, cash of Rs.24,000/-, M.O.23, has been
recovered from A4 Jagatheesan. Here also the handing over of money by A2, to
A4, for doing away with P.W.1 and Shankar is not established. P.W.18 Murugesan,
who is the resident of Palani, is stated to be the witness for seizure of cellphone
M.O.29, from A2, under seizure mahazar, Ex.P.25. The SIM card number M.O.29
seized is 9585700205. Though the cell and SIM is not disputed as that of
belonging to A2, there is no call record to prove that A2 had conversed with A3 to
A10 to do away P.W.1 and Shankar. During the arguments, it is admitted by the
prosecution that Annalakshmi, from SIM card no. 9585700205, has called her
husband A1 only. Therefore, wife calling her husband has no implication in this
case.
142
23) P.W.37, the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Palani, has stated
that A1 and A2 have joint SB Account No.31133252662, and that an amount of
Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from the bank on 26.2.2016 and 28.02.2016, and the
statement of accounts has been marked as Ex.P.41. The relevant entry in page 4
has been marked as Ex.P.99, and amount drawn in relevant page is Ex.P.100.
Therefore, through the evidence of P.W.27, the joint account held by A1 and A2
eventhough established, any one joint holder has a right to withdraw the money.
The prosecution has not established that A2 had withdrawn the money and given
directly to A4 for commission of murder. Even the confession of the accused does
not state so.
24) P.W.39 has issued the community certificate and the community of
A2 is not disputed. P.W.59, David Joseph Paulraj, Nodal Officer, Bharthi Airtel
Limited, has deposed that on 5.4.2016 at P.W.67’s request, he has furnished the
particulars of phone connections. But, for SIM card number 9585700205, no call
records has been specifically furnished. Further, P.W.64, Chithra, the Village
Administrative Officer of Kanakkampalayam village, has deposed that she has
witnessed the recording of confession statement of A2 Annalakshmi, on 01.4.2016
at 8.30 a.m., and the admissible portion has been marked as Ex.P.93. However, the
recovery of the cellphone from A2 has not been witnessed by PW64, and there is
no specific evidence to substantiate the recovery of M.O.29 and it’s SIM card.
25) P.W.67, the Investigating Officer, has examined all the above
witnesses. The prosecution has argued, that A2 had developed enimical feelings
against Kowsalya and Shankar, and that A2 went to the extent of biting P.W.1's
chappals and throwing it away. Further, it is stated that A2, on various occassions
after the marriage of P.W.1 with Shankar, has taken efforts to separate Kowsalya
from Shankar. Therefore, the mere objection and the non approval of marriage by
143
A2 alone has been evidenced. There is no substantial evidence to prove A2's role
as to participation in the conspiracy. Hence, this Court has a doubt on the
participation of A2 in the criminal conspiracy. Since the charges for conspiracy u/s
120 (b) IPC does not stand established, there is no material for establishing the
charges u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 109 I.P.C.
26) A3 is alleged to be the maternal uncle of P.W.1 Kowsalya. In this

case, only four witnesses P.W.1, Kowsalya, P.W.63 the Inspector who secured A3,
P.W.13, Syed Ibrahim, V.A.O. who speaks about the manner of arrest and alleged
confession by A3, and P.W.67, the investigating officer, speaks about A3
Pandithurai. The only evidence against A3 is the portion of P.W.1's deposition only.
Though P.W.13, Syed Ibrahim has spoken about the alleged confession of A3
attested by P.W.13, this confession is not admissible, as there is no recovery under
section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, it is inadmissible u/s. 25 of Indian
Evidence Act. This Court is bound to analyze the role of A3 in the light of lone
evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that shortly after the marriage
she was forcibly taken to Dindigul to the house of one Revathi. She has also
deposed that A3 at that time came there and asked others, as to why P.W.1 is
allowed to live still. She has also deposed that A3 has stated that by seeing P.W.1
even his children will get spoiled (Page No.3 of P.W.1's deposition). Further, P.W.1
has stated that some days before the occurrence on 13.3.2016, P.W.1 was told by
her neighbor that A3 came near the house of Shankar, and enquired the neighbors
about the number of houses and other details, and that she was warned by her
neighbor, that something is going to be done and that a conspiracy is being hatched
to do something. But, P.W.1 in 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and in the evidence before
the Court alone has stated about her parents taking her to Dindigul to Revathi's
house, and that A3 instigated her parents to do away with her. But in the contrary,
144
after marriage with Shankar on 12.7.2015, Kowsalya has preferred a complaint

before All women Police Station, Udumalai, wherein she has only stated that due
to the intercaste marriage with Shankar, her parents would create problem and has
approached the Police to advise her parents. Nowhere she has stated about A3 in
that complaint.
27) Further, the deceased Shankar had given complaint before the
Madathukulam Police Station on 24.7.2015 in Cr.No.320/2015, and that case was
registered as woman missing. In the above circumstances, P.W.1 in her 164 Cr.P.C.
statement, and before this Court has stated, that on 27.3.2015 her parents, her
grandfather had abducted her and took her to Dindigul, and that A3 had instigated
her parents to do away with her. But, Ex.P.39 is the complaint of Shankar on
24.7.2015, before Madathukulam Police Station in Cr.No.320/15, and Ex.P.40 is
the final report closing the complaint as FAD. On reading the contents of FAD, it
is noted that Kowsalya has stated before the Madathukulam Police Station in
Cr.No.320/15, that she went to see her ailing grandfather at Tiruppur Private
Hospital, and that she was with her grandfather, and hence she could not convey
any message to Shankar, and that on 27.7.2015, she rang up to Shankar and told
that where she was, and that when Shankar told her the complaint he has preferred,
Kowsalya has then come to Madathukulam Police Station on 27.7.2015 at 10.15
a.m. and gave a statement, and that too in front of elders, she was sent along with
Shankar. Therefore, on 27.7.2015 the statement of Kowsalya was as though that
she was at Tiruppur looking after her grandfather in a private hospital. But, only
after the incident on 13.3.2016, Kowsalya has named for the first time A3's name
in Ex.P.4, 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and evidence before the Court.
28) P.W.1 is the victim as well as the eye witness in this case. No
overtact was found with A3. Therefore, mere stating the name of A3, should be
145
corroborated with substantial evidence to prove conspiracy. P.W.1 has stated that
in order to cheat her parents she told them that she would come back to them, and
that she told the truth to the advocate, that she wants to go with Shankar, and that
the advocate informed her parents, and further that her parents asked her to go with
the advocate to Madathukulam Police Station. But, in her initial complaint
statement, Ex.P.4 and, 161 Cr.P.C. statement, she has stated that her parents took
her to her parents' house and kept her there, and later since Shankar had given
complaint she was asked by her parents to go to the Madathukulam Police Station.
Therefore, the abduction to Dindigul, and A3 instigating A1 and A2 to do away
with her, was not spoken prior to the occurrence, but, immediately after the
occurrence, at the time of 164 Cr.P.C. statement and before this Court.
29) Therefore, P.W.1 has made an improved statement. Therefore, this

Court is able to see some contradiction in P.W.1's version and documents. The
allegation of the alleged incident at Revathi's house at Dindigul, due to P.W.1's
contradictory version with that of Ex.P.40 document, does not stand to be
established.
30) Further, when P.W.1's parents and her uncle had ample chance to
do away with her even on 27.7.2015, when she had expressed her desire to go
away with Shankar to the advocate, her parents had sent her safely along with the
advocate to the Police Station. Therefore, conspir6acy between A1 to A3 has not
commenced then, is therefore clear from P.W.1's evidence. Further, A3's address
stated in Ex.P.4 is not established by the prosecution that it is that of his address.
Further, Shankar’s neighbors informing that A3 visited Shankar's place, and noted
the surroundings, is only hearsay of P.W.1. Further, how would the neighbors
know that A3 is the uncle of Kowsalya, when the neighbours are total strangers to
A3. Definitely, A3 would not introduce himself to Shankar's neighbor that he is
146
Kowsalya's uncle, and then spy the area of Shankar. Further, no concrete evidence
of neighbors stating the presence of A3 in the residential area of Shankar, one week
prior to the occurrence, is established by the prosecution. No identification parade
of the neighbors who have seen A3 was conducted.
31) Further, the visit to Shankar’s house by Kowsalya's Grandfather

Jayaraman, Grandmother and parents is admitted by P.W.1. Therefore, when the
relatives are well aware about the area, where Shankar is dwelling, month's before
the occurrence, then, what purpose had A3 to visit the residential area of Shankar
and note it's details when already the relatives of Kowsalya were aware of the
same. Therefore, except for naming A3 in F.I.R., and stating A3's name in 164
Cr.P.C., and in evidence before this Court, there is no other substantial evidence to
prove the involvement of A3 in the conspiracy. Further, no call record of A3
communicating with A1, A2, A4 to A9 has been filed by the prosecution. The
presence of A3 at the time of alleged conspiracy of A1 with A4 to A9 is not
established. Further, one Revathi who is cited as prosecution witness, L.W.76, has
not been examined by the prosecution. Further, P.W.1 has not stated in her
evidence before Court, that along with her other relatives who came to Shankar's
house, and advised her to separte her from Shankar, A3 had accompanied them. If
A3 was aggrieved, and as a maternal uncle, he would have taken efforts to come to
Kowsalya's house with his sister A2 to advise Kowsalya for separation. But, A3's
name has not been stated. Counsel for A3 argued that since A2's father and A3's
father are different, and that mother is one and the same, A3 will not become the
material uncle of Kowsalya. The above arguments is not accepted. A2 and A3 are
born to one and the same mother. So, maternal means mother and hence children
born out of same mother have maternal relationship.
147
32) Only in the F.I.R., A3's name is stated. But, in the complaint
statement, the instigation of A3 has not been stated. Further, the Dindigul episode
has not been established by the prosecution. Therefore, the statement u/s. 164
Cr.P.C., and P.W.1's evidence against A3, is contradictory to oral and documentary
evidence. Further, A3’s survey about the house of Shankar prior to the occurrence,
is only hearsay, and Revathi has not been examined in Court to rely her 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. The prosecution has argued that in the confession of A4 he has spoken
about A3 instigating them to murder Shankar and Kowsalya, and report to him, and
that the Court has to consider the confession of the co-accused. The prosecution
has quoted Sec. 30 of Evidence Act to consider the confession made by that of the
co-accused. But, to consider Sec. 30 of Evidence Act, there should be substantial
connecting relevant materials to accept the confession of the co-accused.
Therefore, in the absence of material or substantial evidence, and only with the
confession of co-accused implicating A3 is not sustainable. There is no material to
connect A3 with this case, and no circumstances stand proved directly or indirectly
to link A3 to the conspiracy in this case.
33) A3 has been charged u/s. 120(B) IPC along with charge u/s. 109
I.P.C. There is no direct material available to charge A3 with conspiracy. Further,
for A3 supporting A1 and instigating A4, there is no material evidence. Since the
charges for conspiracy does not stand proved, there is no material for establishing
the charges u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 109 I.P.C.
34) The Learned Prosecutors, in support of their arguments, have

placed the following citations as against A2 and A3.
1. 1988 – 3 – SCC – Page 609

2. 2017 – CDJ – SC – Page 516
3. AIR 1971 – SC – Page 885
148
4. 2003 - 3 – SCC – Page 641

5. 2005 – 12 – SCC – Page 631
6. 2000 – Crl. Law Journal – SC - Page 4039
7. 2000 – 10 - SCC – Crl. – Page 582
35) The Learned Counsels for A2 and A3 in support of their arguments
have placed the following citations.
1. 1998 – Crl.L.J. – Page 4443 (MP)

2. 1990 – SC – Page 1210
3. 2009 – 8 – SCC – Page 1
4. 2008 – SC – Page 2991
5. AIR – 2000 – SC – Page 3649
6. AIR – 2007 – SC – Page 2149
7. 1976 – Crl.L.J. – Page 37
8. 2015 – 12 – SCC – Page 444
9. 2010 – 8 – SCC – Page
10. 1994 (3) Crimes – Page 850 – SC
11. 2000 – 8 – SCC – Page 203
12. 2001 – 1 – SCC – Page 378
13. 2012 – MLJ – Crl. – Page 721
14. AIR – 2012 – SC – 1676
15. AIR – 1993 – SC – Page 2644
16. 2016 – 3 MLJ – Cr. Page 7
17. 1997 – SC – Page 3247
18. AIR – 2011 – SC – 2302
19. 2012 – Cr.LJ – Page 2673
20. 2002 – SCC – Crl. – Page 443
21. AIR – 1980 – SC – Page 1160
149
22. 2002 – SCC – Crl. – Page 1352

23. 2002 – 7 – SCC – Page 317
24. 2016 – 3 – Crimes – Page 414
25. 2010 – 13 – SCC – Page 657
26. 2000 - 3 – SCC – Crl. Page - 596
27. 2015 – 7 – SCC – Page 178
28. 2000 - 2 - SCC – Crl. - Page 498
29. 2016 – 12 – SCC – Page 770
30. 2000- 2 – SCC – Crl. Page 1377
31. AIR – 2011 – SC – Page 760
32. 2014 – 2 – Law Weekly Crl. Page 223
33. 2014 – 3 – MLJ – Crl. – Page 18
34. 2002 – 5 – SCC – Page 371
35. AIR – 2012- SC – Page 1292
36. AIR – 2017 – SC – Page 1323
36) This Court has carefully considered the propositions laid down in
the above cases and has cautiously considered the role of A2 and A3 based on the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and in the light of Principles laid down in the
above said citations.
37) As regards to the charges as against A1, and A4 to A9, charges for
offence punishable u/s. 120(B), 302 r/w. 120(B) r/w. 109 and 307 r/w. 120(B) r/w.
109 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed as
against the accused A1, charges for offence punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302,
307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w.3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015,
were framed as against the accused A4, and charges for offence punishable
u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C.,
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, were framed as against the
150
accused A5 and A7, and charges for offence punishable u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302,
307 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015, were framed as against the accused A6, and charges for offence punishable
u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149
I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C., were
framed as against the accused A8, and charges for offence punishable u/s.120(B),
147, 302 r/w. 149, 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) r/w. 149 I.P.C., 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 r/w. 149 I.P.C., were framed as against the
accused A9.
38) The motive part of the occurrence has been clearly spoken by
PW1 Kowsalya. Since she married a person belonging to Dhalith community
against the wishes of her parents, she has specifically made an allegation in Ex.P4,
about her parents and uncle. However, as regards to the role of her mother and
uncle has been discussed by this Court elaborately. A1 being the father of PW1,
obviously after attempting to separate PW1 from Shankar appears to have hatched
a conspiracy to do away both PW1 and Shankar. As per the evidence on the side of
the Prosecution and on a careful scrutiny, it appears that conspiracy originated
when A1 met A4, A5, and other two persons near Childrens Park at Palani, and all
of them have conspired to commit the offence. The observation mahazar is Ex.P31
and rough sketch is Ex.109. This has been corroborated by the evidence of PW21
Kalidas who had also stated before the Court, that A1 had already expressed to him
on two occasions, that he was distressful about his daughter PW1 Kowsalya having
married Shankar, being a member of Scheduled Caste and, that he wants to murder
PW1 and Shankar. However, during cross examination, PW21 has stated that A1
told him that he will seek vengeance against Shankar and Kowsalya, but did not
state that he would murder them. Therefore, the intention of A1 to seek vengeance
151
is clear, and the aspect of having seen A1 with A4 Jagatheesan and A5

Manikandan, has not been disproved through cross examination, and the aspect of
conversation by A1 with the accused has been clearly spoken in the cross of PW21.
PW21 has stated that he did not hear the conversation. But, in a case of conspiracy,
it is normally hatched only in secrecy, and hence it is difficult to get direct
evidence of the same. If two persons pursue by their act, the same object with
prior agreement or arrangement, that is sufficient to prove conspiracy.
39) Further, PW22, Anbalagan has deposed that on Saturday on

12.03.2016, at about 5 p.m. he found A1 talking to A5, A6, A7, and A9 near the
Rope Car Station at Palani Hills, in an angry mood. In the cross examination of
PW22, he has stuck on to his evidence as deposed in his chief examination. The
aspect of A1 talking to A5 to A7 and A9 has not been disproved through the
questions laid in the cross examination.
40) Further, basing on the confession of A1, the investigating officer

PW 67 had enquired PW14, and PW15, who are the owners of Bhakya Lodge at
Palani. PW14 and PW15 have deposed that on 05.03.2016, A1 and A5 came to
their Lodge and booked a room for A5, and that A1 paid the rent for the room, and
that A5 and A8 stayed in the room till 13.03.2016 morning, and that both A5 and
A8 along with A1, went out of the room at about 10 a.m., and that A1 and A5 alone
returned back at about 5 p.m. to the Lodge, and immediately vacated the room.
The defence, in their cross examination, has suggested that the prosecution has
failed to mark the document of the lodge, but PW14 has categorically stated that on
05.03.2016 he has ocularly seen A1, A5, and A8 coming to the lodge, and staying
there, and PW15 has corroborated the evidence of PW14, and identified A8 in the
Court as Madhan, who stayed with A5 at his Lodge on the arrangement of A1.
Further, in the chief examination of PW14, he has stated that A1 being the driver of
152
the car, would bring parties to his Lodge, and therefore, he knows him well.
Further, PW14 has stated that he knows Manikandan, very well, since his father
Marimuthu sells banian in his TVS 50 before his Hotel. Therefore, there is clear,
direct eye witness for A1, A5, and A8 coming to the Lodge. PW14 has filed his
Lodge Register containing 45 pages which is marked as Ex.P20, which has been
seized under the seizure mahazar Ex.P23, and the form 91 has been marked as
Ex.P110, and the entry as Ex.P21, is admitted to have been made with his own
handwriting in Page No.2, that room No.8 was allotted to the said accused. Even if
clear documentary evidence is absent, the ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved,
and rest of the other evidences on record need to be considered. It is also to be
noted that PW14 and PW15 have no motive to falsely implicate any of the accused
including A1. Nothing was suggested in the cross examination as to the motive of
PW14 and PW15 to falsely implicate A1 and other accused. Judged from the
backdrop, this court feels that the oral testimony of PW14 and PW15 is cogent and
convincing. Therefore, the evidence of motive and conspiracy by A1 and A4 to A8
has been corroborated by PW1, PW21, PW22, PW14, and PW15.
41) In furtherance of conspiracy, A1 out of the Joint Account

No.31133252662 held by him, along with A2, wherein the Joint Bank Accounts
statement has been marked as Ex.P41, at State Bank of India, Palani Branch, has
withdrawn on 26.02.2016 and 28.02.2016, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, through ATM.
The withdrawal of amount has been spoken by PW37 Kumar, the Manager of the
State Bank of India, Palani Branch. In the cross examination of PW37, the aspect
of A1 and A2 having Joint account in his Bank has not been disputed by defence.
Further, during the cross examination of PW67, the Investigating Officer, by A1
and A2 Counsel at page 70 (from bottom above 5 th line), PW67 has been suggested
as follows:
153
1, 2 எதிரிகள் ஒரு நடுத்தர வசதி பெற்ற குடும்ெமாகும்.
1, 2 எதிரிகள் சசர்ந்து வங்கியில் சசமிப்பு கணக்கு வவத்து அவத
இயக்கி பகாண்டிருந்தார்கள் என்றால் சரி. வழக்கிற்காக
பசால்லப்ெட்ட கணக்குகள் 1, 2 எதிரிகள் சவறு பசலவுக்காக
எடுத்த ெணம் என்றால் சரியல்ல. வழக்கில் வகப்ெற்றிய ெணம்
ரூ.44,000/- குடும்ெ பசலவுக்காக வவத்திருந்த ெணத்வத எடுத்து
இந்த வழக்கிற்காக ச ாடித்துள்சேன் என்றால் சரியல்ல.
Therefore, the counsel for A1, has clearly suggested that the money seized from A4
is the personal money of A1, and drawn for his domestic expense. Therefore, the
amount is admitted that of A1 by the defence. Therefore, A1’s money recovered
from A4 is a strong substantial evidence to prove the mastermind of A1 behind the
murder.
42) Therefore, A1 has engaged A4 to A9, to do away PW1 and

