Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 22.07.2025 Pronounced on : 25.09.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 Ramachandran ... Appellant Vs. State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Parthibanoor Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.25/2018) ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records of the Court below and set aside the Judgment and conviction made in S.C.No.95 of 2018 on the file 1/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, dated 02.08.2019 and acquit the appellant/accused. For Appellant : Mrs.S.Prabha For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated 02.08.2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.95 of 2018 by convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life (2 counts) and to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- in default of which to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: a) A complaint was lodged by one Kumar, brother of the accused stating that the accused Ramachandran is his elder brother. 10 years before the occurrence, the accused married one Muthulakshmi and 2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 was blessed with two male children and one female child. Due to the marital dispute between the couple, both were living separately. The accused was doing coolie work at Bombay and used to visit his native place once in every six months. During those times, he stayed in his village and tried to resolve his marital dispute. He requested his wife through Natarajan and Kannan to come back and live with him, which she had refused to do and that made him frustrated and he, in turn, started drinking excessively and fighting with others. b) On 02.03.2018 at about 8.00 a.m., his mother Karuppayee (mother of P.W.1) became unconscious while working by plucking chillies in the field of one Vellaichamy. She was brought to her house in an auto rickshaw. It was found that the complainant's father (Natarajan) was also lying in an unconscious state in the house. When they enquired about his mother, about what happened, she informed that she had consumed rice porridge (giHa f”;rp) and became drowsy. Thereafter, both were taken to Paramakudi Government Hospital by Muthuselvam, Chellamuthu and his elder brother Ramachandran (accused) in an 108 ambulance for treatment and then to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. The complainant was informed about the same, and he came to the hospital and found that his parents were dead. 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 c) Since he had a suspicion over their death, he complained under Ex.P1 on 02.03.2018 at about 23.30 hours. The complaint statement (Ex.P1) was received by Mr.Senthilkumar, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.13) on 02.03.2018, at about 23.30 hours and an FIR was registered in Crime No.25 of 2018 (Ex.P9) for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate Court concerned and copies were also forwarded to the higher officials. He had handed over the case file to the Inspector of Police for investigation. d) Mr.Raja, Inspector of Police (P.W.16), who took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence on 03.03.2018 at about 6.00 a.m., prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P16) in the presence of the witnesses Jeyakumar (P.W.5) and Vellaichamy (P.W.6). He recovered rice (mhprp rhjk;), fermented rice porridge (mhprp giHa f”;rp) and broth (FHk;g[) under Recovery mahazar (Ex.P3) and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, under Form-95 (Ex.P.17). e) Thereafter, he went to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai and conducted an inquest on the dead bodies of Karuppayee and Natarajan and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P10 and Ex.P12) in the 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 presence of witnesses and panchayatdhars. He examined the witnesses Kumar (P.W.1), Santhanam (P.W.2), Muthuselvam (P.W.3), Periyasamy (P.W.4), Vellaiammal, Jeyakumar (P.W.5), Vellaichamy (P.W.6), Thirugnanam, Ramamoorthy, Senthilkumar and recorded their statements. f) On 05.03.2018 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused Ramachandran was produced by Mr.Satheeshkumar, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and his Assistant Malarvizhi (P.W.10) with a special report (Ex.P16) stating that the accused had confessed to the crime. P.W.16 arrested the accused Ramachandran and recorded his confession statement (Ex.P7) in the presence of witnesses Mr.Satheeshkumar, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) and his Assistant Malarvizhi (P.W.10) and recovered the purchase bill receipt (M.O.1) and pesticide box (g{r;rpf;bfhy;yp kUe;J lg;gh) (M.O.2) under a recovery mahazar (Ex.P8). Thereafter, the accused was handed over to judicial custody. g) On 05.03.2018 provision of law was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC and an alteration report (Ex.P18) was sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi. The material objects were sent to the Court under Form-95 (Ex.P19). 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 h) Thereafter, the witnesses Kumar (P.W.1), Santhanam (P.W.2) and Vellaiammal were examined again and their statements were recorded. i) On 05.03.2018, a requisition letter was sent to the Judicial Magistrate requesting to send the material objects to the Forensic Department for chemical analysis. j) On 08.03.2018, the witness Thiru.Sathishkumar, Grade II Constable (P.W.11) was examined and his statement was recorded. On 10.04.2018, Dr.Jeganathan (P.W.15) was examined and his statement was recorded. k) Dr.Jeganathan (P.W.15) who had treated the deceased initially, in his evidence stated that on 02.03.