•The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench acquitted four men sentenced to life in a Dindigul double murder case after finding critical investigative lapses.
•The court criticized the investigating officer for failing to examine crucial witnesses under Cr.P.C. Section 161(3), despite their availability.
•Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan held that conflicting eyewitness accounts and unexamined vital witnesses cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
•The court ordered the state to initiate departmental action against the investigating officer under service rules, to be completed promptly with due process.
•The accused—Muthukumar, Selvaraj, Selvapandi, and Thoongan alias Urathevar—were convicted in 2020 by the Dindigul sessions court for the murder of Kannan and Periyasamy.
•The judgment highlights judicial concern over investigative integrity and the need to ensure fair trials without reliance on flawed or manipulated evidence.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday set aside life sentences imposed on four men in a decade-old double murder case from Dindigul, citing glaring investigative failures and the non-examination of crucial witnesses. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan, not only acquitted Muthukumar, Selvaraj, Selvapandi, and Thoongan alias Urathevar but also expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the police.
The case originated from the murder of two individuals—Kannan and Periyasamy—allegedly over a family dispute in Dindigul district. In 2020, the Additional District and Sessions Court in Dindigul had convicted all four accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, the convicts challenged the verdict in the High Court through criminal appeals, arguing that the prosecution’s case was flawed and that key witnesses were overlooked during the investigation.
During the appeal hearing, the High Court Bench noted that despite the existence of vital witnesses whose statements should have been recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the investigating officer failed to examine them. When questioned during cross-examination, the officer could not provide any satisfactory explanation for this omission. The court observed that the conflicting testimonies of eye witnesses, combined with the non-examination of pivotal witnesses, created serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation.
“In the light of conflicting versions given by the eye witnesses, coupled with non-examination of vital witnesses, an adverse inference had to be drawn by the court,” the Bench noted in its order. It further stated that the failure to examine these witnesses likely stemmed from an attempt to conceal the true facts, which would have undermined the prosecution’s case entirely. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to prove its case stemmed directly from the bizarre and negligent conduct of the investigating officer.
Expressing anguish over the investigation’s quality, the High Court directed the state government to initiate departmental action against the investigating officer under the relevant service rules. The court directed that this action be completed “as expeditiously as possible,” while ensuring that the officer is given an opportunity to present his defense.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s growing scrutiny of police investigations in serious criminal cases and reinforces the principle that justice cannot be served through flawed or manipulated processes. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of the accused against investigative overreach or incompetence.
The acquittals come nearly six years after the original conviction, during which the four men had been incarcerated. Their release marks a rare instance of judicial intervention correcting a miscarriage of justice attributed to investigative lapses rather than substantive evidence.