Shankar and accordingly, he has conspired with A4 to A9, and has made suitable
arrangements for execution of the conspiracy. For the part of conspiracy of A1
with A4 to A9, is clear from the evidence of PW1, PW37, PW14, PW15, PW21,
and PW22. Further, the interaction of A1 Chinnasamy through his Bharti Airtel
Number 9677490925 is patent in CDR. The above cell phone number is in the
name of A1 P.Chinnasamy, S/o.Balusamy, 174A, Kuppampalayam, Pappampatti,
Palani, Dindigul, which has been clearly deposed by PW59. On the side of A1,
this witness PW59’s chief examination has not been disputed. Therefore, as per
the call details register, from A1’s above number, calls have been made to A2 and
vice versa from 01.03.2016 to 12.03.2016. However, A2 being the wife of A1, and
since no voice recordings as to the fact of conversation has been made available
154
before this court, the conversation between the Husband and wife cannot be
considered as a serious material in this case. However, when A1 has denied any
acquaintance with A1 to A10 in 313 (1) (b) questioning, A1 has made 7 calls to A8
on 01.03.2016 and 02.03.2016, and A1 has made 2 calls to A9 on 06.03.2016.
Therefore, the role of A1 is clear as to his conspiracy with A4 to A9. Further A4
and A5 have given confession before PW12, Village Administrative Officer, and
cash of Rs.24,000/- (M.O.23) has been recovered from A4, and a two wheeler bike
(M.O.12) bearing Regn. No. TN 54 AS 2340 have also been seized. The
confession of A4 and A5, and the admissible portion of recovery has been marked
as Ex.P16 and Ex.P18 respectively. The evidence of this witness is admissible u/s
27 of Indian Evidence Act. His evidence corroborates the evidence of PW1 to
PW4, PW58, PW62, and PW67 on material circumstances.
43) Further, in the presence of PW11, Village Administrative Officer

Eswaran, confession has been recorded from A6, A8 and A11 from whom two
wheeler bike M.O.13 (without Regn. No.) and cash of Rs.20,000/- M.O.21 from
A6 have been recovered and the admissible portion of the confession by the above
said accused persons have been marked as Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. The evidence of this
witness is admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and his evidence has been
corroborated by PW1 to PW4, and PW67 on relevant circumstances. Further,
PW17 Thirumalaisamy, the owner of Bajaj Discover Motorcycle TN 57 AZ 3957,
has deposed that he had mortgaged his bike with A1, and the prosecution case is
that A1 has handed over the same to A4 to commit the occurrence, and the same
has been seized from A9. PW17 Thirumalaisamy has clearly admitted the handing
over of his bike to A1, which was involved in the occurrence. A1 has identified the
numberless Bajaj Motor Cycle at Udumalpet Police Station on 25.03.2016 at 7
a.m. as per the prosecution case. The evidence of PW17 Thirumalaisamy as to
155
mortgage of the above motor cycle with A1, has not even been suggested as false
by A1 counsel. The confession of A1, A4, and A9 with evidence of
Thirumalaisamy along with material exhibits taken cumulatively, makes it clear,
that Thirumalaisamy has mortgaged his bike M.O.13 with A1 and the seizure of
Thirumalaisamy’s bike, from A9 which is admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence
Act, stands to prove the conspiracy, which is normally done in secrecy. Therefore
the fact that A1 handed over the bike mortgaged to him, for execution of the
offence has thus been clearly established. Moreover, his evidence stands
undisputed and not challenged.
44) PW34, Muthulakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police

Station, Palani has deposed that on 11.07.2017, at about 10.30 p.m., A1 gave
complaint, that his daughter Kowsalya had been kidnapped by one Shankar, and
that she registered the complaint in Palani Town P.S. Cr.647/2015 u/s 366 IPC, and
that on 02.03.2016, she arrested A8 Mathan near Murugan Saw Mill at
Shanmugapuram, Palani, and at 7.30 p.m. she arrested A4 also and registered
Palani Town PS Cr.No.211/2016 and 212/2016 respectively u/s 41(d) Cr.P.C., and
that A1 came to the Police Station and stood as guarantee for them and hence both
of them were released and sent along with A1. Ex.P36 and Ex.P37 are the certified
copies of the FIRs in Cr.No.211/2016 and 212/2016. Further, PW34 has identified
A1, A4, and A8 in the Court. In the cross examination, A1, A2 and A4 to A8
counsels have denied the evidence of PW34, and has suggested that Ex.P.36 and
Ex.P37 are created documents. There is no sufficient substance to discard Ex.P36
and Ex.P37 as created documents, since other evidences are relevant to these
documents.
45) In Keher Singh and others vs State, 1988 3 SCC P609, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held,
156
“Entering into an agreement between two or more persons to do an

illegal Act or legal Act by illegal means is essential to the offence of criminal
conspiracy, and that the proving conspiracy as direct evidence is almost impossible
to be adduced.”
In this case also, conspiracy has been hatched in secrecy and hence it is difficult to
get direct evidence of the same. The Prosecution will have to necessarily rely on
evidence of Acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their
common intention. It is not necessary to prove that the parties actually came
together, and agreed in terms to pursue the unlawful object, even if there never had
been an express Verbal Agreement, it being sufficient that there was a tacit
understanding between conspirators as to what should be done.
46) Similarly, the following citations filed by the Prosecution are also
under the same pretext and wholly applies to this case.
1. CDJ 2017 SC Page 560

2. AIR 1971 SC Page 885
3. 2003 (3) SCC 641
4. 2005 (12) SCC 8631.
Therefore, if two persons pursued by their acts, the same object one
performing one part of the act and the other performing another part of the same
act, so as to complete with the view to the attainment of the object, which they are
pursuing. Therefore, the existence of conspiracy and its objects can be inferred
from the circumstances of the case and role of the accused involved in the
conspiracy. A1 has no direct overtact in this case, but he has masterminded this
conspiracy with the help of A4 to A9. The continuous role of A1 and the clinching
evidence by PW1, PW9 Vigneswaran, PW13 VAO, PW14 Baskaran, PW15
157
Manoharan, PW17 Thirumalaisamy, PW21 Kalidas, PW22 Anbalagan, and PW34

Muthulakshmi, would clearly establish, that A1 had close association with A4 to
A9, even prior to the occurrence, and has been the mastermind and instrumental,
for hatching conspiracy and execution of common object through A4 to A9. The
counsels for A1 have objected that there was delay in registration of the FIR, but
on perusal of the FIR, the event took place at 2.10 p.m., and FIR has been
registered at 6.30 p.m. Therefore, getting statement from the victim at Coimbatore
and coming back and registering the case at Udumalpet has taken reasonable time,
and the same cannot be considered as a delay. Further, the delay of the FIR
reaching the court has also been pointed out. But, PW.53 Head Constable
Rajendran, has given a satisfactory explanation as to the cause of the delay.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1, PW9, PW13 to PW15, PW21, PW22, PW25,
PW26, PW28, PW30, PW31, PW33 – PW35, PW37, PW39, PW59, and PW67,
and supporting documents are sufficient enough to establish the role of A1 for
masterminding the conspiracy for murder of Shankar, since he belonged to a
Dhalith Community, and PW1 the daughter, for having married Shankar who
belonged to the Dhalith Community.
47) Further, the defence has argued that Venkatraman who is cited as
LW118, has not been examined and he being the first person in the spot, why he
has not preferred FIR. The non-examination of LW118 Venkatraman by the
prosecution is questionable because he is the first person stated in the Charge Sheet
to have arrived at the spot and sent the victims by Ambulance and apprehended A4
Jagadeesh and A6 Manikandan during vehicle inspection. However, the defence
cannot take advantage over the lapse of the Prosecution. Moreover, it is prudent
that an injured eye witness to the occurrence will be a better first informant to give
the FIR than a person who came to the SOC after all the accused had left the place.
158
Further, the defence has questioned why a certificate was not obtained from a
Medical Officer in-charge to the effect that PW1 Kowsalya was conscious enough
to give the complaint. But, the statement of Kowsalya is not a dying declaration
and it is only an information u/s 154(1) C.R.PC which does not mandate any such
certificate of the medical officer. The date of marriage has been wrongly stated in
Ex.P1 but the mistake cannot be considered very serious or vital because the fact
that Kowsalya and Shankar led a married life in the house of Shankar since
admitted and spoken by PW1, the contradiction is not fatal. The counsel for A1
has stated that PW1 is not a reliable witness, but she is one of the victim in this
case and also a direct eye witness. Further, she has not named A4 to A8 in the
initial stage since she did not know their names at that time. Therefore, she has not
stated their names in Ex.P4 by using her imagination. But she has pointed out that
6 persons assaulted her. The number of persons stated as 6 was also questioned by
the defence but a grievious injured person stating approximately the persons
present in the seen of occurrence is sufficient proof and cannot be doubted. The
testimony of injured witness has its own significance.
48) The prosecution has placed the following citations in support of

their above arguments
1. 2017 – CRLJ – 291 SC at Page 128

2. 2015 – CRLJ – Page No.3291
49) The counsel for all the accused have relied on the following
citations
1. 2016 – 2 MWN Crl. Page 56

2. 2009 – 1 Law Weekly Crl. Page 666
159
5. 2016 – 2 PLNR – Page 121

6. 2012 – 3 MWN Crl. Page 266
7. 2012 – MLJ Crl. Page 721
8. AIR 2012 SC – 1676
9. AIR 1993 SC – 2644
10. 2016 – 3 MLJ Crl. Page 7
11. AIR 1997 SC – 3247
12. AIR 2011 SC – Page 2302
13. 2012 – Crl. Law Journal – 2673
14. 2002 SCC – Crl. – 443
15. AM 1980 SC 1160
50) The counsel for A1 has further argued, that rules 3,4,6 and 7(2)
12(3) 16, 17, 17(A), 18, and Chapeters IVA and Sec 15(a)(7) has been violated.
Rules 3 and 4 relate to the duties of Government and District Collector and is not
relevant to the investigation of this case. DW1, the Superintendent of Police and
DW6, the District Collector, who are the defence witnesses, have explained that the
District Police Administration and the District Government Administration have
correctly followed the mandatory provisions. Further, Rule 4 deals with the
appointment of Special Prosecutors for all the cases before the Special Court. This
being a sensational case, it has been dealt under section 15 of the Act 33 of 1989.
As per the citation filed by the prosecution,
1. 2013 MADLW (Crl) 2 page 438.

2. 2011 MLJ (Crl) page 222.
it has been held that trial can be conducted only by a special public prosecutor as
provided in Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, the recommendations of the
SP and District Collector, the same has been forwarded to the Government and on
160
a careful consideration, the Government has appointed the special public

prosecutors. Hence, there is no violation as stated by the defence.
51) The counsel for A1 has argued that there is violation of Rule 7
SC/ST Act in this case. But new Rule 7(2) wherein the Investigating Officer is
authorized to file the Final Report within 60 days had come into force at the time
of filing the Final Report on 24.04.2016. The prosecution has relied on
2004 (1) MLJ - Page 929.
Further, violation of Rule 7 is valid and excusable u/s 465 Cr.PC, and
the prosecution has relied on 2017 (2) MWN (Crl) Page 555 SC.
The alleged violations of other rules are not relevant to this case.
The defects alleged by the defence as to the investigation cannot be

taken advantage by the accused to escape the punishment.
Therefore, as against A1, feeling distressed that his daughter

Kowsalya married a Hindu Pallar Community Boy being a scheduled caste, has
decided to do away with his daughter and Shankar, is patent from evidence and
documents on hand. Further, conspiracy has been hatched with the help of A4 to
A9, and A1 paying money directly to A4 for execution of the murder has also been
established through relevant evidence and documents.
52) The prosecution has placed further the following citations in

support of their above arguments and the same has been perused by this Court and
has carefully considered the proposition laid down in the above cases and has
cautiously considered in the light of Principles laid down in the said citation.
1. 2014 - 2MLJ Criminal - Page 499 SC

2. 2014 – 4 MLJ Criminal – Page 611 SC
161
3. 2004 – CRLJ – Page 4826 SC

4. 2003 – Vol.XI – SCC 286
5. 1988 – 3 – SCC – Page 609
6. 2017 – CDJ – SC – Page 516
7. AIR 1971 – SC – Page 885
8. 2003 - 3 – SCC – Page 641
9. 2005 – 12 – SCC – Page 631
10. 2000 – Crl. Law Journal – SC - Page 4039
11. 2000 – 10 - SCC – Crl. – Page 582
53) The Learned Counsel for A1 in support of his arguments have placed the
following citations.
1. 1998 – Crl.L.J. – Page 4443 (MP)

2. 1990 – SC – Page 1210
3. 2009 – 8 – SCC – Page 1
4. 2008 – SC – Page 2991
5. AIR – 2000 – SC – Page 3649
6. AIR – 2007 – SC – Page 2149
7. 1976 – Crl.L.J. – Page 37
54) The citations submitted on both sides have been perused by this
Court and has carefully considered the proposition laid down in the above cases
and has cautiously considered in the light of Pirnciples laid down in the said
citation.
55) Now this Court has to examine the conspiracy and the execution
of conspiracy by A4 to A9. Accordingly, this Court is now about to evaluate the
evidence and documents as against A4 to A9 for the charges levelled against them.
162
56) PW1 to PW4, have clearly deposed before this court the
involvement of A4 to A8 in the commission of the offence. PW1 has clearly
narrated the entire occurrence which took place on 13.03.2016, at about 2.15 p.m.,
and about the involvement of A4 to A8 in committing murder of the deceased and
an attempt to commit murder upon her by A4 to A8. The witness PW1, has clearly
identified the perpetrators A4 to A8 during the identification parade, and about the
weapons M.O.1 to M.O.5 used by the persons A4 to A8. She has also identified
the clothes worn by Shankar and herself as M.O.6 to M.O.11, and she has also
deposed that she and Shankar was taken to the Udumalpet Government Hospital
for first aid, and that Shankar died on the way to Coimbatore Medical College
Hospital. She has deposed about giving the first information Ex.P4, and also she
has admitted the 164 Cr.P.C. statement given before the magistrate.
57) PW1 has clearly narrated the occurrence. She has clearly stated
that A4 to A8, armed with deadly weapons, with the common object, formed an
unlawful assembly, and that A5 Manikandan stabbed on the right side neck of
Shankar with M.O.2 knife, and pulled him down, and that A4 Jagatheesan and A6
Selvakumar cut Shankar with Aruval Knives M.O.1 and M.O.3 repeatedly, and that
injured Shankar rolled on the earth towards the South up to the Mini Van of Eswari
Departmental Stores, and that while Shankar was rolling down, A4 Jagatheesan,
A5 Manikandan, and A7 Kalaithamilvanan, were continuously cutting him with
their said Aruval Knives, and seeing this, PW1, has shouted for help, and A8
Mathan @Michael pushed her upon a red colour parked car standing nearby, and
that A4 Jagatheesan and A6 Selvakumar cut PW1 Kowsalya repeatedly with the
same Aruval Knives, and that PW1 Kowsalya fell down. This occurrence has been
clearly eye witnessed by PW1, and the involvement of A4 to A8 in committing the
163
offence and PW1 has clearly spoken as to the involvement of each of A4 to A8 role
in the commission of the offence.
58) The above occurrence has been clearly corroborated by PW2 to

PW4 without any contradictions. Further, PW2 to PW4 have clearly spoken about
A4 Jagatheesan driving away the motor cycle with A5 Manikandan and A6
Selvakumar sitting behind him as pillion riders with their weapons, and that A7
drove away the other motor cycle with A8 Mathan @ Michael as pillion rider with
their weapons. Further, PW1 to PW4 came to know the name of the accused
persons A4 to A8 only during the identification parade, when the Judicial
Magistrate PW66 asked the name of the accused when identified, and the same has
been deposed before this Court at the time of trial, and A4 to A8 were clearly
identified in open court by PW1 to PW4.
59) The Judicial Magistrate PW66 has corroborated the evidence of

PW1 to PW4. The evidence of PW1 has not only been corroborated by PW2 to
PW4, but also corroborated by PW9, PW33, and PW36. PW1 has no necessity or
enemity to give any false evidence against A1 to A8. Further, PW1 has clearly
stated that 5 persons armed with Aruval Knives committed the offence of murder
of Shankar and the offence of attempt to murder of her, and that while so, A4 and
A6 used the name of the caste of Shankar, and inflicted deadly injuries upon
Shankar, and hence the act of A4 to A8 clearly indicates that only because of
intercaste marriage between Shankar and Kowsalya, this murder has taken place.
PW1 Kowsalya has stated in her first information report, that A4 shouted against
Shankar as follows:
” லவ் சமசரஜ் ெண்ணுவியாடா ெள்ேத்தாசயாழி காதல் உனக்கு சதவவயா.
இத்துடன் நீ பசத்துத்பதாவலடா”
164
PW1 has further reiterated in Page No.5 of her Chief Examination that
A4 and A6 shouted against Shankar during the occurrence as follows:
”ெள்ேத்தாசயாழி மகசன லவ் ெண்றியாடா லவ் இத்துடன் பசத்துசொடா”
60) PW3 has corroborated the evidence of PW1 by saying that A4 and
A7 used the Caste name while assaulting Shankar. Therefore, the above portions
establish, that A1 has nurtured hatred towards PW1 and Shankar, for the reason
that Kowsalya married and lived with Shankar who belonged to a Scheduled
Caste, wherein the prosecution has proved the community of Shankar by marking
the community certificate of the deceased Shankar as Ex.P.54, against the wishes
of A1. Moreoever, none of the accused belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and that is
evidenced through the community certificates of A1 to A11 and PW1 which are
marked as Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.53.
61) PW2 is an independent eye witness, an auto driver, who was

standing in the auto stand at the time of occurrence. He is also a direct eye witness
to this occurrence. He has also categorically stated about the occurrence, and the
involvement and role of each of A4 to A8 in the offence of committing murder of
Shankar and the offence of attempt to commit murder of the witness PW1. This
witness has clearly corroborated the evidence of PW1. He has also identified A4 to
A8 in the identification parade, and also has subsequently identified the accused
before this court during trial, and has also identified the weapons used by the
accused. This witness has also deposed before this court, that he came to know
about the name of the accused only at the time of identification parade when the
Judicial Magistrate PW66, asked the name of the accused when identified. PW66
has also corroborated PW2. There is no necessity for this witness to give false
evidence as against A4 to A8.
165
62) PW3 is also an independent eye witness who is a pushcart fruit

vendor selling fruits near the Eswari Departmental Stores, near the occurrence
place. He has been the direct eye witness to this occurrence, and further he has
attempted to restrain the accused activity of assault at the occurrence place. He has
further deposed, that he was threatened by A4 to A8 while he was trying to restrain
them. He has clearly deposed about the occurrence and the involvement and role
of each of A4 to A8, corroborating PW1 and PW2. He has also specifically stated
that A4 and A7 used the name of the caste of deceased Shankar by saying
“என்னடா ெள்ேப்ெயலுக்கு காதல் திருமணம் ஒரு சகடா, பசத்துத்பதாவலடா”
63) He has also identified A4 to A8 in the test identification parade

and also before this Court during trial. He has also deposed, that he came to know
the name of the accused only at the time of identification parade, when the Judicial
Magistrate PW66 asked the name of the accused when identified. PW66 has
corroborated the same. This witness has no necessity to give false evidence as
against A4 to A8.
64) PW4 is also an independent eye witness. He was waiting in his

car near the place of occurrence for his family members, who had gone to Eswari
Departmental Stores. He has witnessed the occurrence. He has not only spoken
about the occurrence, but has videographed the accused persons after the
occurrence, through his cell phone. He has stated about the involvement of A4 to
A8 in the commission of the offence. He has also corroborated the evidence of
PW1 to PW3, and has also identified A4 to A6 and A8 in the identification parade,
and subsequently has identified A4 to A8 before this Court at the time of trial. His
evidence has been corroborated by PW66. PW4, on 17.03.2016, had appeared
before PW67, and produced his Micromax A120 cellphone, M.O.14 with 8 GB
memory card M.O.42, as to its recording of the occurrence, for investigation
166
purpose, on his own will. Further, the IO PW67, has seized them under Form 91
marked as Ex.P5, containing the signature of PW4. The IO PW67, who had
photographed A4 to A6 and A8 from various angles, after making them to wear
their respective shirts alleged to have been used during the time of the incident, and
the photographs have been marked as M.O.37 to M.O.40, which were sent along
with the DVR hard disk, cell phone with memory card, to TNFSL through court, to
find out whether the persons A4, A5, A6, and A8, had participated in the
occurrence, and that whether A4, A5, A6, and A8 are the persons found in the
CCTV footage and phone memory card recordings are one and the same persons.
65) Therefore, for the commission of offence by A4 to A8, in the

scene of occurrence, PW1 to PW4 have been the direct eye witnesses, and they
have corroborated each other, even without any minor contradictions. Further, it is
very pertinent to note, that the entire occurrence was recorded in the DVR with
hard disk through the CCTV camera, which was placed in front of the Eswari
Departmental Stores in front of which the occurrence took place. The primary
evidence, CCTV camera footage, was compared with the videograph, taken by the
witness PW4, through his cell phone, which was stored in his external memory
card. The micromax black colour phone, with memory card produced by PW4
have been marked as M.O.14 series, and the same was entered in Form 91, and
sent to JM I, Udumalpet, on the same day. Form 91 has been marked as Ex.P5.
PW4 has also identified the accused in the footage, which clearly proves the
presence of this witness during the occurrence. Further, the delay in handing over
the cell phone to the IO was clearly explained by PW4. PW4 is the author of the
video footage, and he has handed over the cell phone, and hence it has become an
undisputed evidence. PW4 has clearly identified A4 to A8 in open court, and
moreoever, he has mentioned the type of dresses and the pattern in the dress worn
167
by them, at the time of occurrence. The said video footage in the cell phone
memory card, and the CCTV camera footage were compared by the Forensic Lab,
and the sequence of the events in both the footages and identification of the
accused persons were made in the Forencic Lab. The genuineness of the video
footage in the memory card, and the snapshots in the cell phone M.O.14, M.O.47,
M.O.48, has been evidenced by PW58.
66) The efforts made by the defence to counter the chief examination
of PW1 to PW4, has utterly failed since there was no contradiction in PW1 to
PW4’s evidence. It is pertinent to note that PW1 to PW4 has withstood and
sustained the cross examination made on behalf of the accused through their
respective counsels. No major contradictions were discernible from their evidence.
The questions by the defence have not raised any doubt in the mind of the court to
disbelieve PW1 to PW4. Therefore, PW1 to PW4 evidence is considered as a
strong and material evidence in this case.
67) Shankar has died of shock and hemorrhage due to the cut and stab
injuries which would have been caused by M.O.1 to M.O.5 Aruval knives, is the
opinion of the doctor. On 13.03.2016, just after 2.12 p.m. Shankar and PW1 were
taken away from the SOC after the assault, to the Government Hospital,
Udumalpet, and both have informed PW44, Dr.Priyalakshmi, that some persons
have attacked them with the knives near Udumalpet Bus Stand at about 2.10 p.m.
PW44 had noticed a deep cut wound on the right side neck of Shankar, and also
other injuries. PW44 had given first aid medical treatment for both of them and
had forwarded them to the CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, for further treatment. She
has issued Ex.P.55 AR copy for Shankar and Ex.P.56 wound certificate for
Kowsalya. As per the opinion of PW44, the head injury on Kowsalya was found to
be grievious. She has raised her opinion basing on the CT scan results forwarded
168
to her by the CMC Hospital. She has also given her expert opinion, that the
injuries on Shankar and Kowsalya could have been caused by M.O.1 to M.O.5
Aruval knives shown to her in the open court.
68) PW45, Dr. Muthuraja, who is a tutor in Trauma Ward and Medical
Officer of the Emergency Ward, of the CMC Hospital Coimbatore, has deposed,
that he took CT Scan for PW1 Kowsalya on 13.03.2016, and that he noticed all the
injuries on her, and that the CT scan results exposed a bone fracture caused on
13.03.2016 at about 2.15 p.m. He has also stated that the weapons shown to him
are likely to have caused those injuries.
69) PW46, Dr.Kulandaivelu, senior medical officer of the Forensic