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., Karuppayee and her husband Natarajan were brought in an 108 ambulance and that both were in an unconscious state, and that their eyes were in pinpoint pupil and he came to know that they had consumed poison in the fermented rice porridge (giHa f”;rp), and hence, he sent both patients to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai for further treatment and issued accident registers (Ex.P14 and Ex.P.15). l) On 07.03.2018, the investigating officer examined Dr.Mathiba (P.W.14), who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 the deceased and recorded her statements. m) Dr.Mathiba (P.W.14), who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies, issued a postmortem report (Ex.P10, Ex.P.12) noting the following : postmortem report of the deceased Karuppayee “Appearances found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished body of a female, aged about 55 years. Finger and toe nails are blue. Nil marks of violence or injuries are noted all over the body. Note: Multiple superficial surface incisions were made all over the body, revealing nil injuries. OTHER FINDINGS: Peritoneal cavity empty; Pleural cavities - empty; Pericardium contains 15ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - Right side fluid blood, left side empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs -cut section congested; Larynx & trachea normal; Hyoid bone intact; Stomach 40ml of brown colour fluid with pungent odour, mucosa congested; Liver, Spleen & kidneys - cut section congested; Small intestine contains 20ml of brown colour fluid with pungent odour mucosa - congested; Bladder - empty; Uterus - absent; surgically removed; Brain - surface vessels & cut section congested. OPINION: "RESERVED PENDING CHEMICAL EXAMINATION REPORT" 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 Note: Stomach and its contents, intestine and its contents, Portion of liver, Portion of both kidneys along with preservative sent for chemical analysis. and issued final opinion (Ex.P.11) as follows : Final opinion : "The deceased would appear to have died of organophosphorus poisoning" Postmortem report of the deceased Natarajan “Appearances found at the postmortem: Moderately nourished body of a male, aged about 60 years. Finger and toe nails are blue. Nil marks of violence or injuries are noted all over the body. OTHER FINDINGS: Peritoneal cavity empty; Pleural cavities empty; Pericardium contains 15ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - Right side fluid blood, left side empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs-cut section congested; Larynx & trachea normal; Hyoid bone intact; Stomach - 100ml of brown colour fluid with pungent odour, mucosa congested; Liver, Spleen & kidneys - cut section congested; Small intestine contains 20ml of bile stained fluid with pungent odour mucosa congested; Bladder-empty; Brain surface vessels & cut section congested. OPINION: "RESERVED PENDING CHEMICAL EXAMINATION REPORT" 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 Note: Stomach and its contents, intestine and its contents, Portion of liver, Portion of both kidneys along with preservative sent for chemical analysis.” and issued final opinion (Ex.P.13) as follows : Final opinion : "The deceased would appear to have died of organophosphorus poisoning" n) On 10.05.2018, the Investigation Officer (P.W.16) examined the witness Khader Mohideen (P.W.7) and recovered the pesticides bill book (Ex.P24) and recorded his statement. Thereafter, a requisition was made to the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi to record the statement of witnesses Kumar, Santhanam and Khader Mohideen under Section 164 Cr.P.C. o) Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, recorded the statements of witnesses Kumar, Santhanam and Khader Mohideen under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the same were marked as Ex.P21 to Ex.P23. p) Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, examined Mr.Rajkumar, Head Clerk and recorded his statement. q) On 25.05.2018, the investigation was completed and a final report was filed against the accused for the offence punishable 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 under Section 302 IPC. 3. On receipt of the final report, the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, took up the case in P.R.C.No.19 of 2018 and issued summons to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case records to the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram under Section 209(A) Cr.P.C. for further action. 4. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram received the case records, numbered it as S.C.No.95 of 2018 and took up the case for disposal according to law and framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for trial. 5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 were marked. Material Objects M.O.1 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 and M.O.2 were produced. 6. On conclusion of recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded. The accused did not examine any witnesses or produce any document. After a full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life (2 counts) and to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-, in default of which, to undergo six months simple imprisonment, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. 7. