Prosecution's Fatal Mistake: Not Examining the Only Child Witness Who Saw the Accused — Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused

"Strong Suspicion Cannot Be a Substitute for Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — The Chain of Circumstances Got Snapped When Prosecution Failed to Examine Even a Single Witness on Last Seen Theory", Madras High Court on March 10, 2026 set aside a life imprisonment sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife, holding that the prosecution had fatally snapped the chain of circumstantial evidence by failing to examine the couple's own son — the only person who could have established the last seen theory.

A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice P. Dhanabal acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 302 IPC, while condemning the Investigation Officer's serious lapse in not recording the child's statement or producing him as a witness.

The appellant, M. Senthilmurugan, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District by judgment dated February 21, 2023, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the murder of his wife on November 20, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the accused, who had been unable to work since sustaining a left femur fracture, had become addicted to alcohol, quarrelled frequently with the deceased, and on the afternoon of the incident, entered the kitchen, slammed the door, strangulated the deceased with a towel, and assaulted her with a kitchen cutting tool. The deceased died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to mechanical asphyxia as confirmed by the post-mortem report. The accused was arrested the next day and MOs 1 and 3 were allegedly recovered based on his confession. He challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court.

The Fatal Gap: Son Not Examined

The prosecution's entire case rested on circumstantial evidence — motive, recovery of weapons, conduct after the incident, and medical evidence. No eyewitness was examined to establish that the accused was inside the house at the time of the incident.

The Court found that there was a critical witness who was never produced — Kavin Prasad, the young son of both the accused and the deceased. The evidence on record established a clear chain: it was Kavin Prasad who had informed PW4 (the accused's brother) about the incident; PW4 had then informed PW1 (the deceased's brother), who filed the complaint. The Revenue Divisional Officer's inquiry report, marked as Ex. P11, also confirmed this sequence.

"It is quite surprising that the prosecution has not even chosen to examine Kavin Prasad, who is the son of the deceased and the accused, who is said to have witnessed this incident or at least saw the accused person at the place of incident. If this small boy had been called as a witness and examined, the entire truth would have come out."

The Court noted that the Investigation Officer had not recorded Kavin Prasad's statement under Section 161 CrPC during the investigation, had not included him in the list of witnesses, and had not taken any steps to examine him before the court.

"This is a very serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer. This serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer has to be necessarily condemned by this Court."

Last Seen Theory: Most Important Link Left Unproved

The Court held that the last seen theory was the most critical link in this case, and its absence proved fatal to the prosecution. Had Kavin Prasad been examined and the last seen theory established, the burden would have shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain what happened inside the house — and his failure to explain would have permitted an adverse inference. But without that foundation, no such inference could arise.

"There is no witness who speaks about the fact that the accused person was available inside the house before or at the time of the occurrence. In the absence of examining Kavin Prasad, there is no material to link the accused person to the incident. Just because the accused person and the deceased had a strained relationship and the accused person was a drunkard, that cannot lead to a presumption that it is only the accused person who could have committed the offence."

Motive and Recovery Not Enough

The Court found that the trial court had been improperly swayed by the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased and the recovery of MOs 1 and 3. It held that motive, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the recovery of weapons through a confession statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot alone be sufficient to establish guilt in a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Applying the settled standard that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance so completely as to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt, and that when two views are possible, the accused is entitled to the one favourable to him, the Court held that the chain of circumstances was snapped — not merely weakened.

The Madras High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing him to be set at liberty. The ruling is a pointed reminder that in circumstantial cases, an incomplete investigation that omits the most important potential witness is not merely a procedural failure — it can collapse the entire prosecution case.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2026