Department, CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, has deposed that he conducted
postmortem on the dead body of Shankar on 14.03.2016 at 12.45 p.m., and that he
found 32 injuries on him. He has given his opinion that Shankar died of shock and
hemorrhage due to the cut and stab injuries. He has also stated that the injuries
could have been caused by the weapons M.O.1 to M.O.5 shown in the court. He
has issued Ex.P.57, the postmortem certificate, and Ex.P.58, the final opinion.
70) Therefore, the evidence of PW1, PW44, PW45, and PW46 are
very clear as to the injuries on PW1 and the cause of death of Shankar, due to cut
and stab injuries. The cross examination by defence of PW44 to PW46 has not
disproved the injuries present on PW1 and Shankar. The cross examination does
not contain any vital material to absolve A4 to A8 from their role of assault with
M.O.1 to M.O.5.
71) The investigating officer, PW67, has forwarded the stained

materials through learned JM No.1, Udumalpet, to the Regional Forensic Science
Lab, Coimbatore, and Tamil Nadu Forensic Lab, Chennai. PW47,
Dr.Venkateswaran, Junior Scientific Officer of Regional Forencic Science Lab of
169
Coimbatore on receipt of letter from JM1, Udumalpet, in serial No.373/2013 dated

18.03.2016, Ex.P.59, was sent with 15 material objects. PW47 after examination,
he has noticed blood in item no.1,3,5 to 8, 10, 11,13,14, and 15 and forwarded the
same to Tamil Nadu Forencic Science Lab, Chennai, for finding out the blood
group. PW47 has submitted his report in Ex.P60, dated 22.03.2016 to JM1,
Udumalpet. Item No.1, is the small quantity of mud. Item No.3 is Mud. Item No.5,
the torn portion of M.O.9, dark blue colour half hand T-Shirt. Item No.6, torn
portion from M.O.10 of the light blue coloured Jeans Pant. Item No.7, torn portion
from M.O.11, dark blue coloured panties. Item No.8, is M.O.24, green coloured
full-hand shirt. Item No.10 is M.O.2, 65.5 cm long knife with wooden handle.
Item No.11 is M.O.3, 51.5 cm long knife with wooden handle. Item No.13 is
M.O.8, torn violet and brown coloured shawl of PW1. Item No.14, M.O.6,
Chudithar top of PW1. Item No.15, M.O.7, brown colour Chudithar pants of PW1.
72) All the above M.O.s had blood stains. Further PW47 had received
M.O.5 knife from JM 1, Udumalpet, on 13.04.2016, and sent it to the Forencic Lab
Chennai for serology test, and the above was analyzed by Tmt.Nalina, scientific
assistant, TNFSL, Chennai, and she has offered her opinion that item No.10 and
11, knives, contained “O” group blood, and are M.O.2 and M.O.3. Further, the
opinion as to M.O.9 to M.O.11 was also confirmed to contain “O” positive group
blood. Similarly, M.O.6 and M.O.7, clothes of PW1 has been opined to contain
“O” positive group blood. Further, item No.8, M.O.24, which is the green
coloured shirt of A4 has also been confirmed to contain human blood of “O”
positive group. The Serology report Ex.P.60 and Ex.P.61 confirms the same. It
was argued by the defence that there were no blood stains in item No.2, 4, 9, and
12, but PW47, Venkateswaran, Junior Scientific Assistant at Coimbatore Forencic
Science Lab has deposed, that there were blood stains found in item No.1, 3, 6 to 8,
170
10, 11, 13 to 15. In the serology report dated 06.04.2016, Ex.P.121, the deceased
Shankar’s blood group is stated to be “O” positive.
73) Therefore, the Forencic Science evidence as to the human blood

group found on M.O.6, 7, 9 – 11, of Shankar and PW1, correlates to blood group
found in M.O.10 and M.O.11 knives and M.O.24.
74) Therefore, the fact that blood stains have been found in some of
the weapons and clothes seized from the accused, as well as the deceased and the
victim PW1, in consideration to the serology report and blood grouping is
sufficient to prove the involvement of the accused in the occurrence. The overtact
of the accused is already clear with ocular evidence, and as well as video footage
coverage. So the role of A4 to A8 in commission of the offence does not stand to
be disputed.
75) Since the Forencic Science experts’ opinion is also against the
accused A4 to A8, whether the clothes and the weapons have been seized from A4
to A8, and whether they have used the same at the time of occurrence is the next
aspect this court has to evaluate.
76) Whether there is evidence of overtacts of the accused A4 to A8 is

available or not, the answer would be that there is sufficient evidence to attribute
the overtacts of A4 to A8 in the scene of occurrence. PW1 to PW3 have clearly
spoken about the overtacts of the accused. The overtacts have been specifically
spoken by P.W.1 to P.W.3. PW1 and Shankar, on 13.03.2016, between 2.11 p.m. to
2.13 p.m. on the southern side of the Thar road, running east-west from Palani to
Pollachi, south to the Bus Stand at Udumalpet, Shankar and PW1, had entered the
said road by walking from the southern side of the road by the side of Eswari
Departmental Stores, which is housed at UKP Complex, and while waiting to cross
the Thar portion of the road, due to traffic, at that time, A5 and A6 who had also
171
come from the same direction by walk and has proceeded towards Shankar and
PW1 Kowsalya, A10 is alleged to have followed them. (As regards A10, role in
this occurrence, it would be taken up later). Meanwhile, a motor cycle bearing
registration no.TN57 AS 2340 had come from west and parked on the road, and A4
had got down from it and another motor cycle Bajaj Discover without registration
number had come and parked behind the first motor cycle, and from the same A7
and A8 got down and A4 taking out the Aruval Knife from his waist, and also A7
taking an Aruval from his waist, and A6 also taking an Aruval Knife from the
numberless motor cycle, and A5 placing his knife in the rear motor cycle and
taking out a bigger size Aruval from the same motor cycle, and A7 taking an
Aruval from the rear motor cycle, and A5 stabbing on the neck of Shankar from
behind, and pushing him down, and A8 pushing PW1 against the nearby parked
car, and A4 and A6 cutting Shankar repeatedly with an Aruval knife, and A6
proceeding to PW1 Kowsalya and cutting her, and A4 also joining A6 and cutting
her with Aruval Knife repeatedly, and Shankar rolling down towards south, and A5
and A6 continuously cutting with Aruval knives, and after finishing the attack on
Shankar and PW1, A7 and A8 escapes in the numberless motor cycle, and A4 to A6
escapes in a pulsar motor cycle TN 57 AS 2340 towards west along pollachi road,
and that during the above said occurrence, A4 had intentionally insulted Shankar
using his caste name, and that the other accused A5 to A10 formed an unlawful
assembly u/s 149 IPC.
77) The above overtacts and the uttering of caste name have been eye
witnessed fullfleged by PW1 to PW3. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, as to the
occurrence and overtacts of A4 to A8, is cogent and consistent with each other.
The witnesses did not have any difficulty to identify the accused. The evidences of
PW1 to PW3 does not seem to have been shattered by the lengthy cross
172
examination of the defence, and further the defence has not specifically attacked
the overtact of A4 to A8, during their cross examination.
78) The actual occurrence of the attack of Shankar and PW1, by A4 to

A8 has been captured in the CCTV camera at Eswari Departmental Stores. PW4
has also captured the photos of the accused, while leaving from the spot. As to this
CCTV footage and videograph in the cell phone, will be taken up for discussion
later, after ascertainment of recovery of weapons and corresponding medical
evidence and links of A1 and A4 to A8.
79) In this case, M.O.1 to M.O.5 Aruval Knives, is alleged to have

been used in the occurrence, and is also alleged to have been recovered from A4 to
A8 by PW 67, after their arrest. PW1 to PW3, have identified the weapons used by
A4 to A8 at SOC. The CCTV footage played in this open court has exhibited the
use of weapons very clearly. Further, PW44 to PW46 have also expressed their
expert opinion that M.O.1 to M.O.5, could have caused the injuries found on PW1
and deceased Shankar.
80) During the investigation of PW67, IO, he has arrested A4

Jagatheesan and A5 Manikandan, on 15.03.2016 at 8 a.m., at Pethampatti Check
post, who were detained by Inspector Venkatraman. The IO, had recorded the
confession statements of A4 and A5, in the presence of PW12, Thoubiq Raja, VAO,
and his assistant Vijaykumar. In A4’s confession, he has confessed to produce 3
knives, and point out the place of concealment of three knives, and has confessed
to produce them. He has further confessed to produce his blood-stained shirt and
the blood-stained shirt of A6 Selvakumar and A5 Manikandan. Further, a two-
wheeler bike M.O.12 bearing registration no. TN57 AS 2340, and cash of
Rs.24,000/- M.O. 23, was seized and the admissible portion of the confession by
A4 u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, is marked as Ex.P16 and Ex.P18. Further,
173
PW12, has witnessed the recovery of M.O.24, the blood-stained shirt of A4 and
M.O.25 – shirt of A6, and Mo.26 – shirt of A5 and M.O.27 – saffron colour towel
of A5 and the three knives M.O.1 to M.O.3. The seizure mahazer has been marked
as Ex.P19. This evidence for recovery is admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
This evidence corroborates the evidence of PW1 to PW4, PW58, PW62, and
PW67, on material circumstances.
81) PW11, Eswaran, is the VAO, who has stood as witness for the
confession given by A6, A8, and A11. He has also stood as the witness for
recovery of two-wheeler bike M.O.13 (without registration number), and cash
Rs.20,000/- M.O.21 from A6. The admissible portion of the confession given by
the above said accused persons, has been marked as Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. Further, in
the presence of PW11, M.O.22 Shirt of A8, and M.O.4 the weapon used by A8, has
been seized through Seizure Mahazar Ex.P15. The evidence of this witness is
admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. His evidence has been corroborated by
PW1 to P.W.4 and PW67, in the relevant circumstances.
82) PW67 recorded the confession statement of A7 Kalaithamilvanan

on 06.04.2016 at 7.30 p.m. at Udumalpet PS in the presence of PW19,
Gopalakrishnan, Panchayat Vice-President of Kurichikottai Village, and Gandhi
Selvam. A7 has confessed, that he will point out and produce the knife. Ex.P26 is
the admissible portion of the confession of A7. PW19 has stated, that PW67
displayed the video clippings in his laptop to A7, and A7 identified himself at the
occurrence as the person who drove the motor cycle.
83) PW20, Suresh, is the owner cum driver of TATA ACE, TN57 AY
2522, at Kumaralingam. He has deposed, that on 06.04.2016, at about 01.50 p.m.
in the presence of himself and his friend Vignesh, A7 Kalaithamilvanan, took out
M.O.5 knife from a bush near the bridge at Kuthirai River along Kumaralingam –
174
Palani Road, and produced it to PW67, and that PW67 seized the knife under the
seizure mahazar Ex.P27, which has been attested by PW20 and Vignesh. PW20
has identified A7 in the court.
84) Therefore, all the five knives M.O.1 to 5 were recovered u/s 27 of
Indian Evidence Act, and the same have been forwarded to Regionial Forencic
Science Lab, Coimbatore through JM 1, Udumalpet, and PW47, Venkatraman, the
scientific assistant, has examined them, and has detected blood on M.O.1 to M.O.3
used by A4 Jagatheesan, A5 Manikandan, and A6 Selvakumar respectively. The
defence argued, that the recovery of material objects alleged to have been used by
other accused have not been seized directly from them, would fail the case of the
prosecution. But, in this case, the properties have been recovered under the
principle embodied u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Herein, in this case, no
explanation has been offered by the accused, with respect to presence of human
blood in the clothes and in the weapon, which was seized on the instance of the
accused. In Pulukuri Kottayya Vs King Emperor (AIR 1947 – PC – 67) is an
authority for the proposition that “fact discovered” envisaged u/s 27 of Indian
Evidence Act 1872 embraces the place from which the object was produced, the
knowledge of the accused as to it. The condition necessary to bring the section
into operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer must be
deposed to, and there upon so much of the information as related distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered may be proved. The information supplied by a person in
custody should be one which leads to the discovery of the fact which the accused
has knowledge and if the material so discovered is proved to have been used in the
commission of the offence, then the facts so discovered would be relevant.
175
Therefore, in this case, the recovery leading to discovery of fact comes within the
purview of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
85) The prosecution has relied the following citations, for the above
arguments:
1. 2017 Crl.Law Journal – Page 1551.

2. 2017 – Crl.Law Journal – Page 998
3. 2017 – Crl.Law Journal – Page 2904
4. 2015 - Crl.Law Journal – Page 4021
5. 2002 – Crl.MLJ – Page 1641
6. 1955 – SC – Page 801.
7. 2000 – SCC Crl. Page 263.
86) The learned counsel for A4 to A8 has relied the following

citations, for the above arguments.
1. 2013 – 1 MWL Crl. Page 631

2. 2017 – 1 Law Weekly – Crl. – Page 164
3. 2004 – 2 TNLR – Page 184
4. 2014 – 1 – Law Weekly – Crl. Page 579.
5. 2013 – 1 – Law Weekly – Crl. Page 633.
6. 2017 – 1 – Law Weekly – Crl. Page 130
87) The citations submitted on both sides have been perused by this
Court and has carefully considered the proposition laid down in the above cases
and has cautiously considered in the light of Principles laid down in the said
citations.
88) Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to prove the link of A1,

with A4 to A8, and the involvement and role of A4 to A8 in the commission of
offence. Since A1 did not approve the marriage of Kowsalya and Shankar, A1
developed an intention to murder both Shankar and PW1, for which sufficient oral
and documentary evidences have established the same. In furtherance of A1’s
176
conspiracy, and payment for committing the offence PW37 Kumar, the Manager of
the State Bank of India Palani branch has clearly deposed the withdrawal of
Rs.50,000/- from ATM from the joint account No.31133252662 of A1 and A2 on
26.02.2016 and 28.02.2016. As per the confession of A4, and A6, a sum of
Rs.24,000/- leading to recovery from A4, and a sum of Rs.26,000/- leading to
recovery from A6, has been made. Accordingly, Rs.24000 has been seized by
PW67, M.O. 23 series, and Rs.20,000 from A6 Selvakumar, M.O.24 series. A4
and A6 have not explained, for the possession of the said money, and further too,
the counsel for A1, has suggested that the money seized, is the money of A1,
withdrawn for his domestic expenses. Therefore, there is no plausible explanation
on the side of A4 and A6, how A1’s money has reached their hands. The counsel
for A4 and A6 has simply denied and has not disproved the seizure of the amount
through effective cross examination.
89) Moreover, PW67 has seized mobile phones from the accused.
They are:
1. Phone Number 9585700205, Vodafone from A2, Annalakshmi.

2. Phone Number 9894575971, Airtel from A5, Manikandan.
3. Phone Number 9715829615, Aircel from A5, Manikandan.
4. Phone Number 8148917570, Tata Docomo from A6, Selvakumar.
5. Phone Number 7305363926, Reliance from Michael @ Mathan
6. Phone Number 7094532388, Vodafone used by Dhanraj.
7. Phone Number 8526009506, Aircel used by A10, Prasannakumar.
8. Phone Number 9677490925, Airtel used by A1, Chinnasamy.
90) A1 and A9 have used the cellphones in their own names. A5