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, made the following submissions: a) That the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there is a serious doubt in Ex.P1/FIR and without considering the same, the trial Court convicted the appellant. b) That the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the confession and recovery in the case at hand are highly doubtful. 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 c) That the trial Court miserably failed and concluded that the appellant made the deceased persons consume poisonous food, but it is not shown that without the knowledge of the appellant, the deceased persons consumed the food and that there is no evidence against the appellant that he mixed the poison in the food. Hence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that, the accused and the deceased were staying together and his parents had died by consuming the food in his house. Though the accused was also present in the house, he did not consume the food, nor did he complain to the police. The motive for the offence was testified by PW1 and other witnesses. It is established that the accused purchased the poison from PW7 and the bill issued in his name was marked as Ex.C.1. The prosecution further established that soon after the occurrence, the accused absconded and only after two days, he had appeared before the Village Administrative Officer and confessed to the crime to the Investigating Officer, which led to recovery viz., the remaining pesticide and the bill issued in his name. He submitted that the prosecution proved the guilt against the accused beyond all 12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 reasonable doubt and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. Now, this Court has to decide whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and if the judgment rendered by the trial Court is sustainable or liable to be set aside. 11. The prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence and no concrete evidence is available to establish the direct involvement of the accused. When a criminal case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the duty of the prosecution is to establish the following facts : A. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. B. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances, which points unerringly to the guilt of the accused. C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sharad 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 Birdhichand Sarada Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 AIR 1622 lays down the following five principles called Panchsheel for cases based on circumstantial evidence which are as follows : (a) the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established. (b) the fact so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. (c) the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. (d) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt. (e) There must be a complete chain of evidence, leading no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. D. Furthermore, motive plays a very important role in proving the cases which rest on circumstantial evidence. Proving motive helps strengthen the chain of circumstances by explaining why the accused would have committed the crime, however motive by itself, is not sufficient for conviction 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 unless supported by other evidence. 12. According to the prosecution, the motive attributed to the crime is that there exists marital problems between the accused and his wife Muthulakshmi and he repeatedly requested his wife to come and live with him, but she refused, stating that as long as his parents were alive, she would not join him. Therefore, he decided to eliminate his parents and did so by administering poison. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that motive is an important factor in proving the guilt of the accused and that in the present case, neither the complainant nor the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the motive for the crime and the involvement of the accused. She would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish this essential factor in the case based on circumstantial evidence and therefore, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score itself. 14. Indeed, the complainant did not mention in the complaint either the motive or the involvement of the accused, as he was not residing with his parents at the time of their death. However, he 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 stated about the dispute between the accused and his wife. During the trial, he further deposed regarding the dispute and also stated that the accused was frustrated due to the problem between him and his wife. 15. P.W.1 in his complaint/Ex.P1 has stated that the accused was married to one Muthulakshmi and blessed with three children. On account of a matrimonial dispute, both were living separately. He has further stated that his brother (accused) was working in Bombay. He used to visit his native place once in six months and stay with his parents for 10 days and thereafter, return to Bombay. In the year 2018, he came to his native and was living with his parents. He made efforts to convince his wife and requested her to return and live with him, but she refused to come. On 02.03.2018, at about 8.00 a.m., his mother Karuppayee while plucking chillies in the field belonging to Vellaiswamy, suddenly became unconscious. She was immediately brought home in an auto rickshaw. On reaching the house, they found his father Natarajan also lying in an unconscious state. Thereafter, they enquired Karuppayee, the mother of the accused. She informed that she had consumed the old rice Kanji in the morning. Both were immediately taken to Paramakudi Government Hospital, for treatment and thereafter shifted to Rajaji Government 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. However, his mother succumbed at about 4.45 hours, and his father also passed away at about 8.10 hours. Entertaining suspicion over the cause of the deaths, he complained before the Police Station under Ex.P1. 16. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, it was admitted by the defence that there were quarrels between the mother and the wife of the accused. It was further admitted that the wife of the accused told her mother-in-law that she would be happy if she dies and that a Panchayat had been convened to reunite the couple but the wife of the accused refused to return. The mother of P.W.1, requested the wife of the accused to come and live with him for which Muthulakshmi wife of the accused and her family members informed that, she would not come to their house so long as the parents of the accused were alive. The above facts establish that there was a dispute between the mother and the wife of the accused and she refused to return, categorically stating that she would not join the accused during the lifetime of his parents. Therefore, it can be inferred that the accused being frustrated by the refusal of his wife to return to her matrimonial house so long as his parents were alive, decided to do away with the life of his parents under the belief that only 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 thereafter, he could reunite with his wife. 17. The learned counsel for the defence attempted to contend that due to profound sorrow that the accused was unable to reunite with his wife, the parents of the accused themselves consumed poison and committed suicide. However, such a contention cannot be accepted as believable. If in fact, they had intended to commit suicide, there was no necessity for the mother of the accused to attend her regular coolie work. This fact is evident from the testimony of P.W.17, Vellaiyammal who deposed that on 02.03.2018 at about 8.00 a.m., she and deceased Karuppayee had gone to work. During the course of employment, the deceased Karuppayee enquired with her, if she had brought food, to which she replied that she had not, but she would go and have it at 12 noon. All of a sudden, the deceased Karuppayee stated that she felt drowsy and immediately collapsed. The people who surrounded her, took her to her house in an auto rickshaw. There, they also found her husband in an unconscious state. They were immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. It was later proved that without knowing, poison had been mixed with the rice kanji she consumed for breakfast and thereafter, proceeded to her work as usual. If she had intended to commit 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 suicide, she would not have gone for her regular work nor would she have failed to disclose that both she and her husband had consumed poison. Furthermore, it has not been established that she attempted to commit suicide on account of the grief arising from the separation of her son from his wife. 18. The accused was the only person residing with his parents. On the date of occurrence, both parents consumed food that had been mixed with poison. However, the accused deliberately refrained from consuming the same food, for which no explanation has been offered. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was the accused himself who took his parents to the hospital and admitted for treatment. If he had been guilty of committing the offence, he would not have acted in such a manner rather he would have attempted to escape. 20. It is not in dispute that the accused along with others took his parents in an 108 ambulance and admitted them for treatment. 19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 P.W.1 stated that after learning that his parents had died suspiciously due to poisoning, he had requested the accused to complain. However, the accused surreptitiously left the place, compelling P.W.1 to complain. The conduct of the accused in absconding from the place of occurrence gives rise to an adverse inference, if he had not been involved in the crime, there was no reason for him to flee. 21. It is further revealed that the accused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9, on 05.03.2018 and voluntarily confessed to the crime. Upon hearing the statement of the accused, P.W.9 produced him before the police station along with a special report. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer P.W.16 examined the accused, arrested him, and recorded his confession statement. Pursuant to the said confession, the remaining pesticide as well as the bill evidencing its purchase, were recovered under recovery Mahazar Ex.P8. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alleged confession before P.W.9, cannot be relied upon as P.W.9 himself admitted that the accused had given a separate confession to him, which was not placed before the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 the said confession statement was deliberately suppressed by casting serious doubt on the prosecution's case. 23. However, Ex.P6 is not the confession statement of the accused but rather the special report submitted by P.W.9. The actual confession statement of the accused has been marked as Ex.P7 which was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the argument advanced by the appellant's counsel cannot be accepted. It is also relevant to note that the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand on 05.03.2018, but he did not make any representation alleging that a false case had been foisted against him. 24. The Investigating Officer P.W.16, deposed about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch as well as the recovery of the rice kanji from the house of the accused, which stood corroborated by the supporting evidence. 