SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 353

Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR
Alagupandi @ Alagupandian
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2009
Decided On : 08-05-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:B. Sridhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B. Balaji, M. Anbalagan, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Conviction can be based on sole eye witness.
A child can be a competent witness.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Sole eye witness, related/interested – Inspiring confidence and truthful – Not suffering from any material contradiction – Witness, brother of deceased and staying with her – His presence not unnatural – No reason to falsely implicate the accused – Statement of every related witness cannot, as a matter of rule, be rejected. (Para 17, 18)

       Crl. Appeal No. 984 of 2007; Crl. Appeal No. 77 of 2007 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Nature of injuries – Showing the accused had intention to kill – He had motive to do so – Statement of eye witness corroborated by other witnesses – Recovery of weapon at disclosure statement of accused – Serology report clinchingly connecting accused to crime – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 19, 20, 23)

       (c) Criminal Trial – Child witness – Can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – Such evidence can be relied. (Para 24)

       (1997) 5 SCC 341; (1998) 7 SCC 177 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Tamilarasi, the deceased, was the second wife of one Karuppaiah. After the death of her husband, she was residing at Sikkandarchavadi and was enjoying the properties left by her deceased husband and collecting the rent from the properties. Accused Alagupandi is the son of Karuppaiah, from his first wife. Accused, after the death of his father, used to demand money from his step mother for which there used to be quarrel between them.

       On the midnight of 13th / 14th January, 2002, when the deceased was sleeping with her two sons namely Prabakaran, PW7, and Vinothkumar, PW8, the accused entered into the house with a knife and caused injuries on her stomach, chest and thigh. Because of this assault, Tamilarasi died on the spot.

       The trial court convicted him u/s 302 which was confirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, based upon proper appreciation of evidence clearly prove the guilt of the accused. The statement of PW-1 is fully corroborated by other witnesses, expert evidence and the medical evidence.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 28th February, 2007, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th July, 2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai holding the accused/appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and awarding sentence of life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:-

Tamilarasi, the deceased, was the second wife of one Karuppaiah. After the death of her husband, she was residing at Sikkandarchavadi and was enjoying the properties left by her deceased husband and collecting the rent from the properties. Accused Alagupandi is the son of Karuppaiah, from his first wife. Accused, after the death of his father, used to demand money from his step mother for which there used to be quarrel between them.

3. On the midnight of 13th / 14th January, 2002, when the deceased was sleeping with her two sons namely Prabakaran, PW7, and Vinothkumar, PW8, the accused entered into the house with a knife and caused injuries on her stomach, chest and thigh. Because of this assault, Tamilarasi died on the spot.

4. PW-1, P. Selvaraj, is the brother of the deceased and lived at Theni Village. He was staying with the deceased (his sister) and was working as a cleaner in the lorry. On the fateful day, he was sleeping on a rock stone outside the house when he heard the distressing cry of his sister. When he went inside the house, he saw the accused coming out of the house with a knife in his hand. The accused ran towards the western side. Thereupon, he went inside the house and saw his sister lying in a pool of blood. PW-1 then proceeded to the village headman and also to the village Panchayat President. Then, he was directed to go to the police station. He went to the police station, gave the complaint Ext. P-1 to Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-11. On the basis of this complaint, the Police registered a case being Cr. No. 6/2002 under Section 448 and 302 IPC. The FIR Ext. P-10 was registered and sent to the Court. The Inspector of Police, PW-16 took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made investigations in presence of the witnesses, prepared the Observation Mahazar Ext. P-4 and sketch, Ext. P-15. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy. Dr. Alavudeen, PW-14 attached to the Government Hospital, conducted the post mortem upon the body of the deceased and gave the post mortem report, Ext. P-12, wherein he opined that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage because of injuries sustained by her. Upon his arrest, the accused also made a confessional statement in presence of the witnesses vide Ext. P-17. On the basis of this statement, M.O.6., knife and M.O.7., blood stained shirt were also recovered vide Ext. P-18. All the material objects were sent for chemical examination by the forensic department which issued two certificates, Exts. P-8 and P-9, the chemical examination report and the Serological report, respectively.

5. It may be noticed at this stage itself that PW-7 and PW-8, the two minor children of the deceased had seen the incident, but their examination was not permitted by the trial court as is evident from the judgment of the trial court and the evidence produced before the Court.

6. The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial under Sections 448 and 302 IPC and finally vide judgment dated 19th July, 2004, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, as afore-noticed.

7. Upon appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court sustained the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the accused vide its judgment dated 28th February, 2007, giving rise to the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that :

a) PW-1









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top