Manikandan, has used the Aircel 9894575791 which stands in the name of his
father. A5 had further used another phone Aircel 9715829615 in another fictitious
177
name. A10 had used the sim card of PW27.
91) PW60, Ashokkumar, the VAO of Suleswaranpatti, has deposed,

that there was no such person in the s aid address, and that the phone of A6
Selvakumar Tata Docomo 8148917570, was in some other unconnected persons
name, and that A8 Mathan’s Reliance Phone no.7305363926 was in the name of
some fictitious person.
92) The Call Data Records (CDR) was collected by the Investigating
Officer, from the Nodal officers of the respective cellphone companies, wherein,
PW56 Sunil, the Nodal Officer of Vodafone, PW57 Vijayakumar Raja, Nodal
Officer of Aircel, and PW59 Joseph Paulraj, Nodal Officer of Airtel, have been
examined before this Court. PW56 has clearly deposed and has produced the
CDRs for 7094532388 of A9, and the same has been marked as Ex.69. Further, he
has stated that the phone number stands in the name of A9 only. A9 has used the
phone on 13.03.2016 at 2.20 p.m. near the SOC at C.K.Road, Dhali Road, at
Udumalpet, and the call was an incoming call from A8 accused.
93) PW57, Vijayakumar Raja, has deposed before this Court as to the
Phone connection no.9715829615, Aircel, used by A5, and Phone No.8526009506,
used by A10. He has further deposed, that A5 had received an incoming call on
13.03.2016 at 2.04 p.m., at the tower location at Malayangounden pudur, uralpatti
at Udumalpet itself. He has further stated that the Phone of A10 has been used on
13.03.2016 at 2.22 p.m., at the tower location of Malayaman Building, Palani Road
at Udumalpet. He has further stated that it was an outgoing of A10 to A6.
94) PW59, David Joseph Paulraj, has deposed that the phone
connection number 9677490925, was in the name of A1, and that another phone
number 9894575791, was in the name of A5s’ father Marimuthu, and that it was
used on 13.03.2016 at 1.50 p.m., in the tower location at Kuppampalayam, and that
178
it was an incoming call. The CDR particulars of phone number 8148917570, Tata
Docomo, has been found to be in the false name, and that has been marked as
Ex.P119 series. The call particulars of CDR Reliance phone Number of A8
No.7305363926, is marked as Ex.P120, which contains a false address. The Nodal
Officers have certified under section 65 (b) Evidence Act for its authenticity.
95) The investigating officer, in his evidence before court, has given
the detailed account of the usages of these cell phones used by A1, A5, A6, A8 to
A10 on 13.03.2016, for the crucial crime hours, before and after. He has evidenced
that A5 used 2 cell phones, and A6 used 1 cell phone, and A8 used 1 cell phone,
and A9 used 1 cell phone, and A10 used 1 cell phone, on 13.03.2016 near
Udumalpet during the phase of occurrence. Further, prior to the occurrence, A1
has contacted A2, A8, and A9 over his cellphone, and A5 has contacted A6 and A9
over cellphone, and A6 has contacted A8 over cellphone, and A8 has contacted A5
over cellphone, and A9 has contacted A5, A6, and A10 over cellphone, and A10
has contacted A6 over cellphone, repeatedly. Therefore, prior to the occurrence,
and after the occurrence, the oral evidence and documentary evidence, has thus
established, that the said accused were in frequent contact, and that they were
present at Udumalpet, at the time of occurrence. In fact, A1’s conspiracy with the
accused has been further strengthened by the evidence, that A1 had contacted A8
on 01.03.2016, and that he received incoming call from A8 on 02.03.2016, and
further an incoming call from A9 on 06.03.2016. The contact between A1 and A2
since being husband and wife, the probability cannot be considered as a remote
one. A2 has not contacted any of the accused apart from her husband A1.
96) On the side of the defence, they have not disputed the CDRs in
their cross examination or in their 313 (1) (b) Cr.PC questioning, in respect of the
mobile phone interactions.
179
97) Therefore, the prosecution eye witnesses, and other related

witnesses, the medical evidence, the Forencic Science evidence, and the evidence
for overtact of accused, and the corresponding evidences, and the evidences for
Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, amended in 2015, has strengthened the
prosecution case, and has established the involvement and role of A1, A4 to A8 for
conspiracy and commission of offence.
98) The entire occurrence has been captured by the CCTV Camera
installed at Eswari Departmental Stores, and the entire incident has got recorded in
the DVR, and on account of which, this Court was able to view it in the open court.
Therefore, it is pertinent to note, that the primary evidence including the DVR with
hard disk, and the cell phone with original memory card were seized, and was sent
to TNFSL, and later produced before this Court and marked as evidence. In this
case, primary evidence of the video footages were marked. The primary evidence
of the video were displayed before this Court, and this Court has viewed the same
in a wide screen played in the open court. Copy of this video footages have been
furnished to all the accused when the primary evidence of the video was played in
open court. The prosecution has relied on the Judgement 2016-2 MLJ Crl. Page
715 K.Ramajeyan @ Appu versus Inspector of Police.
This Court in obedience to the above citations have followed the

principles laid down in the said citation.
99) PW7, Amalanathan, the owner of Eswari Departmental Stores has

deposed before court, that he has installed CCTV camera in front of the Eswari
Departmental Stores, and that he has fixed the CCTV camera at his shop focusing
the road, in front of his Shop. He has clearly answered in the cross of A4 to A9
that he did fix the CCTV camera at his shop focusing the road. The presence of
CCTV Camera, and its automatic coverage, therefore, stands established.
180
100) PW8, Thangavelu, the scientific assistant who assisted the

investigating officer in the seizure of the DVR, with hard disk which has been
marked as M.O.19, and adopter with wire which has been marked as M.O.20,
concerning the CCTV footage at Eswari Departmental Stores, has corroborated the
evidence of PW7, as to the CCTV camera which was focusing the road. PW8 has
also confirmed his statement in his cross examination. The seizure mahazar has
been prepared in the presence of PW7, and the same has been marked as Ex.P8.
101) The CCTV footage and the mobile phone footage in this case are
the most clinching evidence against A4 to A8 in this case. In obedience to the
citation of our Hon’ble High Court reported in 2016 – 2 MLJ Crl. Page 715, the
observation made in that case as to the morphological study of the photograph of
the accused along with a CCTV footage was considered as a clinching evidence,
which circumstances are clearly present in this case as well.
102) Further, as per the observation of the above citation, in this case
also, the investigation officer, PW67, has carefully adopted the method in sending
the digital video recording (DVR) to TNFSL for comparing the pictures in the
video along with the specimen photos of A4 to A8 which are marked as M.O. 37 to
M.O.40, and M.O.43 to M.O.45, as to the recordings, and also a report of the
events has been obtained, and the same has been marked as Ex.P.10. Further, in
this case, the morphological study of the photographs of the accused by
Pushparani, PW24, the scientific officer, and her report Ex.P12 stands to be clear
and acceptable, to infer that the assailants in the CCTV footage are the accused A4
to A8. The above evidence of PW24 is relevant u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act
1872, wherein, the court accepts the report.
103) In the present case, the entire occurrence, since was captured by
the CCTV camera fixed in the Eswari Departmental Stores, and the events which
181
had automatically got recorded in the DVR, and on account of which this court had
the opportunity to view the occurrence in the open court in the presence of all the
accused, their counsels, and prosecutors.
104) The evidence from CCTV footage, and the mobile phone
footage, are the highlights of the prosecution testimony, along with the eye
witnesses, oral and other witnesses, oral and documentary evidence. The above
footages have cumulatively strenghthened the testimony of the prosecution in this
case.
105) On the side of the defence, they have questioned the right of the
investigating officer in photographing A4 to A10 without permission of the court.
The investigating officer has deposed in the cross examination, that he has
photographed the said accused only after the arrest, but before the Judicial remand
and the prosecution has argued, that no violation of the provisions of the
Identification of the Prisoners Act has been committed. Further, even if violations
committed, as per the Hon’ble citations in 2016 – 2 MLJ Crl. Page 715, and AIR
2005 SC – 733 and 2005 – 3 SCC 169, the evidence collected illegally on violation
of procedural law, will not become inadmissible.
106) In this case, the rare situation is that, there is a coverage of the
occurrence in the CCTV and video phone footage. Therefore, for comparision of
the persons, the photographs were necessarily required by the experts for analysis
and opinion. For the above decision, I rely on 2014-2-MLJ Crl. Page 41.
107) Further, with regard to the video footages, the defence counsel
has not challenged, and hence the said video footages with the experts evidence of
PW58 and PW62 stands unshaken.
182
109) PW58, Tmt. Pushparani, who is working as the Scientific Officer

in Tamilnadu Forence Science Lab at Mylapore Chennai, who has got 15 years
experience in Anthropology, has deposed the salient features of her analysis. She
has stated, that on 18.03.2016, she received 4 colour photographs of A4
Jagatheesan, M.O.37 series, 4 photographs of A5 Manikandan, M.O.38 series, 4
photographs of A6 Selvakumar, M.O. 39 series, and 4 photographs of A8 Madhan
@ Michael, M.O.40 series, through JM I, Udumalpet, in Udumalpet PS
Cr.No.194/2016 through S.I. Jawahar with a covering letter of the Court, and the
documents have been marked as Ex.P80 series. She has further stated that she
received M.O.19 digital video recorder (DVR), M.O.20 power adaptor, M.O.41
compact disk, and Micromax Cell Phone M.O.14 with the memory card inside it.
She has deposed before the court corroborating with her report in Ex.P81. She has
clearly deposed before the court, the manner she had compared the said
photographs with the compact CD, as to the prominent morphological (facial)
features observed in the faces of each individuals seen in the photographs. She,
after a detailed analysis, upon the anthropholigical identification of A4, A5, A6 and
A8, has also analysed the videographs recorded from 2 p.m. to 2.20 p.m. on
13.03.2016 in the CCTV camera No.10 of Eswari Departmental Stores, and also
has analysed the videograph footage recorded in the cell phone memory card
M.O.42 in DCIM folder, in VID20160314/141953, to confirm the identity of the
accused A4, A5, A6, and A8. PW58 has stated that both the videos were played
through VLC software for analysis. Further too, she has given detail of each frame
as follows:
1) At 2:00:00 P.M., the video footage starts showing the view of a market place,
2) At 2:11:36 PM the victims (a boy wearing blue T-shirt and a girl wearing
pinkish salwar kameez) come in the view of the camera and are seen proceeding towards
183
the road.
3) At 2:11:50 PM two men, one wearing a maroon full sleeved shirt, light blue
jeans with yellow towel around the neck and the other wearing white base full sleeved
shirt with dark colour cross stripes and dark blue jeans, enter the view of the camera one
by one.
4) At 2:11:54 PM another man wearing white based full sleeved shirt with dark
colour vertical stripes enter the view of the camera and appoaches the two men
mentioned in point no.3.
5) At 2:12:00 PM a man on a bike wearing green colour full sleeved shirt enters
the view of the camera. He parks the bike near the road behind the victims.
6) At 2:12:04 PM two men enter the view of the camera in another bike, one
wearing helmet and the other wearing white shirt with stripes.
7) Between 2:12:22 PM and 2:12:47 PM the two men mentioned in point no.3
along with the man mentioned in point no.5 and the man wearing helmet mentioned in
point no.5 are seen brutally attacking the victims.
8) At 2:12:50 PM the two men mentioned in point no.6 leave the scene by a bike.
9) At 2:13:16 PM the two men mentioned in point no.3 along with the man
mentioned in point no.5 leave the scene by another bike.
110) She has also analysed frame by frame as to the cell phone
recording in M.O.18, and she has detailed the occurrence of video recording of 1
minute and 27 seconds as mentioned below:
1) At 00:00 sec. a man in full sleeved shirt with multicolour cross stripes with dark
blue jeans wearing helmet starts moving towards the camera.
2) At 00:02 sec. a man wearing a maroon full sleeved shirt with light blue jeans
and yellow towel around the neck and holding a sword like weapon in his right hand,
starts moving towards the camera and turns away from the camera view at 00:03 sec.
184
3) At 00:06 sec. the man mentioned in point no.1 along with a man wearing white
base full sleeved shirt with dark colour stripes are seen getting on the bike and going out
of the view at 00:10 sec.
4) At 00:16 sec. a man wearing full sleeved shirt with grey, white and yellow
colour cross stripes with dark blue jeans and holding a sword like weapon in his right
hand, starts moving towards the camera and turns away from camera view at 00:18 sec.
5) At 00:28 sec. a man wearing green colour full sleeved shirt with dark blue
jeans, starts moving on a single bike along with the two men mentioned in the point nos.
2 & 4 and go out of the view of the camera at 00:32 sec.
6) At 01:13 sec. camera starts focusing on one of the victims wearing blue colour
T-shirt and blue jeans lying in a pool of blood.
111) She has deposed that even though the morphological features of
the individuals were not very clear in the video footage recorded in the CCTV
camera No.10, but from the morphological features of each accused gait pattern,
shirts, hair, anatomical features, etc., has been stated to have been carefully
examined, and the factors and the additional parameters has been stated to have
been used by the experts, to identify the individuals, and the same has been
explained in Annexure I of the analytical report Ex.81. She has given the opinion
in Ex.81 report in Anthro No.52/2016 dated 23.03.2016 as follows:
1) The individual seen in the photographs, items 1 to 4 and the individual wearing
full sleeved green colour shirt with dark blue jeans appearing in the video VID-
20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could be the same male individual.
In court, PW58, has identified A4 Jagatheesan as to the above opinion

with regard to morphological study and dress.
2) The individual seen in photographs, items 5 to 8 and the individual wearing full
sleeved maroon colour shirt with light blue jeans and yellow towel around the neck
185
appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could be the same male
individual.
In court, PW58, has identified A5 Manikandan as to the above opinion

with regard to morphological study and dress

wearing full sleeved shirt with grey, white and yellow colour cross stripes and dark blue
jeans appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18 could be the same male
individual.
In court, PW58, has identified A6 Selvakumar as to the above opinion

with regard to morphological study and dress
4) The identity of the individual wearing full sleeved shirt with multicolour cross
stripes and dark blue jeans appearing in the video VID- 20160314 – 141953 in item 18
could not be established using the face morphology since he was wearing a helmet.
In court, PW58, has identified A8 Madhan @ Michael, as one of the

same person, even though he had worn helmet, through the morphological study,
dress, and gait, as to the above opinion.
5) The individuals seen in the photographs items 1-16 and the identified
individuals in the video footage item 18 and the individuals involved in the brutal attack
in the video footage item 17 could be the same male individuals. The parameters
mentioned other than face morphology were also considered for establishing the identity
of the individuals involved in the above incident.
Therefore, PW58 has clearly identified A4 to A6, and A8 as to involvement in the

gruesome murder of Shankar and grievious assault of PW1. She has clearly given
the opinion that the assailants in object 17 (CCTV footage) and object 18 (Cell
Phone footage) video recording are one and the same.
186
112) PW58 has deposed that she received 5 photographs in M.O.43

series of A10 Prasannakumar, whose discussion is to be taken later, and 8
photographs of A9 Stephen Dhanraj in M.O.44 series, and 10 Photographs of A7
Kalaithamilvanan @ Tamil in M.O.45 series on 31.03.2016, through the same Sub
Inspector Jawahar, and the requisition letter and the connected records have been
marked as Ex.P.82. The photographs of A10 Prasanna is marked as M.O.43, and
that of A9 Stephen Dhanraj M.O.44 and that of A7 Kalaithamilvanan, M.O.45.
113) PW 58, has made comparision of the photographs with object 17

CCTV footage and object 18 Cellphone footage and also has analysed the
prominent morphological (facial) features observed in the face of the individuals as
seen in the photographs, she has correctly identified A7 Kalaithamilvanan @
Tamil. Her opinion is that, A7 Kalaithamilvanan seen in the photograph and the
individual wearing white based full sleeve shirt with dark coloured stripes,
appearing in the video footage, Object 18, and A7 Kalaithamilvanan as to the
individual mentioned in point No.6, under observation 1 of P.W.58’s report,
Ex.P.81, Anthro No.52/16, involving in the brutal attack along with other
individuals in the video footage object 17, has been identified as one and the same
male individual, i.e. A7 Kalaithamilvanan. PW58 has submitted her report in
Anthro No.60/2016 dated 18.04.2016, and the same is marked as Ex.P.85.
114) As to A9 Stephen Dhanraj, PW58, after analyzing the

descriptions and the prominent morphological (facial) features, has stated that she
could not identify since the morphological (facial) features in the individual
appearing in the CCTV video footage in object 17, could not be studied clearly,
due to long shot view, and hence the morphological (facial) features, was not in a
position to be compared with the photographs of A9. PW58 has submitted her
report in Anthro No.59/2016 dated 06.04.2016, and the same is marked as Ex.P.83.
187
115) Therefore, PW58 through her expert analysis has identified A4,
A5, A6, A7, and A8, as the persons involved in the gruesome attack at the place of
occurrence on 13.03.2016.
116) Further, adding to PW58’s evidence, PW62 Hemalatha, who is

working as Assitant Director of TNFSL, Chennai, in the Department of
scrutinizing video clippings has corroborated the evidence of P.W.58. P.W.62 has
put in 25 years of service in this regard, and she, after careful inspection of the
M.O.19, M.O.20, M.O.41, M.O.14, and M.O.42, has deposed regarding her
inspection, frame by frame. She has specifically deposed each frame, as to the
contents in the DVR. She has certified that the DVR was attached to the power
adaptor, and that the DVR was in a working condition. P.W.62 has examined the
recordings of the happenings in Camera No.10, and analyzed from camera No.10,
for sequences from 03.03.2016 at 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., 04.03.2016 to 08.03.2016 from
8.45 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. and 09.03.2016 from 08.45 a.m. to 16.03.2016 to 11.30
a.m. She has stated that the occurrence has taken place on 13.03.2016 from 2 p.m.
to 3 p.m. along the road in front of the Commercial Complex, recorded in Camera
No.10, and that when examined with the help of “AMPED FIVE” instrument, she
has found 89,997 frames in the time limit.
117) She has noticed during her inspection that a male and female
entered in to the field of view at 2.11.37 p.m. in camera No.10, and after the
occurrence, they were lifted from the SOC in an ambulance at 2.17.36 p.m. She
has observed the following during the inspection.
118) For easy identification, each of the victims and suspects involved in the
alleged incident, she has designated codes based on the attire they were wearing.
The details of them along with the codes assigned are enumerated hereunder:-
a) The code assigned for a male individual in blue T-shirt and blue jeans was V-1,
188
b) The code assigned for a female individual in violet/brownish salwar—kameez

was V 2,
c) The code assigned for a male individual in reddish brown shirt with a yellowish
cloth around his neck was S1
d) The code assigned for a male individual in a cross striped whitish shirt was S2
e) The code assigned for a male individual in thick striped whitish shirt was S3
f) The code assigned for a male individual in greenish shirt was S4
g) The code assigned for a male individual in whitish shirt was S5
h) The code assigned for a male individual wearing helmet was S6
119) The details of the sequence of events of the alleged incident that took place
on 13.03.2016, involving the above mentioned individuals are furnished below:
1) Victims (V1 & V2) enters the field of view of camera 10 from left side at about
02:11:37 p.m. in frame number 17423
2) S1 and S2 enters the field of view of camera 10 from left side at about 02:11:50
p.m. in frame number 17758
3) S3 comes running from left side and joins S1 & S2 who are standing and
conversing in front of the shop at about 02.11.55 p.m. in frame no. 17895
4) S4 enters the field of view at a distance, on the road, from the left side, on a
motor cycle (M1) at about 02:11:57 p.m. in frame no. 17923
5) Victims V1 and V2 come to a halt near a parked red car and keeps waiting at
02:11:59 p.m. in frame no. 17986
6) S4 moves towards the red car in motorcycle (M1) and another motor cycle (M2)
carrying S5 and S6 enters the field of view and is parked behind a Stationary white van
bearing letters, “...ஈஸ்வரி…” at about 02:12:03 p.m. in frame no. 18075
7) S4 stops his motorcycle (M1) by the side of the parked red car at about
189
02:12:09 p.m. in frame no. 18245
8) S1 and S2 walk towards S4 and all the three of them stand beside the parked red
car and converse at about 02:12:13 in frame no.18337
9) S2 moves towards the parked motorcycle (M2) and appears to take something
from the motorcycle M2, while S5 remains near the motorcycle M2 & S6 moves towards
the victim V1 & V2 at about 02:12:19 p.m. in frame no.18479
10) S1, S2, S4 and S6 attacks the victims V1 and V2 at about 02:12:22 p.m. in
frame no. 18565
11) Victims V1 is attacked by S1, S4 and S5 and he rolls after the attack and goes
behind the parked white van, “...ஈஸ்வரி…” and is out of field of view; at the same time
S2 and S6 keeps attacking the victim V2 near the parked red car at about 02:12:29 p.m. in
frame no. 18743
12) S4 turns back and starts attacking the victim V2 repeatedly at about 02:12:38
13) S1 walks beside the red car towards left side at about 02:12:48 p.m. in frame
no. 19199
14) S5 and S6 gets on to the motorcycle (M2) driven by S5 and S6 as pillion rider.
The motorcycle takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence on the left side at
about 02:12:50 p.m. in frame no. 19263
15) S1, S2 and S4 assemble near the motorcycle (M1) and the victim V2 is found
lying on the road in front of them at about 02:12:59 p.m. in the frame no. 19483
16) S2 walks away from the motorcycle (M1) towards the left side at about
02:13:01 p.m. in frame no.19543
17) S2 turns back and walks towards the motorcycle (M1) at about 02:13:02 p.m.
in frame no. 19564
18) S1 & S2 gets on to the motorcycle (M1) behind S4 who rides it at about
190
02:13:09 p.m. in frame no. 19742
19) The motorcycle (M1) with S1, S2 & S4 takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene
of occurrence on left side at about 02:13:17 p.m. in frame no. 19935
20) Police entering the scene of occurrence from the right side at about 02:15:33
21) Ambulance leaves the scene of occurrence on the left side along with the
victims V1 and V2 at about 02:17:36 p.m. in frame no. 26413
120) P.W.62 Hemalatha has further deposed, that the memory card of
the mobile phone, contains two video files of the alleged incident and DCIM folder
containing the Camera and Sub Folder. The details of the said video files are as
below:
1) Name of the video file is VID 20160314 141953.3gp and the duration is 1:26
minutes and number of frames are 2595.
2) Name of the video file is VID 20160314 142023.3gp and the duration is 0:24
minutes and number of frames are 721.
121) She has further deposed that the above detailed video files were
examined using “AMPED FIVE” image and video analysis software tool and the
sequence of events are detailed below:
A) The details of sequence of events of file VID 20160314_141953.3gp is as

follows:
1) S1 with knife walk along the red car toward camera and the time interval is
00:02:74 minutes and the event took place in frame no. 82,
2) S5 and S6 gets to the motor cycle (M2) driven by S5 and S6 as pillion rider.
The motor cycle takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence on the left side and
191
the time interval is 00:13:71 minutes and the event took place in frame no.243
3) S1, S2 and S4 assemble and converse near the motorcycle (M1) and the victim
V2 is found lying on the road in front of them and the time interval is 00:13:71 minutes
and the event took place in frame no. 410
4) S2 along with long knife moves away from the motorcycle (M1) and walks
towards the camera and the time interval is 00:15:59 minutes and the event took place in
frame no. 466
5) S2 turns back and walks towards the motorcycle (M1) and the time interval is
00:18:06 minutes and the event took place in frame no.540
6) S1 and S2 gets on to the motorcycle (M1) behind S4 who rides it and the time
interval is 00:24:45 minutes and the event took place in frame no.731
7) The motor cycle (M1) takes a ‘U’ turn and leaves the scene of occurrence on the
left side and the time interval is 00:31:14 minutes and the event took place in frame no.
931
8) On lookers gather near the victim and watch and the time interval is 00:31:38
minutes and the even took place in frame no. 958
9) Victim V1 lying on the ground to the left side of the parked white van, “....
ஈஸ்வரி டிபார்ட்மெண்ட் ஸ்ட ார்… இலவச … திருெணம் ெற்றும் அனைத்து …..” and the
time interval is 01:12.96 minutes and the event took place in frame no. 2181
B) The details of the file VID 20160314_142023.3 gp is as follows:
The entire video recording shows the victim V1 lying on the ground with bleeding
injuries besides the left side of the parked white van, “….இலவச … திருெணம் ெற்றும்
அனைத்து …..”
192
122) P.W.62 has further deposed that the correlation of the alleged
video recordings found in the DVR item 1 and Cell phone item 4 are as follows:
The alleged incident found recorded in the DVR (item 1) on 13.03.2016,

between 02:00 and 03:00 p.m. time slot contained the entire sequence of events
viz.,
* The victims entering the scene