25. The mother of the accused developed a complication while working in the field after consuming food mixed with poison whereas his father, being old and infirm, was a differently abled person 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 (this is evident from the deposition of P.W.2, sister of the deceased, Natarajan) who had consumed the poisonous food and became unconscious, and was lying in the house. Since the accused was present in the house at that time, as an ordinary prudent person he ought to have informed the matter to the Police. However, he failed to do so and has not offered any explanation for such omission. 26. P.W.7 who runs a pesticide shop is a crucial witness in this case who has deposed that on 25.02.2018, the accused purchased 250 ml. of monocrotophos organophosphate insecticide, by stating that he required it for using in his field. The entry in the bill book maintained in his shop reflected the name of the accused and the receipt issued by P.W.7 in the name of the accused was marked as Ex.P24. The Investigating Officer also recovered the box containing the remaining insecticide and the original receipt issued in the name of the accused under Ex.P8. This evidence reveals that before the occurrence, the accused, with a premeditated motive and intent to cause harm to his parents, had purchased the monocrotophos insecticide (which works by disrupting the pest's nervous system, causing paralysis, and death). It is a highly toxic substance that requires careful handling. 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 27. P.W.5 and P.W.6 deposed about the preparation of observation mahazar Ex.P8, rough sketch Ex.P16, and the recovery of fermented rice porridge along with other food items available in the house of the accused. The recovered items were sent to the forensic lab for chemical analysis, under a covering letter dated 08.03.2018. The chemical analysis report Ex.P5, revealed that residues of monocrotophos were detected in the samples of the fermented rice porridge. 28. P.W.8 the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, further reported that the viscera of the deceased Karupayee and Natarajan were subjected to chemical analysis and the analysis confirmed the presence of monocrotophos in their stomach, intestine, liver and kidney and produced the chemical analysis report, which is marked as Ex.P4. P.W.14, in his final opinion (Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.13), opined that “the deceased would appear to have died of organophosphorus poisoning.” 29. Therefore, on scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents, we conclude that the prosecution established that the accused and his wife were living separately. The wife of the accused quarreled 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 with him and his mother and refused to return to the matrimonial home, declaring that she would not join him during the lifetime of his parents. Aggrieved and frustrated by this situation, the accused formed the intention to do away his parents. In furtherance of such intent, he purchased the poison (pesticides) and kept it in his house. On the fateful day, he mixed it in the fermented rice porridge and his parents consumed the same being unaware of the fatal substance in the liquid food and thereafter, died. The accused while concealing the fact, accompanied them to the hospital. Though P.W.1 requested him to complain, he failed to do so and instead absconded. Subsequently, he appeared before the Village Administrative Officer and made a voluntary confession regarding the commission of the crime. It is evident from the evidence on record that the accused alone purchased poison from the shop of P.W.7. It is further proved that except for the accused, no one else was residing with his parents at the relevant point of time. It is also established that the deaths are not the result of suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the direct involvement of the accused finding out all the circumstances standing against the accused and the prosecution has established the chain of evidence that, except the accused, no other person was involved in the commission of the offence. 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 30. After analysing the entire evidence and records, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the materials available on record, had rightly held that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). 31. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him, as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 32. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment passed in S.C.No.95 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram dated 02.08.2019 is hereby confirmed. (A.D.J.C., J.) & (R.P., J.) 25.09.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rm 25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram 2.The Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, Parthibanoor Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. rm Judgment in Crl.A(MD)No.226 of 2022 25.09.2025 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis