Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam, in S.C.No.51/2011. The respondents, accused 1 to 8 and 10, were acquitted of various charges including Sections 120B, 452, 148, 364A, 365 IPC, and under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. The case pertained to the kidnapping of actor Dr. Rajkumar by the deceased accused Veerappan and his associates. The prosecution examined witnesses including PW1 (Village Administrative Officer), PW2, and PW3, who were also kidnapped. However, the trial court found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case. The court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - Standard of Proof - The State appealed against acquittal of accused in a kidnapping case. The High Court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - Hostile Witnesses - The prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case. The court held that without credible evidence, the accused cannot be convicted. (Paras 3-5)
C) Criminal Conspiracy - Kidnapping - Sections 120B, 364A, 365 IPC - The charges of conspiracy and kidnapping were not proved as the evidence was insufficient and contradictory. (Paras 2-6)
D) Arms Act - Explosive Substances Act - Sections 25(1B)(a), 27(1) Arms Act, 1959 and Section 4(b) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - The prosecution failed to establish possession of arms or explosive substances beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam in S.C.No.51/2011.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- presumption of innocence
- standard of proof
- credibility of witnesses
- corroboration of evidence
- kidnapping
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Explosive Substances Act
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 34
P. Velmurugan, M.Jothiraman
Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem for appellant; Mr.B.Mohan assisted by B.M.Subash for R3; Mr.C.Samivel, Legal Aid Counsel for R1, R2 and R4 to R9
The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore Range, Thalavady Police Station, Cr.No.90/2000
1. Maran @ Senguttavan @ Manivannan @ Mullaivalavan @ Kannaiyan, 2. Govindaraj @ Megananthan @ Sabha @ Iniyan @ Paranjothi @ Raju, 3. Andril @ Elumalai @ Paranjothi, 4. Selvam @ Sathya @ Raju, 5. Amirthalingam @ Lingam @ Chelzhiyan, 6. Basuvanna, 7. Nagaraj, 8. Puttusamy, 9. Rama @ Kalmandipuram Rama
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The State sought reversal of the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences including kidnapping, criminal conspiracy, and arms possession.
Filing Reason
The State was aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam.
Previous Decisions
The trial court acquitted the respondents/accused 1 to 8 and 10 of all charges on 25.09.2018.
Issues
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal is perverse and liable to be set aside?
Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant/State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence.
The respondents/accused argued that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the key witnesses turned hostile and the evidence lacked credibility.
Judgment Excerpts
The State has preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 made in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in and by which the respondents / Accused 1 to 8 and 10 are acquitted for the offences as under:
Brief case of the prosecution as per the prosecution witness:
Procedural History
The trial court (III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode @ Gobichettipalayam) acquitted the accused on 25.09.2018 in S.C.No.51/2011. The State appealed under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which reserved judgment on 29-01-2026 and delivered on 25-02-2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 378(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 120B, 452, 148, 364A, 365, 109, 364
- Arms Act, 1959: 25(1B)(a), 27(1)
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 4(b)