* Suspects attacking the victims
* Scene after attack
* Suspects fleeing off the scene in motorcycles
* The victims being taken in an ambulance with the assistance of
Police
The video recordings of the video files, “VID…20160314…141953.3

gp” and “VID…20160314_142023.3 gp” contained the sequence of events after
the attack and the fleeing off the suspects.
The events mentioned against serial number 13 to 19 in the video
recording of the alleged incident in the DVR item 1 and the events mentioned
against serial number 1 to 7 in the video file “VID…20160314…141953.3 gp” are
same in respect of the following:
i) Sequence
ii) Movement and action of individuals S1, S2, S4, and S6
iii) Position of the victims V1 and V2 after attack
iv) The attire of the onlookers and
v) Other objects/events in the backdrop of the scene of occurrence
123) P.W.62 has further observed that the event mentioned in Serial
No.9 of the video file VID 20160314_141953.3gp, and the event in the video file
193
“VID20160314_142023.3gp” are one and the same.
124) P.W.62 has suggested through her observation that the alleged
incident recorded in the DVR (item 1) and the aforesaid video files in the memory
card of the cell phone (item 4) are the same events recorded by two different
cameras (camera 10 of CCTV connected to DVR item 1 with fixed field of view
and the camera of the cell phone item 4 with variable field of view) positioned at
two different angles and locations.
125) P.W.62 has further deposed with regard to the authenticity of the
video recordings as below:
The video recordings of the alleged incident found recorded in the DVR (item
1) and memory card of the cell phone (item 4), exhibits continuity in sequence of
events, lighting conditions, background events, histogram of adjacent frames, and
resolution. Further, no evidence of editing/manipulation was found in the above
video recordings.
126) Furthermore, PW62 has given her opinion basing on the

observation made by her as follows:
1.The video recordings in the DVR (item 1) recorded on 13.3.2016 between

02.00 and 03.00 p.m. time slot and the video files, “VID…20160314…141953.3gp” and
“VID…20160314…142023.3gp” are :
i) The recordings of the one and the same alleged incident; and,
ii) Genuine video recordings and are not doctored ones.
127) She has further observed that the male individual assigned with
code ‘S3’ was found conversing with S1 and S2 before the alleged incident and
was found watching the incident from a distance, and that the mini CD, item 3
contains the player software of the DVR; and further, the soft and hard copy of the
194
sequence of events mentioned in para 3.1 B, 3.2 A, 3.2 Band, correlation of events
mentioned in para 3.3 are furnished in Annexures I, II, III and IV, respectively.
128) Therefore, PW62 evidence is crystal clear as to the video

footage. It is clear from her evidence that the video footage completely recorded
the events. Further, it is noted that there is correlation of DVR M.O.19, and the
Mobile Phone M.O.14, as to the video recordings. She has deposed, that in the
DVR, the entire crime occurrence on 13.03.2016 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., has been
recorded.
129) Therefore, the occurrence recorded in the DVR and mobile

phone memory card, are one and the same. The camera No.10 DVR and object
No.4 of the mobile phone have recorded one and the same occurrence from
different angle, is made clear by the PW62 expert opinion. PW62’s certificate as to
video recording and mobile phone recording were free from any insertion, editing,
and manipulation, and that they are genuine. Therefore, PW.62, Hemalatha, having
examined M.O.18 and M.O.19 forensically in FSL, Chennai has given the opinion
that both M.O.18 and M.O.19 are not tampered or manipulated in any manner,
subsequent to the seizure. Further, she has described the sequence of the videos in
M.O.18 and M.O.19, and has given the opinion that both were shot for the same
incident from different angles, and from different point of focus. A4 to A9 has
cross examined PW62 on the lines, whether hard disk in DVR could be tampered.
PW62 has affirmed, that the hard disk was not tampered, by substantiating the
process of analyzing a hard disk specific to a DVR. PW62 has also described the
process of analysis in “AMPED FIVE” software. Accused has not extracted any
answer that can throw doubt on the evidence and analysis of PW62.
130) The counsels for defence have not broken the expert opinion of
PW58 and PW62, through their cross examination. The corroboration of expert
195
evidence of PW58 and PW62, is a very strong clinching evidence in this case. The
counsel for A4 to A9 and A10, in their defence arguments have stated, that the
persons in the video are not the accused who are in this case. But, the arguments is
without any substance or merit. There is no necessity for the experts PW58 and
PW62, to give any false evidence against A4 to A8. Further, from the shop of
PW7, the DVR with hard disk and power adaptor were recovered. PW8, the
Assistant Director of Tamilnadu Forensic Science Laboratory mobile unit, has
clearly deposed, that he has dismantled and handed it over to the police. He has
also further categorically deposed, that the hard disk with DVR was not played by
him after dismantling, and it was handed over as it is. The defence have suggested
that M.O.19 and M.O.20 were taken from Eswari Departmental Stores owned by
P.W.17, but not dismantled by P.W.8, and that the same has been dismantled by
someone else. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.19 and M.O.20 from Eswari
Department Stores, is not denied. M.O.19 and M.O.20 are primary evidence
recorded contemporaneously the incident of assault, on 13.03.2016.
131) The electronic evidence, thus in this case, is a primary nature,

which has been duly analyzed by the experts P.W.58 and P.W.62. In the light of
clear cut ocular evidence, corroborating the electronic evidence, and vice versa,
this court is convinced that the prosecution has successfully marshalled before this
court proper electronic evidence in support of their case. Hence, this court
considers these evidences as vital, material, and substantial.
132) Further, the prosecution, who established the participation of the

accused in the incident has conducted the Identification Parade. PW66, who was
working as Judicial Magistrate at Udumalpet, had conducted an identification
parade on the orders of CJM for A1 to A10. On 22.03.2016, at 11.30 a.m. at the
Central Prison, Coimbatore, with the witnesses PW1 to PW3 and PW4, she
196
conducted identification parade for A4, A5, A6, and A8. PW1, PW3 and PW4,
during the identification parade, had correctly identified all the four accused, and
PW2 had identified A4 to A6. One unexamined witness Ibrahim had identified all
the accused. Ex.P.94 is the identification parade report. Again on 12.04.2016, at
1.30 p.m., PW1 to PW3, and one Ibrahim and Nagasundaram, during the
identification parade, had correctly identified A7 Kalaithamilvanan. Moreover, all
these witnesses did not know the names of the accused when they entered the
Central Prison, and only on identification, and when the magistrate called the
names, they came to know the names of the accused. This has been corroborated
by PW66. Therefore, the injured eye witness PW1, other eye witnesses PW2 to
PW4, and P.W.6 have correctly identified A4 to A10 in the test identification
parade, which is admissible u/s 9 of Evidence Act. The identification of A4 to A10
by the eye witnesses, has played a material role in the prosecution case, and
furthermore all the witnesses have identified the accused in the court and moreover
has specifically identified each accused by naming the specific dress and pattern
worn during the occurrence day, and the specific overtact by each accused and
specific weapons used by each accused as well. Hence, it has further strengthened
the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is clinching ocular, oral, documentary,
and electronic evidence to prove that A4 to A8, did involve in the occurrence.
133) On the defence side of A1, D1, D2, and D6 and on the defense
side of A4 to A8, D4 and D5 have been examined, for disproving the prosecution
case. But, the examination of the defense witnesses has miserably failed to
disprove the case of the prosecution by the defence, since D1, the then S.P. and D6,
the then Collector, have clearly stated in their Chief that all the mandatory
provisions have been clearly followed and no violation has been committed.
Therefore, the evidence of D1 and D6 supported the prosecution case. D.W.2, the
197
father of A2, though was examined by A1 to A3 support them, he has admitted that
he came to know that P.W.1 gave a complaint in the Udumalpet Police Station and
that he also went along with A1 and A2 and came to know that Kowsalya married
Shankar. He has also admitted that he is facing two criminal cases for transporting
drugs. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 was not considered to be a credible
witness. D4 and D5 are editor and sub-editor of different Newspapers. Their
evidence is only hearsay, and both the witness have no direct knowledge about the
news and the photos published in the newspaper. The above hearsay of the editor
and sub-editor cannot be received in evidence in obedience to the citation, cited by
the prosecution reported in 1997- MLJ – Crl. – Page 181.
134) Therefore, all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution
case as to the involvement and role of A1 and A4 to A8.
As regards to A9, Dhanraj @ Stephen Dhanraj, the witnesses who

have evidenced against him are PW5, PW10, PW22 to PW24, PW40, PW56,
PW66, and PW67. There is no overtact as regards to PW9. But, PW5, an
independent eye witness, and who is also a fruit vendor near the Palani – Pollachi
main road, near Anantha Hotel, a little distance from where the occurrence took
place, has clearly stated that immediately after the occurrence, he had seen A9
stopping before his fruit cart, and when A10 came running and boarded behind
him, he drove away the two-wheeler towards Palani. Further, PW5 has identified
A9, Dhanraj, during the identification parade. Further on 06.04.2016 at 2.10 p.m.,
at Central Prison, Coimbatore, one Marimuthu, and PW5 Gunasekaran, had
correctly identified A9 Stephen Dhanraj. PW5 has no necessity to give false
evidence against A9. The defence counsel for A9 has argued that PW5 did not
mention the particulars of the motor cycle, nor the Registration Number. But, the
non mentioning of the same has been shattered by PW5, identifying A9 during the
198
identification parade. Therefore, PW5, remembering the person rather than the
bike is a probable situation.
135) Further, PW22, Anbalagan who is the resident of Kumaralingam,

and the Panchayat Ward Member of 9th ward, has deposed that Shankar and PW1,
who married against the wishes of PW1’s parents, and that efforts were made by
the parents of PW1 and grandmother of PW1, to separate Kowsalya from Shankar,
and that PW1 had rejected her parents request, and decided to live with Shankar.
That on 12.03.2016, at about 5 p.m., PW22 has clearly stated, that A1 was seen
talking with A5 to A7, and A9 near the foot of the Rope Car Service at Palani. He
has identified all the accused in the Court. Therefore, A9’s presence at the time of
hatching conspiracy for commission of murder is made clear by PW22. The cross
examination by A1 and A2 counsel, that since P.W.22 is the relative of Shankar, he
is deposing a false evidence, and that PW22 was not aware about what A1 and
other accused spoke. Further, the counsel for A5 to A9, in their cross examination,
has elicited that PW22 did not state the age, height, weight, and colour of the
alleged accused persons before the Police. The above cross examination, cannot be
a strong ground for rejection of PW22’s evidence. When conspiracy is hatched in
secrecy, the contents of conversation cannot be heard and P.W.22, since being a
relative of Shankar alone, cannot be considered as a disqualification to believe his
evidence. Furthermore, PW22 has clearly identified the accused in this court.
Therefore, PW22’s evidence is accepted.
136) Further, PW10, Thirumalaisamy, the Village Administrative

Officer of Kanakkampalayam, has deposed that A10 in his confession has spoken
about A9 in the occurrence. But, A9 counsel has not chosen to cross examine
PW10, and as far as A9 is concerned, the chief of PW10 remains unchallenged.
199
137) PW23, Karunanidhi, who is the VAO of Karikkaranpudur, has

stated that on 28.03.2016 when he, and his assistant Kalimuthu was in their office,
Udumalpet DSP had called him over phone to come to Vandivaikkal, since the
VAO of that territory was not in his office. After getting oral permission from
Tahsildar, he and his assistant proceeded to Vandivaikkal at 3.45 p.m., and that
Police was interrogating A9 Dhanraj. He has further stated that Dhanraj gave his
confession before him and his assistant, and that he and his assistant signed the
confession statement, and that Dhanraj produced a blue colour bag containing 3
cell phones, and that Udumalpet DSP seized the same through seizure mahazar, for
which he has witnessed, and the same has been marked as Ex.P29. The blue colour
bag has been marked as M.O.33 and white color Lava Phone as M.O.34, and red
and silver colour Samsung phone as M.O.35, and Grey colour Samsung Phone as
M.O.36. Further, PW22 has stated that A9 deposed that the motor cycle TN 57 AZ
3957 is in Sathya Nagar, Palani, at Raja Mesthiri House, and that if he is taken
there, he would identify. The admissible portion of A9 has been marked as
Ex.P.30. Further, P.W.23 has identified A9 in the court. The cross by A9, has not
suggested anything in favour of him. The fact of seizure from A9 has not been
disproved during the cross examination.
138) PW24, Ranganathan, is the witness who has seen A9 proceeding

behind the bus in which Shankar and PW1 left. In the cross by A9, it has been
suggested that the description of the person has not been stated to the DSP. But,
PW24, has identified A9 in open court.
139) PW40, Meenadevi, is the Special Tahsildar, Dindigul West

Circle. On 19.03.2016, at the request of DSP PW67, for issue of community
certificate for A9, she has issued the same certifying that he belonged to
200
Vanniyakula Shathiriyar, and the same has been marked as Ex.P.50. As to the caste
of A9 Dhanraj, there is no dispute.
140) PW56, is the Vodafone mobile Nodal Officer, and he has deposed
that on receipt of requisition from PW67 through email for particulars of Vodafone
number 7094532388, he had issued the particulars of call details, owner details,
application form, in 17 sheets which has been marked as Ex.P.68 series. PW56
clearly has deposed that the phone stands in the name of A9 Dhanraj, and that it
was activated on 01.02.2016, and the same is marked as Ex.P.69. Further, he has
deposed, that the cell phone was used on 13.03.2016 at 2 hours 20 minutes and 55
seconds at CK Road, Dhali Road, Udumalpet, and that it was an incoming call
from phone number 7305363926, and that the IMEI no. of the cell phone of A9 is
359375061577160, and that the converstion continued for 17 seconds. He has
certified u/s 65 (b) of Indian Evidence Act. The only suggestion by A9, is that he
has no authority to issue the certificate. There is no suggestion that A9 has not
conversed over that phone. Moreover, on 12.03.2016, A10 has contacted A9, and
A9 has contacted A10, and on 13.03.2016, at about 12.36 p.m., A9 has contacted
A10. On 06.03.2016, A9 has contacted A1, and A1 has contacted A9 on the same
day. From 06.03.2016 to 13.03.2016, A5 has contacted A9, 14 times, and on
03.03.2016 to 13.03.2016, A9 has contacted A6 for 53 times. Therefore, A9’s
association with A1, A5, A6, and A10 has thus become clear. PW66, in her
identification parade report, has clearly stated that PW5, has identified A9 Dhanraj.
PW67, the IO, basing on the evidences, has proceeded against A9 Dhanraj.
Therefore, the involvement of A9 Dhanraj for the offence committed and his role,
is clear from oral evidence, documentary evidence, as to his participation in the
conspiracy prior to the occurrence and his presence in the occurrence place on
13.03.2016.
201
141) The defence counsel for A4 to A9 has stated, that there is delay
in FIR, but this Court has already decided in the earlier paragraphs that there is no
delay. Further, it is stated that the FIR will not contain the names of the accused.
This argument is not sustainable, since PW1 was suffering from number of cut
injuries in her head and hands, and her husband whom she has loved and married
was in his death bed, and in such a physical condition, the details given by PW1 at
that moment, can only be considered as sufficient.
142) The defence has argued that PW44 has mentioned in the AR
Ex.P55, and Ex.P.98, that they were attacked by known persons and have raised the
questions. But that only means that PW1 has stated the same, as that of, when she
sees the persons, she would be able to identify. A4 to A7 have commented on the
evidence of JM No.2, PW66. But, the learned magistrate has followed the
procedure correctly, and the defence has falsely stated that the suspected persons
where shown to the witnesses. The opinion of the Doctor, since not stated in the
wound certificate, was questioned. But, there is no such column of opinion in a
wound certificate. It is PW45, Muthuraj, who gave treatment for PW1, and he has
elaborately spoken about the injuries caused.
143) A4 to A9 Counsel, has stated that they have not taken part in the
conspiracy, but there is sufficient evidence to prove, that A1 to A9 have frequently
interacted with each other over phone, and outside prior to the occurrence. PW1 is
the victim, and a direct eye witness. Her witness in the court as to the overtact of
each and every accused, corroborates with other evidences and medical evidence.
Hence, the involvement of A1, A4 to A9, thus stands established. Above all, the
CCTV footage, and the mobile phone coverage have clinchingly proved, that A4 to
A8, as an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons knives, assembled at
SOC with a common object, masterminded by A1, of causing the murder of
202
Shankar and PW1, where upon, A4 to A7 attacked repeatedly with Aruval knives,
while A4 and A6 attacked PW1 repeatedly with Vettu Knives, after A8 pushed her
down. PW58 and PW62 the scientific experts of TNFSL have conclusively proved
that that assailants in the video footage and the mobile phone coverage were none
other than A4 to A8.
144) Further, this Court has viewed the entire occurrence recorded in
the CCTV video coverage, and cell phone video coverage in open court. Moreover,
this court, following the evidence of the experts, observed the movements, and the
role of each and every accused involved in this offence. Furthermore, through the
naked eyes of this Court itself, the body language, the gait, the hair style, and the
physique of each and every accused, who were present before this court, and its
similarity was noticed in the video coverage as well. This court was able to identify
clearly A4 to A8. As far as A9 is concerned, as pointed out by the Forensic
experts, the physical features or the gait of the person, though was not clear, one
person in the bike was seen moving out of the SOC and stopped a few yards away
from the SOC for a few minutes, and then left. So the court was able to see a bike
leaving the spot, pointed out by the prosecution as well as the Forencic expert. The
Forencic expert has stated that A9 and A10 were not able to be identified. But, the
aspect of one person leaving by bike and stopping after few yards, as per the
prosecution case, is visibly clear and corroborated with other sufficient evidence.
The role of A9 in the aspect of conspiracy and interaction with co-accused prior to
the occurrence is evidenced very clearly by the witnesses. Therefore, as far as A9
is concerned, the evidences as to the role of A9, even though not clear in the CCTV
coverage, a glimpse of the bike passing and its corresponding evidence and
identification establishes A9’s involvement in the commission of offence.
203
Therefore, offences charged as against A1, A4 to A9 stands

established as to the conspiracy, murder, and attempt to murder. Further, murder of
Shankar since he belonged to a Scheduled Caste marrying PW1 who is a backward
caste against the wishes of A1 is the motive behind the murder and grievous
assault.
145) Having come to the conclusion, that A1, A4 to A9, stand guilty
of the offences charged against them, the role of A10, whether he has been a party
to the conspiracy and murder, is now taken up for discussion by this Court.
146) A10 is charged u/s 120(b), 147, 302 r/w 149 IPC, 307 r/w 149
IPC, 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act r/w 149 and 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act r/w 149 IPC. The
witnesses who have evidenced against A10, in this case as per the prosecution are,
PW5, PW10, PW23, PW24, PW27, PW57, PW66, and PW67.
147) PW5, Gunasekaran, who is an independent witness, and a fruit

