Summary: The High Court of Madras confirmed that the accused in the murder case of Raja, an Advocate Clerk from Cuddalore District, was not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence.
On February 26, 2026, the High Court of Madras, with Judges P. Velmurugan and M. Jothiraman, agreed with a previous decision from February 12, 2018, to declare the accused not guilty. The case was about the murder of Raja, whose body was found buried in a pit in Thideerkuppam, Cuddalore District.
Discovery of the Body: On April 16, 2013, Raja's body was found buried in a pit. The police were alerted by a local officer, and forensic teams quickly arrived at the scene.
Background: Raja, an Advocate Clerk, was said to have received money from the accused, Kanakaraj, to help with a bail order. When the bail was delayed, tensions rose.
Charges: Kanakaraj was accused of murder and getting rid of evidence.
Evidence Presented: The lawyers against Kanakaraj used statements from Raja's family, who claimed Kanakaraj threatened Raja over the money. They also showed forensic evidence and found items linked to the crime.
Appeal by Valli: Raja's wife, Valli, challenged the not guilty verdict, arguing that the motive, the idea that Kanakaraj was the last person seen with Raja, and forensic evidence showed Kanakaraj was guilty.
Court's Findings: The court decided that the lawyers against Kanakaraj couldn't show a strong link between him and the crime. Important witnesses didn't back up the claims, and the evidence was not strong enough.
Motive and Threats: Even though there was a reason for the crime, the court noted there weren't enough independent witnesses or solid evidence connecting the accused directly to the murder.
Last Seen Theory: The court found no proof that Raja and Kanakaraj were together right before the murder.
Forensic Evidence: Although the death was confirmed as a murder, the evidence did not clearly link Kanakaraj to the crime.
The High Court confirmed the decision to declare Kanakaraj not guilty because there was reasonable doubt. The judgment stressed the importance of having a strong chain of evidence in cases based on indirect evidence.
