Madras High Court raps communal angle of Nanguneri double-murder probe

MADURAI: Coming down heavily on the investigating officer for “mechanically” giving a communal angle to the Nanguneri double-murder case, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the IG, South Zone, to consider forming a special team to find out the truth.

“Two innocent persons have been killed, one of them a migrant worker from Odisha, and four others had been brutally attacked. Since the killings had taken place just prior to the notification for the Assembly elections, it was projected as though there was no law and order situation in the State,” observed Justice B Pugalendhi, while granting conditional bail to the appellant, against whom there was insufficient material to connect him to the offence.

According to the prosecution, seven persons, armed with sickles, entered Perumpathu village in Nanguneri on the evening of March 2, 2026. They attacked John Mark, who was standing near a welding shop, and another man, a migrant worker from Odisha who was passing by on a bicycle. Both succumbed to their injuries.

The court observed that while the initial investigation conducted by the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri police station, from March 3 to March 7, was headed in a particular direction, it took a turn towards the communal clash angle from March 7, after the Superintendent of Police handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Division.

“The investigation has been conducted in a casual manner, without even finding out the real cause behind the killings. From the material collected by the investigating agency, I could not find out the real reason for the incident, and even the reasons projected by the investigating agency, are illogical and not supported by material evidence,” observed Justice Pugalendhi.

The court observed that all the eyewitnesses, in their statements before the inspector of police, had uniformly stated that some persons from Manjankulam village committed the offence, but they did not attribute any motive to the crime.

However, when the same witnesses were examined by the DSP, they stated that A1 to A7 belonged to a particular community and that the crime was committed for communal reasons. The dispute over a flex banner was also subsequently introduced as a motive.

However, based on the legal opinion of the Deputy Director of Prosecution (DDP), Tirunelveli region, the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act were deleted.

The court cited the DDP's opinion that the Act had initially been invoked after it was ascertained that one of the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, but was later deleted after it was found that the deceased John was a Christian. The DDP also pointed out that there was no mischief at the crime scene to warrant the relevant provision.

The court observed that the crime reflected on the State's law and order situation and that the material collected by the investigating agency were insufficient to make out a case against A11.

The investigating agency did not bother to collect relevant material to link this accused to the offence.

“The investigation is not mere recording of statements and filing the final report in a mechanical manner; it is a process of finding out the truth and collecting evidence. The case lacks both,” Justice Pugalendhi observed.

Granting the bail under stringent conditions, the court directed the appellant to furnish a bond for Rs 1 lakh with two sureties for a like sum, to stay put in Tiruppur and report at the Tiruppur Central police station at 10.30 am daily.

He has also been directed against indulging in any offence and to inform the police of any change in his address. The court warned that violation of the conditions would lead to the cancellation of the bail.

The court directed the IG, South Zone, to examine the manner in which the investigation was conducted and, if warranted, constitute a special team to conduct further investigation, find out the real motive behind the occurrence and collect sufficient material.