vendor, near the Palani-Pollachi Main road, near the Anandha Hotel, a few distance
away from the occurrence place, has stated that immediately after the occurrence,
he saw A10 Prasannakumar, coming from the place of occurrence in a hurried
manner, and joined A9, and sitting behind the bike of A9 as a Pillion rider, left the
place towards the Palani Main Road. PW5 is the only witness cited by the
prosecution for having seen A10, near the occurrence place and after the
occurrence.
148) Further, the prosecution case, as per the charge sheet is that, A4
to A10 gathered as an unlawful assembly, along with A1 on 12.03.2016, at Palani,
and that PW22 in his 161(1) Cr.P.C. statement, has stated, that he has witnessed A1
and A4 to A10 talking with each other, on 12.03.2016 at Palani Bypass Road, i.e.
Kodaikanal road near a park, hatching conspiracy. But, PW22 Anbalagan in his
evidence before court, has not stated anything about A10’s presence with other
204
accused. PW22, has stated that on 12.03.2016, he saw A1, A5, A6, A7, and A9 at
Palani Rope Car area, and that they were seen talking with each other. Therefore,
PW22 has not uttered anything about A10’s presence with other accused, for
having participated in the conspiracy hatched by A1 and the other accused.
Further, PW67, the investigating officer, in his cross examination by PW10, at
Page 83, has admitted that on 12.03.2016, no witnesses had told him that A10 was
at Palani.
149) Further, PW1 to PW4, the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have
not evidenced that A10 was present in the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the only
solitary witness relied on by the prosecution is PW5. PW5, in his chief
examination, has stated that on 13.03.2016 while he was selling fruits in his fruit
cart in front of the Anandha Hotel near the SOC, at about 2.15 p.m., there was
chaos near UKP Complex, and that at that time A9 came in a bike, and halted in
front of his fruit push cart, and then A10 came there running, and that they left as
soon as A10 boarded the bike as a pillion rider. He has stated, that the DSP
enquired him on 21.03.2016. The counsel for defence has argued that Hotel
Anandha was not featured in Ex.P.103 rough sketch. But, as per the evidence of
PW5, a little away from the SOC, Hotel Anandha is situated. Therefore, Ex.P.103
being the sketch of the SOC, not featuring Hotel Anandha, which is a little yard
away from the SOC is not a lapse on the investigation. The counsel for A10
agrees, that Hotel Anandha, is situated roughly within 30 feet of the western side of
SOC, and so the omission is not material.
150) PW5, however, has identified A10 Prasannakumar during the

identification parade. The identification parade report is marked as Ex.P.96. The
counsel for A10 argued that the features of A10 has not been stated by PW5 at the
time of investigation, and that it is impossible for PW5 to remember a person who
205
has slipped off in seconds from the place where it is a busy people floating area,
that too in a chaos situation. But, PW66 has clearly stated that PW5 did identify
A10. Therefore, PW5 being the only witness who has seen A10 Prasannakumar,
after the occurrence, and since PW22 has not spoken as per the prosecution case,
the presence of A10 in the conspiracy, the rest of the evidence as against A10 has
to be evaluated.
151) PW24, Ranganathan, resident of Kumaralingam, where Shankar

resided, and a third year B.Com student at Vidyasagar College at Udumalpet, and a
class mate of A10 Prasannakumar, has identified A10 in the court, and he has
deposed that on 13.03.2016, on the date of occurrence, at about 12.30 p.m., he saw
A9 and A10 near Rasi Bakery at Kumaralingam Bus Stand, and that both Shankar
and Kowsalya were waiting for a bus, and that both Shankar and Kowsalya
boarded the bus to Udumalpet, and that A10 also boarded the same bus, and A9
followed the bus on the motor cycle, and that he has witnessed the same. So,
PW24, has spoken the presence of A10 at Kumaralingam Bus Stand on the fatal
day. But, PW24 did not follow A10, and his evidence does not extend to the SOC.
Therefore, other further evidences as to this regard at SOC, need to be analyzed.
152) PW10, Thirumalaisamy, is a Village Administrative Officer who

has deposed about the confession made by A10 on 25.03.2016 at 07.00 a.m., and
the admissible portion in the confession is marked as Ex.P.10. Further, the witness
has stated that at the time of confession, A10 identified A7 to A9 from the
videograph played by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the prosecution argues
that the identification of the said accused persons is clearly admissible u/s 8 and 27
of Indian Evidence Act, and that this evidence was not challenged in the cross
examination of the accused A4 to A9 and A11. Already this court, in the previous
206
paras, has found A4 to A9 guilty of the charges. However, as to the recovery

portion, PW10 and his assistant, has not accompanied.
153) PW23, Karunanidhi, is the Village Administrative Officer of

Periampatti in Palani Taluk. He has deposed, that on 25.03.2016, at about 10 a.m.
when he was present with his assistant Kalimuthu, A10 Prasannakumar produced
M.O.30 blue colour Nokia Phone, M.O.31 pants, and M.O.32 shirt, from his house
at Karikkaranpudur, which is the jurisdiction of PW23, and that PW67 seized the
same under Ex.P.28 seizure mahazar. The counsel for A10 argued that there are
infirmities in the alleged recovery of M.O.30 to M.O. 32, and the evidence of
PW23 and PW67. The counsel has argued that the place of concealment, was not
discovered in consequence of the information Ex.P10, and therefore, has argued
that it does not come under the scope of 27 Indian Evidence Act. Basing on the
confession, A10 has produced M.O.30 to M.O.32 from his house. Therefore, it
cannot be considered as an infirmity. But, there was no blood stains, and that there
is no evidence that A10 wore those clothes at the time of occurrence, and that it
belongs only to A10. PW23 in his cross examination has stated that he is not
aware, that from which part of A10’s house, the cell phone was recovered, and that
PW23 does not know the structure of the house. PW67 has also stated that he did
not enter the house, and he just stood outside.
154) The M.O.30, cell phone, and sim no.8526009506, alleged to

have been used by A10, has not been established by the prosecution that M.O.30
belongs to A10. The prosecution has admitted that the above sim number, stands
in a different person’s name Mahendran, who has been examined as PW27, who is
a resident of Karikkaranpudur and a close friend of A10. PW27 has deposed in
favour of A10, and has stated that he did not give either the phone, nor the sim card
as gift to A10. Therefore, the hostile testimony of PW27, breaks the seizure of
207
M.O.30 cell phone, and its sim card as of belonging to A10. M.O.30, is a Nokia
cell phone, and therefore, with its IMEI Number, the person who purchased the
same, could have been found out by the investigating officer, but no such
investigation has been done.
155) PW57, the Assistant Manager and Nodal Officer of Aircel,

Chennai, has deposed, that he received requisition Ex.P71, from PW67, for
particulars regarding Air Cel no. 8526009506 and 9715829615. P.W.57, after
verification of his office records, had issued Ex.P.72 series reply, containing 12
sheets for 9715829615, and Ex.P.73 series for 8526009506, which stands in the
name of N.Bharathiraja, No.27, Alagappa Colony, Suleswaranpatti, Pollachi, and
that the same was activated on 03.01.2015, and the call particulars from
01.02.2016 to 15.03.2016 was furnished, and certified u/s 65(b) of Evidence Act.
He has also stated that the Aircel No.8526009506, stands in the name of
P.Mahendran, No.150, Karikkaranpudur, Periampatti, Palani, and that it was
activated on 22.05.2015, and has issued call particulars from 01.02.2016 to
15.03.2016, and the call particulars series of 158 sheets has been marked as
Ex.P.74. As per the evidence of PW57, it is understood that A10 contacted A5 on
27.02.2016 one time, and on 11.03.2016 two times, and on 12.03.2016 one time,
and on 13.03.2016 one time, of all being outgoing calls. The counsel for A10 has
argued that simply because two calls were made between particular numbers, it
cannot be said that the person is involved in the occurrence, and that there should
be other reliable and relevant evidences to connect the person to the offence. The
counsel relies in support of his arguments, the following citations:
1. 2015 – 6 SCC – Page 38.

2. 2005 – SCC Crl.- 1715.
In obedience to the above citations, this court is required to see any
208
other reliable and relevant evidences if available as against A10 to ascertain his
involvement in the offence.
156) Therefore, PW5, PW10, PW23, PW24, PW57, PW66, and

PW67, though speak against the accused A10, the evidences are not that clinching
enough, to establish the role of A10 in the commission of offence. PW10 is the
only person who has seen A10 prior to the occurrence, and that too not in the SOC,
and PW5 has seen A10 after the occurrence, a little away from the SOC, and not
exactly at the SOC. PW1 to PW4, the eye witnesses have neither spoken the
presence of A10 in the SOC. Therefore, mere phone calls alone is not sufficient,
and more reliable and relevant evidence is required to be established by the
prosecution.
157) In this case, the CCTV footage, and Cell phone video footage,
are considered as the clinching evidence against the accused facing charges. As
per the prosecution, it is argued that A10 got into the bus along with Shankar and
PW1, and that PW24 had witnessed the same. But, PW24’s evidence stops at the
place of boarding and has not extended to the SOC. Further, the prosecution has
stated that at the place of occurrence, A10 was present, and that just prior to the
occurrence he was talking to A5 and A6, and that after the occurrence A10 ran
towards A9, and escaped from the occurrence place in a motor cycle. The
prosecution relies PW5’s evidence as to A10 fleeing away from the SOC. The
prosecution further states that A10 was found in the video footage running towards
A5 and A6 just prior to the occurrence, and then having discussions with A5 and
A6, and later A5 and A6 went towards Shankar and PW1 and attacked them with
weapons. A1 has not challenged the contents in the CCTV footage. The
prosecution case is that, A10 at the time of occurrence was wearing M.O.31, full
209
hand striped shirt, and M.O.32 blue colored Jeans pant, which was said to have
subsequently been seized from him, based on his confession.
158) But, the expert PW58, Pushparani, in her deposition, as well as

in her report, has stated that she received the other files concerned in Udumalpet
P.S. crime number along with the letter of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet,
through Sub Inspector Jawahar on 31.3.2016, and the same was marked as Ex.P.82
series, and that the photographs of Prasannakumar received were marked as items
1 to 5, and that they were marked as M.O.No.43 series. P.W.58, has found that the
face morphology of the said individual were analyzed, and that the photographs
were compared with the two video footages already received, and since the video
footage mentioned as item no.17 in her report was not clear as to the identity face
of A10, she could not identify his face. Further, the individual alleged A10 with
the same face morphology did not appear in the video recorded in item no.18, the
cellphone, and that the same has been mentioned by her in her report Anthro.59/16
dated 4.4.2016, and her report with opinion containing totally 4 pages has been
marked as Ex.P.83 series.
159) PW62 Hemalatha, while mentioning the sequence of occurrence,

has mentioned that in frame No.17895, at 2.11.55 p.m. S3 (Prasannakumar) came
running from the left, and joined with S1 and S2 (A5 and A7) standing in front of
the commercial complex. Except the above frame, the presence of A10 was not
found in the actual SOC.
160) Therefore, PW58, the expert has not identified the person talking
to A5 and A7, as Prasannakumar. Therefore, whether the person present near the
SOC was A10 Prasannakumar or not, has not been established through expert
evidence.
210
161) This court observed the CCTV footage very carefully for each
and every accused, and while so, while observing for A10, this court noticed, that
the alleged A9 was seen in the frame on 02.12.33 for the first time, and he was
seen proceeding very slowly in his motor cycle, and halts at 02.12.46 till 21.12.49,
a little beyond the SOC, and within the frame of the CCTV coverage. Then, the
alleged A9 starts in his motor cycle and disappears from the frame at 02.12.59. At
the time of halting and proceeding in his bike, there is no pillion rider seen behind
him. The prosecutions case is that A9 went a few yards from the SOC, and stopped
before PW5, the fruit cart vendor, and A10 came rushing, and boarded the bike of
A9, and that they left the place. But, as placed by the prosecution, no one is seen
boarding behind A9. Furthermore, this court observed the prosecution alleged
A10, on the screen frame by frame, and the court was able to observe the
following:
• 02.11.54 p.m. – Male with white striped full hand shirt (alleged A10) came to the
view of the camera, and approached near two male persons, one with maroon
colour full hand shirt with a medium blue color jeans and yellow color towel
around the neck (A5), and the other in white colour, with colour checked full hand
shirt (A7) who had already come in the view of the camera at 02.11.50 p.m.
• After that, all the frames only showed A4 to A8. The alleged A10 was seen
watching the occurrence from behind, and the alleged A10 kept moving back, and
the tip of the shoes of the alleged A10 is seen up to 02.13.07. After that, the
person goes out of the frame.
Therefore, this court while watching the movements of the alleged A10 in the
CCTV footage, was able to observe that up to 2.13.07, the alleged person did not
go out of the frame. In that case, on observation by this court, the CCTV footage
of A9 in his motor cycle halting a few yards from the SOC from 02.12.46 to
211
02.12.49, and then leaving the place without any pillion rider, and disappearing
finally from the frame at 02.12.59, away from Anadha Hotel, still alleged A10 is in
the frame till 02.13.07, thereby, disproving the evidence of PW5, as to his seen
A10 boarding the bike. When A9 has left the place, then where is the possibility of
PW5 seeing A10 boarding the bike as a pillion rider. Therefore, as regards to A10,
the prosecution case does not stand to be established. Therefore, on ocular
observation by this Court, the CCTV footage, which has given clinching evidence
to this court as against A4 to A8 for commission of offence, and at that same time it
has also given a clinching evidence in favour of A10. As far as A9 is concerned,
the CCTV footage, even though has not identified him, but his involvement in the
offence, has been substantially proved by other reliable and relevant evidence,
pointing out the accusing fingers at him.
162) In view of the above ocular observation by this court, by playing

the CCTV footage in the open court, before all the accused, their counsels, and
prosecution, and court having pointed out the same and asking for clarification for
the same, for which the prosecution did not have a suitable or satisfactory
explanation. Therefore, rest of the evidences as against A10 stands discarded, in
view of alleged A10’s presence in the CCTV frame at 02.13.07 hrs, whereas
alleged A9 had disappeared prior to that time at 02.12.59 hours.
163) The defence for A10 has examined D.W.3, Mrs. Vasuki, Head Of
the Department of B.Com, (CA) Department, Vidyasagar College of Arts and
Science at Udumalpet, to establish that A10 attended the class on the next day of
the occurrence on 14.03.2016. Ex.D6 the attendance register was marked. The
prosecution pointed out that D.W.3 has deposed, that on the eve of the practical
examination on 16.03.2016, A10 did not attend and the prosecution raised doubts
as to his absence. But, the counsel for A10, has argued that since A10 was not
212
connected with the crime, he proceeded to college normally on the next day which
proves his normal behavior as an innocent man, and that since the police
interrogated, and enquired about him on 15.03.2016 linking him with the crime, he
feared the same, and stated to have taken legal advise, and surrendered before JM
Nilakkottai on 18.03.2016.
164) The counsel relies on AIR 1971 SC – Page 1050 para No.15.
As per the above citation, the apex court has held, that even an
innocent man may feel panicky, and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of
a grave crime, and such is the instinct of self preservation.
165) Therefore, in view of the above earlier observation made by this

court and considering that A10 being a student, as pointed out in the above citation,
the instinct of self preservation could have been adopted by A10 is the inference
this court has to draw. Therefore, this Court has to give necessarily the benefit of
doubt to A10, as to his intention and involvement in the conspiracy, and
commission of murder, and grievous assault.
166) The counsel for A10 in support of his arguments has relied the
following citations:
1. 2016 – 1- SCC – Crl. Page 141.

2. 2016 – 1- MLJ – Crl. Page 464.
167) A11 is charged u/s 212 of IPC for having harboured the accused
A4, A5, A6, and A8, knowing fully well, that they have committed the offence of
murder of Shankar and grievious assault of PW1, dated 13.03.2016, and with the
intention of saving and screening them from legal punishment, has harboured the
accused. The witnesses who have evidenced against A11 are PW11, PW42, PW65,
and PW67. The witnesses have spoken about the harbouring of the accused A5 to
213
A6 and A8 by A11, knowing fully well that A5 to A6 and A8 are accused in the
murder of Shankar and grievious assault of PW1 Kowsalya.
168) As per the evidence of PW65, Balamurugan, who is the owner of

the house at 10th ward, Elango Adigalar Street at Pattiveeranpatti, has deposed, that
A11 Manikandan was his tenant and was residing at the said house from 2016, for
a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-, and that on 14.03.2016, at about 8 a.m., when he and
his wife, went to this said house, for collecting rent, he had found 4 persons in the
house of A11 talking to him. PW65 has identified A4, A5, A6, and A8 in the
company of A11 in his rented house in the morning of 14.03.2016. Therefore,
through the evidence of PW65, Balamurugan, the owner of the rented house of
A11, at Pattiveeranpatti, has clearly stated that A4 to A6 and A8 had stayed in the
house of A11, on the night of 13.03.2016. The evidence of P.W.65, appears to be
cogent and reliable. The defence for A11 has only attacked the subsequent conduct
of PW65 of not going to the police station immediately and intimating the same to
the Police. In a village or in a suburban area, where the monthly rent is meager,
usually there is no tenancy agreement, and as such lack of such agreement may not
lead to an inference that A11 is not a tenant of P.W.65.
169) Furthermore, A11 was arrested along with A6 and A8 on

15.03.2016 at 12.15 p.m. by PW67 at Mukkonam Railway Gate. A11 has not
offered any plausible explanation, why he was found along with A6 and A8. The
above said accused persons evidently were not related to A11, and they belong to
different residential areas. Therefore, the presence of the above accused in the
house of A11, has not been satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, there is no
purpose for PW65, the owner of the rented house of A11 to give false evidence
against A11 or the other accused persons A4 to A6 and A8.
214
170) PW11, Eswaran, the Village Administrative Officer, has stood as

witness for confession given by A6, A8, and A11. Furthermore, he has stood as
witness for recovery of two wheeler bike M.O. 13 (without registration number)
and cash of Rs.20,000/- M.O.21, from A6, and the admissible portion has been
marked as Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14. Furthermore, PW11 has stood as witness for
recovery of the shirt M.O.22 of A8, and the weapon M.O.4 used in the occurrence.
A6 and A8 confession leading to recovery u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act, has been
corroborated by other evidences, and therefore, the confession by A11, who was
along with A6 and A8 at the time of arrest, in the presence of PW11, cannot be
discarded as created. Even though the admissible portion marked as to the
confession of A11 as Ex.P.14, has not led to the discovery of the fact, can be
discarded considering PW65 Balamurugan’s evidence, as to his ownership of the
house rented out to A11. The evidence of PW65, combined with the evidence of
PW11, will go to establish that A11 stayed as a tenant of PW65. PW65 has
specifically denied the suggestion, that he did not rent out the house to A11.
Furthermore, PW65 has stated that after one week of his seeing A11 with the
accused, A11 had vacated the house. Therefore, oral evidence and the
identification of PW65 in the court who has no necessity to give false evidence
against A4 to A6, A8, and A11, is accepted as genuine.
171) PW42, the Tahsildar of Nilakkottai has issued the community

certificate of A11, at the requisition of PW67, which is marked as Ex.P.53. A11 is
stated to belong to the community of Hindu, Nadar, which does not come under the
Scheduled Caste.
172) The counsel for A11 argued, that A11 cannot be tried in this case
under a charge of 212 IPC along with the other accused, in the case of unlawful
215
assembly, murder, and attempt to murder. But, as per the citation relied on by the
prosecution in
1988 - AIR – 1274
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that the accused for charges of 212
IPC can be tried along with the accused of the main offences.
“2000 – 1 SCC – Page 285”
it is made clear in the above citation “the expression in the course of the same
transaction in Sec 223 of IPC refers to “where there is a commodity of purpose or
design, where there is continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be
accused of the same on different offences”.
Therefore, the objections of A11 counsel is discarded.
173) Furthermore, the counsel for A11 has stated, that the confession
of A11 before arrest is invalid as per section 24 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
But, on 15.03.2016, at 2.15 p.m., A11 was arrested by PW67, and only then the
confession has been recorded, is clear from PW67’s evidence. Therefore, the
confession recorded is valid u/s 24 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore,
the Village Administrative Officer, PW11, is bound by the village manual to assist
the Police Officers. Moreover, A11, even in the beginning of his confession itself,
had given the address of his residence at Pattiveeranpatti. So, A11 not taking
PW67, to his rented house, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover, the
minor defects alleged by the defence as against the investigation, cannot be taken
advantage by the accused to escape the punishment.
174) The prosecution in support of their arguments have filed the

following authorities.
1. 2000 – 1 SCC – Page 285

216
2. 1988 AIR 1274

3. 2001 – Crl.Law Journal Page 1765
4. 1960 – Crl.Law Journal Page 1013
175) The learned counsel for A11 in support of his arguments has
submitted the following citations:
1. 2013 – 1 – Law Weekly – Crl. Page 633
2. 2013 – 1 - Law Weekly – Crl. Page 579
3. 2014 – 1 - Law Weekly – Crl. Page 759
176) This Court has carefully considered the proposition laid down in
the above cases, and has cautiously considered the role of A11, based on the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, and in the light of Principles laid down in the
said citation has come to the above decision.
Therefore, the charges u/s 212 IPC as against A11 stands established.
177) In fine, this Court has analysed the evidence adduced on the side
of the prosecution, carefully and meticulously. Apart from the oral and
documentary evidence, in tune with the development of technology, the
prosecution has produced during trial, the electronic evidence also. This court,
considering the serious nature of the allegations, and the gravity of the crime, while
at the same time, balancing and keeping in the mind the rights and liberties of the
person accused as offenders, has given an anxious consideration to the evidence on
record and has analysed the same. Examining the testimony of the prosecutrix, the
facts and circumstances of this case are very clear and are well corroborated by
ocular oral evidence, medical evidence, CCTV footage evidence, and other
documents. It is well established principal of law that minor contradictions or
insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise
217
reliable prosecution case. The same has been spelt out in the preceding paragraphs
supra.
178) On the basis of the above analysis and the appreciation of the
evidence, this court has come to the following conclusions:
1. The accused A2, A3, and A10 are given the benefit of doubt on the
touchstone, that the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against
them, beyond all reasonable doubts.
2. A1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9 are found guilty of all the charges framed
against them. The prosecution has proved beyond doubt the guilt of these
accused.
A1 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 302 r/w 120(B) r/w 109, 307 r/w 120 (B) r/w
109 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A4 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC and 3(i) (r)(s),
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. For A4 charges were
framed as 3(1) (r)(s) r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015,
but since A4 is found guilty of offence u/s 120(B), 147 and 148 IPC, he is
found guilty for offence u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015
and liable for punishment. Similarly, A4 is found guilty separately for
offence u/s 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A5 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC, and 3(i)
(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A6 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC, and 3(i) (r)(s) SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015.
218
A7 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC, 3(i) (r)(s)
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015.
A8 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 IPC, 3(i)
(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015. A8 is found guilty for offence u/s 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 straightaway since A8 is found guilty
for offence u/s 120(B), 147, and 148 IPC.
A9 is found guilty u/s 120 (B), 147, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 IPC, 3(i) (r)(s)
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015. A9 is found guilty for offence u/s 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015 straightaway since A9 is found guilty for
offence u/s 120(B), 147, and 148 IPC.
A11 is found guilty of the charges u/s 212 IPC.
179) A1, A4 to A9 and A11, since found guilty, were questioned as regards
to the sentence of punishment to be imposed on them u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.
A1 answered as follows:
குவறந்த ெட்ச தண்டவன விதிக்க சவண்டுகிசறன்.

நான் தான் என் குடும்ெத்வத காப்ொற்ற
இருக்கிசறன்.

219
180) This Court has considered the submissions made by all the
accused, the learned public prosecutors, and learned defense councels. The
citations submitted on both sides have been perused.
181) The learned prosecutors have filed the following citations:
1. Bhagawan Dass – Vs – State – 2011 – Cr.LJ – 2903 – Page 1
2. Ajit Singh Harnam Singn Gujral – Vs – State of Maharashtra – AIR (SC) 2011
3690 – Page - 9
3. Machhi Singh – Vs – State of Punjab – 1983 – AIR 957 – Page - 29
4. Bachan Singh – Vs – State of Punjab – Cr.LJ – 1980 – 636 – Page 63

220
5. Lehna – Vs – State of Haryana – 2002 – SCC – 3 – 76 – Page 129
6. Santhosh Kumar Singh – Vs – State of Madhyapradesh – 2014 – Cr.LJ – 3788

Page 145
182) The learned defence counsels did not come forward to argue.
183) The prosecution has projected this case as one of “Honour
Killing”.
184) If the punishment for marrying an upper caste girl by a lower

caste boy, would be only a death sentence by murder, then what should be the
punishment for such persons? is the question raised in the mind of the court.
In Lata Singh Vs State of UP – 2006 (7) SCJ – Page 55, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held:
“The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is

destroyed, the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be
united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter caste
marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the
caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the
country that young men and women who undergo inter caste marriage, are
threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our
opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those
who commit them must be severely punished. This is free and democratic country,
and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whomsoever he / she
likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter caste or inter
religious marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social
relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or
221
instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter
caste or inter religious marriage.” The anxiety with which the courts in our
country voiced their approach towards intercaste marriages, and expressing their
strong condemnation of so called “Honour Killings” is evident from the various
Judicial pronouncements as stated above. Still, sane mind has not set on the
parents and many others, who still hail the caste system, and disapprove intercaste
marriages, sometimes in a violent manner.
185) The prosecution has argued for the extreme penalty of death
sentence for the accused and the defence have argued to consider the sentence with
a lenient view.
In state of Uttar Pradesh Vs Sanjay Kumar – 2012 – 8 - SCC – Page

537, the sentencing policy has been discussed. As per the above citation, the
sentencing policy is divided into two criterias. One being the seriousness of the
crime, and the other being criminal history of the accused. The citation has further
guided, that the duty of the courts to award proper sentence, should have regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,
etc., The Courts have been directed to impose the punishment befitting the crime,
so that the courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence. Furthermore, as
per the Hon’ble citation, it is discussed that it is the nature and gravity of the crime,
and not the criminal which are germane for consideration of appropriate
punishment in a criminal trial, and that imposition of sentence without considering
its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise is the
observation made.
186) All murders are cruel. Cruelty may vary in its degree of
culpability. Therefore, basing on the culpability, the parameters for the punishment
has to be decided. Sentencing decision would require more than one variable.
222
This crime committed is antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of crime. Whether

this sort of crime would come under the rarest of rare cases or not has to be
analysed. In AIR 1983 - SC – Page 957, the Honourable Bench has observed that
full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case, and just
balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The
manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in an
intense and extreme indignation of the community and shock the collective
conscience of the society where an accused does an act in a deliberate planned
crime and executes the same meticulously, then such crimes are termed as Ghastly
crime, wherein, death sentence was considered as the most appropriate
punishment.
187) In this case, A1 has only daughter PW1, and only one son.
Therefore, PW1, being the only daughter, eloping away from the parents house at
the brim age of 19 years, not even completing her education, and marrying
intercaste against A1’s wishes, would have probably shattered the dreams of A1
about the future of his daughter and bring shame in the eyes of the public as to the
elopement of his only daughter, can all be considered as reasonable grounds for
causing anxiousness and frustrations for A1. A1 not knowing to manage his anger
and intolerance for accepting an intercaste marriage, has made him to resort to this
mad violence. A1 has masterminded and plotted a criminal conspiracy to do away,
both his daughter PW1 and her husband Shankar, for the sole reason that his
daughter had married a person belonging to Schedule Caste. A1’s hatred towards
scheduled caste community, is to an extent wherein, he failed to honour the value
of human life. A1 not considering Shankar as a fellow human being, his hatred
towards caste was intolerable, than as a prudent human being, A1 had an option to
cease his relationship totally with his daughter PW1, for marrying Shankar against
223
A1’s wishes. But, instead of ceasing relationship with his daughter PW1 and
Shankar, A1 has decided to cease the life of Shankar and PW1, his daughter as
well. Accordingly, this court feels that since this case being one of the rarest of
the rare case, A1, being the parent and for a wrong emotional decision, should
really suffer capital punishment of death.
188) As against A4 to A8, the prosecution has not placed any bad
antecedants to show that they have indulged in the past in similar acts of violence
prompted by caste factor. However, A4 to A8 obviously were lured by the money
offered by A1, and also A4 to A8 being of a different caste did have hatred for
scheduled caste, has been established in the previous paras discussed against them.
This Court has the need to consider the criteria as to the sentencing policy in
consideration to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed. In this case, A4 to A8, does not even know the identity of Shankar
prior to the commission of offence. Only at the SOC, the identity of Shankar and
PW1, was disclosed, and the execution was carried out brutally, in broad day light
between 2.11.37 and 2.17.36 on 13.03.2016, in a thickly populated area.
Moreover, the CCTV footage when observed by this Court has disclosed that A4 to
A8 had exhibited a kind of threat to the public in a manner of sending waves of
warning to couples who indulge in such intercaste marriages. As per the evidence,
A4 to A8 were informed the movement of Shankar and Kowsalya, and unmindful
about women and children being present in the public place, and knowing fully
well the legal consequences of their act, have boldly and ghastly involved
themselves in the commission of crime, and the mode of leaving the place after
commission of crime, by wielding the weapons as though committed a heroic act,
all goes to establish the crudeness of A4 to A8. The conduct of A4 to A8 establish
the following:
224
1. No value for human life.

2. Sending threatening waves to the public.
3. Daring execution of murder in a thickly populated public area.
4. Murder during daylight.
5. Causing fear and panic in the mind of the pubic, wherein, women and
children were present.
6. Not bothered about the consequences of commission of gruesome murder
and brutal attack.
7. Not respecting law and order.
189) Therefore, the above conduct of A4 to A8 committing murder

and brutal attack with deadly weapons, in broad daylight, in a pubic place near the
bus stand, during the busy hours of business in the market area near the SOC, not
fearing the Outpost Police nearby, threatening the public with deadly weapons, and
leaving the place without an iota of fear or guilt, proves the inhuman nature and
crudeness. The above act of A4 to A8 and their role in the execution of the
offence, is considered as a rare incident. The beastly act of A4 to A8 in the public,
not valuing fellow human life and butchering a human being, who has not done
any harm to A4 to A8, is highly condemnable and such persons deserve no mercy.
The beastly act of A4 to A8 should not be encouraged and the punishment for not
valuing a human life, and A4 to A8 awarding death sentence in public place in
broad day light, for the simple reason that a Dhalit boy married an upper caste
Thevar girl, would in return by law deserve to be punished with a capital
punishment. The unhealthy waves sent by A4 to A8, need to be cleansed by Law
by imposing such capital punishment for A4 to A8. This capital punishment
awarded to A4 to A8 would also send a warning message to persons not to get
themselves involved as perpetrators, nor to nurture caste hatred, aid, and encourage
parents who are in emotional disturbance and frustration. In fact, in “Honour
225
Killings”, the parents are more bothered about their status in public. The parents
mostly do not directly get involved in the execution. Therefore, considering this
capital punishment, if no perpetrator encourages the parents and give them time for
reflection, then such offences may not happen in future, and the feeling of hatred
with the parents would get diluted in the efflux of time. It is the availability of
such hired killers, the parents are driven to commit such violent killings.
Considering the social responsibility, such persons as A4 to A8 deserves no mercy
and are liable only for capital punishment.
190) As far as A9 is concerned, the prosecution has not placed any bad
antecedants as to his past acts of violence. No overtact of A9 is seen in the SOC.
However, he has been a conspirator with rest of the accused A1, A4 to A8. He has
also evinced interest to see that the execution was complete. Therefore,
considering that his role of crudeness in the SOC is not seen, he deserves to suffer
imprisonment for life in prison for rest of his life without any benefit of remission
or premature release. A9 should not be given any benefit of remission of his
sentence in any manner, whatsoever. I rely upon the following citations for the
above condition of imprisonment:
1. AIR 2005 – SC – Page 2132 (or) CDJ - 2005 – SC – Page 374

We are inclined to confirm the sentence and condition as recorded by the
trial court and confirmed by the High Court. The order of the trial court that any remission of
sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to be announced be either by the
Central or State Government shall not apply to the Sentence and imprisonment imposed on all
the accused is also maintained.
2. AIR – 2008 – SC – Page 3040 (or) CDJ – 2008 – SC – Page 1238

226
In the result,
1. The charges levelled against A2 and A3 u/s 120(B), 302 r/w 120(B) r/w 109,
307 r/w 120(B) r/w 109 IPC and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015
and the charges levelled against A10 u/s 120(B), 147, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149
IPC, 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC, 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015, does not stand established on the side of the
prosecution and hence A2, A3, and A10 are acquitted from the above said charges
u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.
2. A1 is sentenced to death, and that he be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,

subject to confirmation by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. And A1 is directed to
pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) i/d 1 year SI.
for offence u/s 120 (B) IPC.
A1 is sentenced to death, and that he be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,

pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) i/d 1 year SI.
for offence u/s 302 r/w 120 (B) r/w 109 IPC.
A1 is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine

of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) i/d 6 months SI
for offence u/s 307 r/w 120 (B) and r/w 109 IPC.
A1 is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.50,000/- i/d 6 months SI
for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled caste and Scheduled
Tribes (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A1 is directed to be hanged to death subject to the confirmation of Hon’ble

Madras High Court and this death sentence shall be executed after A1 undergoing
the other sentences imposed on him. The other sentences shall run concurrently.
The total fine imposed on A1 is Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs). Out of the total fine
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs), Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) to be
appropriated to the State and the balance to be apportioned equally between PW1
227
and father of the deceased Shankar namely, Thiru.Velusamy, S/o Chinna

Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street, Kumaralingam, Madathukulam (LW21) as
compensation u/s 357 (2) Cr.P.C.
*******

pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) i/d 1 year SI
A4 is also sentenced to death, and be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,

subject to the confirmation by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. And A4 to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) i/d 1 year SI

of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) i/d 6 months SI
A4 is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine


for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015

228

Total fine amount imposed is Rs.1,65,000/- (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand). Out
of the total fine amount Rs.5,000/- is appropriated to the state and balance to be
apportioned equally between PW1 and father of the deceased Shankar namely,
Thiru.Velusamy, S/o Chinna Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street, Kumaralingam,
Madathukulam (LW21) as compensation u/s 357 (2) Cr.P.C.
*****






229

for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015
for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC
*****

Madras High Court. And A6 is directed to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

A6 is also sentenced to death, and he be hanged by the neck, till he is dead,

230



A6 is directed to be hanged to death, subject to the confirmation of Hon’ble

Madras High Court, and this death sentence shall be executed after A6 undergoing
*****
A7 is also sentenced to death, and that he be hanged by the neck, till he is

dead, subject to the confirmation by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. And to pay a
231






*****
232






for offence u/s 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA)Amendment Act 2015 r/w 149 IPC.

*****
233
8. A9 is sentenced to imprisonment for life, life means rest of his life without any
benefit of remission of the sentence in any manner, whatsoever, and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) i/d six months SI
A9 is sentenced to imprisonment for life, life means rest of his life without
any benefit of remission of the sentence in any manner, whatsoever, and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) i/d 6 months SI
A9 is also sentenced to imprisonment for life, life means rest of his life
without any benefit of remission of the sentence in any manner, whatsoever, and to
pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- i/d 6 months SI


for offence u/s 3(1)(r)(s) r/w 149 IPC SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
A9 is directed to undergo the above sentences concurrently. The total fine

imposed on A9 is Rs. 1,55,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand). Out of the total
fine amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand), Rs.5,000/- to be
appropriated to the State and the balance to be apportioned equally between PW1
and father of the deceased Shankar namely, Thiru.Velusamy, S/o Chinna
Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street, Kumaralingam, Madathukulam Taluk (LW21) as
compensation u/s 357 (2) Cr.P.C.
*****
234
9. A11 is sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence u/s 212 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- i/d 6 months SI.
Out of the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Rs.5,000/- to

be appropriated to the state and the balance of amount to be apportioned equally
between PW1 and father of the deceased Shankar namely, Thiru.Velusamy, S/o
Chinna Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street, Kumaralingam, Madathukulam Taluk
(LW21) as compensation u/s 357 (2) Cr.P.C.
********
The remand period already undergone by the 1st accused from

14.03.2016 to 12.12.2017, and the remand period already undergone by the 4 th , 5th,
and 6th accused from 16.03.2016 to 12.12.2017, and the remand period already
undergone by the 7th accused from 02.04.2016 to 12.12.2017, and the remand
period already undergone by the 8th accused from 16.03.2016 to 12.12.2017, and
the remand period already undergone by the 9 th accused from 29.03.2016 to
12.12.2017, and the remand period already undergone by the 11 th accused from
16.03.2016 to 02.07.2016, are ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
This court has awarded Capital punishment of death sentence as

against A1, A4 to A8, subject to the confirmation by the Hon’ble Madras High
Court. The Sherishtadar is directed to immediately submit the entire case bundles
to the Hon’ble Madras High Court for confirmation of the capital punishment of
death sentence u/s 366 Cr.P.C.
Property Order:-
This Court has passed orders with regard to the material objects in P.R.No.13/2016
in this case as follows:
M.O.Nos.1 to 5 Aruval knives, M.O.Nos.6 to 11, 22, 24 to 27 and 31 to 32

dresses, M.O.No.33 cloth bagand M.O.Nos.15 to 18 blood stained and sample
mud, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over or after the disposal
of appeal.
235
M.O.No.12 Pulsor motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 57 AS 2340 is

evidenced to be owned by P.W.29 Venkatesan, Madurai. TheOriginal registration
number being TN 59 AV 2766, has been falsely changed as TN 57 AS 2340 and
used in this occurrence. P.W.55 Kalyanakumar, the Regional Transport Officer,
Madurai North Regional Transport Office, has issued Ex.P.67, B Register extract
with regard to M.O.12 and evidenced that the real registration number of the said
vehicle is TN 59 AV 2766 and P.W.29 is it’s owner and hence, M.O.No.12 pulsor
motor cycle is ordered to be returned to P.W.29 Venkatesan, on production of R.C.
book and relevant documents after the appeal time or disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.13, Bajaj Discover motor cycle without registration number is

evidenced to be owned by P.W.28 Karthick and he has mortgaged the same with
A.1 Chinnasamy and it’sregistration number is TN 57 AR 0569, A.1 handed over
the same to A.4 Jagatheesan and the same was used in this occurrence. M.O.No.13
is ordered to be returned to P.W.28 Karthick, on production of R.C. book and
relevant documents after the appeal time or disposal of appeal.
M.O.No.28, Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 57 AZ 3957,

is evidenced to be owned by P.W.17 Thirumalaisamy and P.W.17 has mortgaged it
to P.W.16 Raja. It was evidenced by P.W.16, that P.W.17 took the vehicle and has
given the same to A5 Manikandan and was used in this occurrence. M.O.No.28 is
ordered to be returned to P.W.17 Thirumalaisamy, on production of R.C. book and
relevant documents after the appeal time or disposal of appeal.
M.O.No. 29, Enfin model cell phone, M.O.No.30, Nokia cell phone,
M.O.No.34, Lava Cell phone, M.O.No.35 Samsung cell phone, M.O.No.36
236
Samsung cell phone are evidenced to be seized from A2, A10, A6, A8 and A5
respectively and they are to be retained with the case bundle as case properties.
M.O.No.14 Micromax cell phone and M.O.No.42 memory card

areevidenced to be owned by P.W.4 Nasurutheen. M.O.19 DVR, M.O.20 adopter
are evidenced to be seized from Eswari Department Stores owned by P.W. 7
Amarnath. The prosecution has to pay the cost of Electronic Items to PW.4
Nasurutheen and PW.7 Amarnath, so seized from them.
M.O.No.14 Micromax cell phone , M.O.No.19 Digital Video Recorder,

M.O.No.20 adopter with wire, M.O.No.41 Software CD of M.O.No.19, M.O.42
Memory card of M.O.14, M.O.46 to 48 the video recordings and M.O.49 soft copy
of annexures I to IV enclosed with Ex.P.91 report submitted by P.W.62 are to be
retained with the case bundle as case properties.
M.O.No.21, cash Rs.20,000/- and M.O.No.23, cash Rs.24,000/- are ordered

to be confiscated to Government after the appeal time is over or after the disposal
of appeal.
M.O.No.37 to 40 and M.O.Nos.43 to 45 the photographs of accused in this

case are ordered to be kept in the bundle.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist, typed by her directly in the computer,

corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of December
2017.
Sd./ Tmt. Alamelu Natarajan
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIRUPPUR
237
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Kousalya, Complainant
P.W.2 Venugopal, eye witness
P.W.3 Ramasamy, eye witness
P.W.4 Nasurutheen, eye witness
P.W.5 Gunasekaran,
P.W.6 Logithasan, Observation Mahazar witness
P.W.7 Amarnath, Proprietor of Eswari Departmental store
P.W.8 Thangavel, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Lab, Erode

in charge of Tiruppur District Forensic Science Lab
P.W.9 Vigneswaran, brother of deceased Shankar,
P.W.10 Thirumalaisamy, V.A.O. Kanakkampalayam
P.W.11 Eswaran, VAO, Rahalbavi village,
P.W.12 Thoufiq Raja, V.A.O., Somavarapatti village.
P.W.13 Syed Ibrahim, V.A.O., Udumalpet Town
P.W.14 Baskaran, Proprietor of Bakya Lodge, Palani,
P.W.15 Manokaran, Seizure mahazar witness (Register from lodge)
P.W.16 Raja
P.W.17 Thirumalaisamy, Seizure Mahazar witness (TN 57 AZ 3957)
P.W.18 Murugesan, Seizure Mahazar witness (Cellphone of Annalakshmi)
P.W.19 Gopalakrishnan, Confession statement witness (A7)
P.W.20 Suresh, Seizure Mahazar witness (knife from A7)
P.W.21 Kalidass, witness for criminal conspiracy

238
P.W.22 Anbazhagan, witness for criminal conspiracy
P.W.23 Karunanithi, V.A.O., Periya Ammapatti Village
P.W.24 Ranganathan,
P.W.25 Duraisamy,
P.W.26 Arumugam,
P.W.27 Mahendiran,
P.W.28 Karthick, Proprietor of Bajaj discover vehicle without

Registration number
P.W.29 Venkatesan, Proprietor of Pulsar vehicle TN 59 AV 2766
P.W.30 Balasubramaniam, Observation mahazar witness

(place of criminal conspiracy)
P.W.31 Mohanapriya, Motor vehicle Inspector, Palani
P.W.32 Malathi, Motor vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Regional Transport Office,

Udumalpet
P.W.33 Tamilselvi, Inspector of Police, AWPS, Udumalpet
P.W.34 Muthulakshmi, Inspector of Police, Palani, Town P.S.
P.W.35 Pugazhenthi, Inspector of Police, Palani, Town P.S.
P.W.36 Parthiban, Inspector of Police, Madathukulam P.S.
P.W.37 Kumar, Manager, (Personal Branch), SBI, Palani.
P.W.38 Palanisamy, Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar, Palani
P.W.39 Muthusamy, Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar-II, Palani
P.W.40 Meenadevi, Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar, Dindigul West
P.W.41 Sivakumar, Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar, Dindigul East

239
P.W.42 Kalimuthu, Tahsildhar, Nilakottai Taluk.
P.W.43 Muthuraman, Tahsildhar, Madathulam.
P.W.44 Dr.Priya Lakshmi, Assistant Doctor, Government Hospital, Udumalpet,
P.W.45 Dr.K.Muthuraj, Tutor in Trauma, C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore,
P.W.46 Dr.K.Kulanthaivelu, Professor, C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore,
P.W.47 K.Venkateswaran, Junior Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science

Lab., Coimbatore,
P.W.48 Shenbagavalli, Head Clerk, J.M.I Court, Udumalpet,
P.W.49 Naveen, Ambulance van driver,
P.W.50 Kamal sheriff, Proprietor of Super Collections Cloth Shop, Udumalpet,
P.W.51 Kannappan, H.C. 1038, Udumalpet P.S.,
P.W.52 Savithri, W.H.C.1161, Udumalpet P.S.,
P.W.53 Rajendran, H.C. 1217, Udumalpet P.S.,
P.W.54 Thavamani, Inspector of Police, Udumalpet P.S.,
P.W.55 Kalyanakumar, Regional Transport Officer, Madurai,
P.W.56 S.Sunil, Manager, Nodal team, Voda phone Mobile services ltd.,
Chennai-4.
P.W.57 R.Vijayakumar Raja, Assistant Manager, Legal and Regulatory and

Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd., Chennai-4.
P.W.58 Pushparani, Scientific Officer, Forensic science Department, Chennai-4.
P.W.59 David Joseph Paulraj, Deputy General Manager(Nodal), Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Chennai-4.
P.W.60 Ashokkumar, V.A.O., Suleeswaranpatti.
P.W.61 K.Santhanam, Grade-I P.C., Cyber Crime cell, Tiruppur.

240
P.W.62 M. Hemalatha, Assistant Director, Physics Branch, Chennai -4
P.W.63 T.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, Mdathukulam P.S
P.W.64 Chithra, V.A.O., Kanakkampalayam Village.
P.W.65 Balamurugan,
P.W.66 Sutha, Judicial Magistrate, Chidamparam
P.W.67 Vivekanandan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet Sub Division
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 12.07.15 Complaint given by Kousalya before All Women Police

Station, Udumalpet - True Copy
Ex.P.2 12.07.15 Letter given by Shankar in All Women Police Station,

Udumalpet - True Copy
Ex.P.3 12.07.15 Letter given by P.W.1 to All Women Police Station,

Udumalpet - True Copy
Ex.P.4 13.03.16 Complaint statement given by P.W.1 - Original
Ex.P.5 17.03.16 Form No.91 for seizure of M.O.No.14 - Original
Ex.P.6 13.03.16 Observation mahazar prepared in the occurrence

place - Original
Ex.P.7 13.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.15 to 18 - Original
Ex.P.8 16.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.19, 20 - Original
Ex.P.9 16.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.6 to 8 - Original

241
Ex.P.10 25.03.16 Admitted portion in the confession statement of the 10th

accused - Original
Ex.P.11 15.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.13 and 21 - Original
Ex.P.12 15.03.16 Admitted underlined portion in the confession statement

of the 6th accused - Original




Ex.P.19 15.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.1 to 3 and

M.O.Nos.24 to 27 - Original
Ex.P.20 Bakya Lodge Register (Pages 1 to 45) - Original
Ex.P.21 Entry in page no.2 of Ex.P.20 Register - Original
Ex.P.22 Endorsement made by P.W.14 in page no.8 of Ex.P.20

register - Original
Ex.P.23 25.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing Ex.P.20 to 22

- Original
Ex.P.24 28.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.No.28 - Original

242

Ex.P.28 25.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.30 to 32

- Original
Ex.P.29 28.03.16 Seizure mahazar for seizing M.O.Nos.33 to 36

- Original

Ex.P.31 25.03.16 Observation mahazar prepared at the place of criminal

conspiracy - Original
Ex.P.32 17.03.16 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report of two wheeler bearing

Regn. No.TN 57 AR 0569 - Original
Ex.P.33 12.04.16 P.W.32, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report - Original
Ex.P.34 12.07.15 Petition No.310/15 given by P.W.1 to the All Women

Police Station, Udumalpet - True Copy
Ex.P.35 11.07.15 First Information Report in Cr.No.647/15, Palani Town

Police Station - True Copy

243

Ex.P.38 13.07.15 Final Report in Cr.No.647/15, Palani Town

Ex.P.39 24.07.15 First Information Report in Cr.No.320/15, Madathukulam

Ex.P.40 27.07.15 Final Report in Cr.No.320/15, Madathukulam

Police Station - Certified copy
Ex.P.41 30.03.16 Statement of accounts of the bank account of the 2nd

accused in State Bank of India, Palani Branch - Certified Copy
Ex.P.42 18.03.16 Community certificate of the 5th accused Manikandan

Ex.P.43 21.03.16 Community certificate of the 10th accused Prasannakumar
Ex.P.44 19.03.16 Community certificate of P.W.1 Kousalya
Ex.P.45 21.03.16 Community certificate of the 1st accused Chinnasamy
Ex.P.46 21.03.16 Community certificate of the 2nd accused Annalakshmi
Ex.P.47 19.03.16 Community certificate of the 8th accused Mathan @ Micheal
Ex.P.48 19.03.16 Community certificate of the 6th accused Selvakumar
Ex.P.49 22.03.16 Community certificate of the 3rd accused Pandithurai
Ex.P.50 23.03.16 Community certificate of the 9th accused Stephen Dhanraj
Ex.P.51 18.04.16 Community certificate of the 7th accused Kalai Tamilvanan
Ex.P.52 19.03.16 Community certificate of the 4th accused Jagatheesan
Ex.P.53 19.03.16 Community certificate of the 11th accused Manikandan
Ex.P.54 18.03.16 Community certificate of the deceased Shankar
Ex.P.55 13.03.16 Accident Register of the deceased Shankar - Original
Ex.P.56 04.04.16 Wound certificate of P.W.1 Kousalya - Original

244
Ex.P.57 14.03.16 Post-mortem certificate of deceased Shankar – Original
Ex.P.58 Final Opinion given by P.W.46 – Original
Ex.P.59 18.03.16 Letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet to

the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Coimbatore - Original
Ex.P.60 22.03.16 Coimbatore Forensic Science Lab report - Original
Ex.P.61 15.04.16 Coimbatore Forensic Science Lab report - Original
Ex.P.62 13.04.16 Letter sent by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet to

the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Coimbatore - Office copy
Ex.P.63 14.03.16 Special Report submitted by P.W.51 - Original
Ex.P.64 14.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.Nos.9 to 11 - Original
Ex.P.65 13.03.16 Intimation given from the Government Hospital, Udumalpet

to the Udumalpet police station. - Original
Ex.P.66 13.03.16 First Information Report - Original
Ex.P.67 18.03.16 Extract of B Register of two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 59

AV 2766 - Copy
Ex.P.68 07.04.16 Details with regard to Vodaphone No.7094532388 ( 17

papers)
Series -Certified copy
Ex.P.69 Details with regard to subscriber’s address and activation on

Series 1.2.2016 of Vodaphone No.7094532388 found in the 4th page
- Certified copy
Ex.P.70 07.04.16 Certificate issued by P.W.56 u/s. 63(b) of Indian Evidence
Act (Vodaphone No.7094532388) - Original

245
Ex.P.71 05.04.16 Letter addressed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Udumalpet to the Nodal Officer, Aircel Company, Chennai
- Copy
Ex.P.72 06.04.16 Incoming and outgoing call details of Aircel number
9715829615 for the period from 1.2.2016 to 15.3.2016
( 12 papers)
Ex.P.73 Details with regard to subscriber’s address and activation

Series of Aircel No. 9715829615 - Certified copy
Ex.P.74 06.04.16 Call details of Aircel number 8526009506 for the period from
1.2.2016 to 15.3.2016 ( 158 papers)
Ex.P.75 Details with regard to subscriber’s address and date of

Series activation of Aircel No. 8526009506 (in page nos. 157 and
158 in Ex.P.74 document) - Certified copy
Ex.P.76 Details of call received by Aircel number 8526009506

from number 8428117309 at 13.3.2016, afternoon 2’o
clock, 11 minutes and one second.
Ex.P.77 Details of call received by Aircel number 9715829615

from number 9944615949 at 13.3.2016, afternoon 2’o
clock, 4 minutes and 32 seconds.
Ex.P.78 Certificate issued by P.W.56 under Sec. 65(b) of the

Indian Evidence Act with regard to Aircel number
8526009506
Ex.P.79 Details with regard to the tower location of Aircel numbers

9715829615 and 8526009506 (2 papers)
Ex.P.80 17.03.16 Letter addressed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Udumalpet to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Chennai and connected documents.
246
Ex.P.81 23.03.16 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai in Anthro

No.52/16 - Original


No.59/16 - Original

No.60/16 - Original
Ex.P.86 Details with regard to the subscriber of Airtel number

9677490925 - Certified copy
Ex.P.87 Details with regard to the subscriber of Airtel number

9894575791 - Certified copy
Ex.P.88 Certificate issued by P.W.59 under Sec. 65(b) of the

Indian Evidence Act with regard to Airtel numbers
9677490925, 9894575791
Ex.P.89 18.04.16 Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer,

Suleswaranpatti - Original
Ex.P.90 22.03.16 Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai in Physics

No.86/16 - Original
Ex.P.91 22.03.16 Annexures I to IV of Report of Forensic Science

Laboratory, Chennai in Physics No.86/16 - Original
Ex.P.92 22.03.16 Special report submitted by P.W.63 - Original
Ex.P.93 01.04.16 Underlined admitted portion in the confession statement

of 2nd accused - Original
Ex.P.94 22.03.16 Identification parade report - Original

247
Ex.P.98 13.03.16 Accident Register of P.W.1 Kousalya - Original
Ex.P.99 02.02.17 Report with regard to the account number 31133252662

in State Bank of India, Palani branch in the names of accused
1 and 2 (6 pages)
Ex.P.100 02.02.17 Entry showing the withdrawal of amount in 26.2.16 and

28.2.16 in Ex.P.99 report ( in the 4th page)
Ex.P.101 04.04.16 Requisition letter addressed by the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Udumalpet to the Inspector of Police, Special
Branch (Nodal Officer), Tiruppur District. - Original
Ex.P.102 13.03.16 Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur

- Original
Ex.P.103 13.03.16 Rough Sketch prepared at the occurrence place

- Original
Ex.P.104 13.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.Nos.15 to 18 - Original
Ex.P.105 14.03.16 Inquest report - Original
Ex.P.106 15.03.16 Section Alteration report - Original
Ex.P.107 15.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of the photographs of accused 4 to

6 and 8 - Original
Ex.P.108 16.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.Nos.19 and 20
Ex.P.109 25.03.16 Rough sketch prepared at the place of criminal conspiracy

- Original
Ex.P.110 25.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of Ex.P.20 to P.22.
248
Ex.P.111 25.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.No.30 to P.32.

Ex.P.112 28.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of photos of the 10th accused
Ex.P.113 28.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.No.33 to P.36.
Ex.P.114 28.03.16 Form 91 for seizure of M.O.No.28
Ex.P.119 07.04.16 Details with regard to cellphone number 8148917570
Ex.P.120 07.04.16 Details with regard to Reliance cellphone number

7305363926
Ex.P.121 06.04.16 Serology report received from Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chennai - Original
Ex.P.122 16.03.16 Attendance of candidates present for the examination

obtained by Vidyasagar college of Arts and Science,
Udumalpet where the 10th accused have studied.
- Certified copy
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PROSECUTION :
M.O.No.1 Arival Knife measuring about 41 cm
M.O.No.2 Arival Knife measuring about 65.5 cm
M.O.No.4 Arival Knife measuring about 39 cm
M.O.No.6 Chudidhar tops
M.O.No.7 Chudidhar pant
M.O.No.8 Thupatta
249
M.O.No.9 T- Shirt worn by Shankar in torn condition with blood stains
M.O.No.10 Jeans Pant worn by Shankar in torn condition
M.O.No.11 Jatti worn by Shankar in torn condition with blood stains
M.O.No.12 Black colour Pulsar motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 57 AS 2340
M.O.No.13 Bajaj Discover motor cycle without registration number
M.O.No.14 Micro max Black Colour Cell phone with memory card
series
M.O.No.15 Blood stained mud
M.O.No.16 Sample mud
M.O.No.17 Blood stained mud
M.O.No.18 Sample mud
M.O.No.19 D.V.R. with Hard disk
M.O.No.20 Adopter with wire
M.O.No.21 Cash Rs.20,000/-
M.O.No.22 Blue, Orange and brown colour checked full hand Shirt seized from
A.8 Mathan @ Michael
M.O.No.23 Cash Rs.24,000/-
M.O.No.24 Green colour full hand shirt of Jagatheesan with blood stains
M.O.No.25 Yellow and black colour checked full hand shirt of Selvakumar
M.O.No.26 Meroon colour full hand shirt of Manikandan
M.O.No.27 Saffron Colour towel of A5 Manikandan
M.O.No.28 Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 57 AZ 3957
M.O.No.29 Black and green colour Enfin model EWS cellphone seized
from Annalakshmi
250
M.O.No.30 Blue colour Nokia cellphone seized from A.10 Prasanna
M.O.No.31 Full hand shirt seized from A.10 Prasanna
M.O.No.32 Blue colour Jeans pant seized from A.10 Prasanna
M.O.No.33 Light Blue colour cloth bag
M.O.No.34 Lava white colour cell phone
M.O.No.35 Red and silver colour Samsung cell phone
M.O.No.36 Grey colour Samsung cellphone
M.O.No.37 Photographs of Jagatheesan – 4 Nos.
M.O.No.38 Photographs of Manikandan – 4 Nos.
M.O.No.39 Photographs of Selvakumar – 4 Nos.
M.O.No.40 Photographs of Mathan @ Michael – 4 Nos.
M.O.No.41 Soft ware C.D. with M.O.No.19
M.O.No.42 8 G.B. memory card with M.O.14, Micro Max Cell phone
M.O.No.43 Photographs of Prasanna @ Prasannakumar – 5 Nos.
M.O.No.44 Photographs of Dhanraj – 8 Nos.
M.O.No.45 Photographs of Kalaitamilvanan – 10 Nos.
M.O.No.46 The video recordings from 2.00 p.m to 2 hours, 13 minutes and 16
seconds in D.V.R.
M.O.No.47 The video recordings in the memory card of M.O.14, Micro max cellphone
M.O.No.48 The video recording in which Shankar lying after assaulted brutally.
M.O.No.49 Soft copy of Annexures I to IV enclosed with Ex.P.91 report submitted

by PW.62.
251
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF DEFENCE : -
D.W.1 Sarojkumartahoor, Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance

and Anti Corruption, Chennai,
D.W.2 Jayaraman, Grand father of P.W.1.
D.W.3 M.Vasuki, Head of B.Com., (C.A.,) Department,

Vidyasagar College of Arts and Science, Udumalpet,
D.W.4 Senthilkumar, Editor and Publisher, Malai malar, Chennai,
D.W.5 Vijayakumar, Deputy news editor, Coimbatore edition, Dinamalar daily,
D.W.6 S.Jayanthi, Former District Collector, Tiruppur.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF DEFENCE : -
Ex.D.1 12.07.15 Letter addressed by the 1st accused to the Inspector of

Police, All Women Police Station, Udumalpet. - Original
Ex.D.2 08.04.15 Address proof submitted by P.W.57 Mahendran to Aircel

Limited, Chennai - True copy
Ex.D.3 15.03.16 Arrest report of accused 4 and 5 - Original
Ex.D.4 15.03.16 Arrest report of accused 6, 8 and 11 - Original
Ex.D.5 21.03.16 Proceedings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Udumalpet to appoint P.W.67 on special duty - Original
Ex.D.6 2015-16 Attendance register of II B.Com. (CA) ‘B’

Certified copy
Ex.D.7 16.03.16 News published in Malaimalar newspaper - Original

252
Ex.D.8 Witness summons issued to the editor and publisher,

Dinamalar, Coimbatore Edition and authorization letter
given to D.W.5 to adduce evidence. - Originals
Ex.D.9 17.03.16 News published in the Dinamalar daily paper - Original
Ex.D.10 29.06.16 Proceedings of the Tiruppur District Executive Magistrate

and District Collector in கு.ப.ே.எண்.2/குண்டர்.2016
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF DEFENCE: -
.NIL.
Sd./ Tmt. Alamelu Natarajan

P.D.J. Tiruppur.
/True Copy/
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

TIRUPPUR
Copy Judgment
Spl.S.C.No.19/2016
Date:12.12.2017
P.D.J.Court, Tiruppur.
253
Note:-
1. A1 to A10 produced, A11 present.
2. No witness has been withheld for more than 3 times without examination.
3. Death Sentence was imposed to A1, A4 to A8, and life imprisonment and
fine was imposed to A9, and RI for 5 years imposed to A11. A2, A3, and
A10 have been acquitted.
4. No accused has paid any fine.
5. The result has been communicated to the Police Department.
6. The Property order has been entered in the Property Register.
7. The remand date of A1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and A11 are 14.03.2016,
16.03.2016, 16.03.2016, 16.03.2016, 02.04.2016, 16.03.2016, 29.03.2016,
16.03.2016, respectively. A1, A4 to A9, have not been released on bail. A11
released on bail on 02.07.2016.
8. Free copies were furnished to the accused.
9. A1, A4 to A9, A11 have been further sent to prison. Orders were issued to
submit the copy of the Judgement, in respect of the hanging sentence awarded
accused, to the Hon’ble High Court, Madras.
Copy To:-
1. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai.
2. The District Collector, Tiruppur.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur.
5. The Deputy Commissioner for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes,
II Floor, V Block, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.
6. The Special Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Tiruppur.
7. The Calendar file.
254
Copy of Judgment
Spl.S.C.No.19/2016
Date:12.12.2017
P.D.J.Court, Tiruppur.
255
Fare/draft Judgment

Display PDF PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Display PDF PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

In the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur

Present: Tmt.Alamelu Natarajan, B.Com., M.L.,

Tuesday, the 12th day of December, 2017

Thiruvalluvarandu 2046, Sri Hevilambi Andu, 26th day of Karthigai month

Name of the Accused : 1) Chinnasamy, 40,

7) Kalaithamilvaanan @ Tamil @ Kalai, 24,

8) Mathan @ Michael, 25,

9) Dhanraj @ Tamil @ Stephen Dhanraj, 23,

10) Prasanna @ Prasannakumar, 19,

11) Manikandan, 39,

Charges framed against the accused: 1) Against the accused 1 to 10 :

2) Against the accused 4 to 10 :

3) Against the accused 4 to 8 :

4) Against the accused 4 to 7 u/s. 302

5) Against the accused 1 to 3 u/s.

6) Against the accused 4 and 6 u/s. 307

7) Against the accused 1 to 3 u/s.

8) Against the accused 4th accused u/s.

9) Against the accused 1 to 3, 5 to 7 u/s.

against a member of a schedule caste or a

10) Against the 11th accused :-

Judgement : In the result,

1. The charges levelled against A2 and

2. A1 is sentenced to death, and that he

Madras High Court. And A1 is directed

A1 is sentenced to death, and

A1 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence u/s 307 r/w 120 (B)

A1 is also sentenced to rigorous

A1 is directed to be hanged to death

A1 is Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs). Out

3. A4 is sentenced to death, and that he

A4 is also sentenced to death, and be

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous

A4 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST

A4 is directed to be hanged to death

Chinna Lakshmanan, 3/2 Savadi Street,

4. A5 is sentenced to death, and that he

A5 is also sentenced to death, and be

A5 is also sentenced to rigorous

A5 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence u/s 147 IPC

A5 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence u/s 148 IPC

A5 is also sentenced to rigorous

5. A6 is sentenced to death, and that he

for offence u/s 120 (B) IPC

for offence u/s 302 IPC

A6 is also sentenced to rigorous

A6 is also sentenced to rigorous

A6 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence u/s 3(2)(Va) SC/ST (POA)

A6 is also sentenced to rigorous

for offence 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA)

A6 is directed to be hanged to death,

to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

A7 is also sentenced to death, and that

A7 is also sentenced to rigorous