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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. S. ASHOK KUMAR
Bose - Appellant
Versus
State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P.S., - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1005 of 2001
Decided On : 14 December 2000

Appearing Advocates: For The Appellant :M.P. Rajan (Amicus curiae)Advocate. For The Respondent: K. Radhakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.

Headnote:

EVIDENCE - Criminal Law - IPC 449, 302, 324, 352 - The judgment discusses the offenses under Sections 449, 302, 324 (two counts), and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results. The circumstantial evidence supported the ocular evidence, leading to the affirmation of the accused's guilt.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted for offenses under Sections 449, 302, 324 (two counts), and 352 of the IPC for causing injuries to his wife, ultimately leading to her death. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused's abusive behavior towards his wife, the circumstances of the crime, eyewitness testimonies, and forensic evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies of the deceased's parents and relatives, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results matching the blood found on the weapon with that of the deceased.

Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's involvement in the offenses, the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, and the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results to establish the accused's guilt, concluding that there was no reason to interfere with the findings and conviction of the accused.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the accused's conviction for the offenses under Sections 449, 302, 324 (two counts), and 352 of the IPC.

Judgment :-

S. Ashok Kumar, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.82 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 324, 324 and 352 I.P.C. After trial the trial court found him guilty and convicted him under Sections 449 302, 324 (two counts) and 352 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated below:

(i) Under Section 449 IPC - 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(ii) Under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(iii) Under Section 324 IPC(two counts) - One year rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(iv) Under Section 352 IPC - Fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

The trial court also directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows.

(a)The deceased in the case is the wife of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the co-brother of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the elder sister of P.W.3's wife. Three years prior to 18.10.1999 (four years before the trial of the case), the accused and the deceased were married and after the marriage, they went to Mumbai to eke their livelihood. At Mumbai, the accused came addicted to alcohol and he has pledged 13 sovereigns of gold jewels, which belonged to the deceased and also sold the household articles for the purpose of purchasing liquor and very often he used to beat the deceased.

(b) P.Ws.1 and 2 got information about the activities of the accused through one Kasinathan. P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the father of the accused Palanivelu. The said Palanivelu directed his son Karunamoorthi to accompany P.Ws.1 and 2 to Mumbai and when they went to Mumbai, P.Ws.1 and 2 saw their daughter admitted in a hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused. After treatment, they brought her daughter and the accused to Thogavoor and made them to live separately. At Thogavoor also, the accused abused the deceased and drove her to her parental house. Thereafter, in the presence of one Madhavan, there was a panchayat and in which the accused was advised and the deceased was sent with her husband. Within one month thereafter, the accused sold the clothes of the deceased and also her 'thali' and drove her away. The deceased Vallimayil took shelter in her parents house.

(c) Some time prior to 18.10.1999, the accused came with a knife and demanded his wife to be sent along with him, for which P.W.1 refused. At that time, the accused showed a knife and threatened that he will kill his wife. One Kannusamy, who was residing four houses away, came there and advised the accused and sent him away.

(d) On 18.10.1999, at about 1.00 a.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping in their house along with her daughter Vallimayil. P.W.3 was also sleeping in the same house and the door was not locked. All of a sudden, the accused came inside at 1.00 a.m. and cut the deceased indiscriminately with aruval and on the alarm raised by the Vallimayil, P.Ws.1 to 3 saw the accused cutting the deceased. When they tried to catch him, the accused cut on the left index finger of P.W.1 and also on left thumb of P.W.2. When P.W.3 also tried to catch him, the accused pushed him and ran away. The injured Vallimayil was taken in a van arranged by one Subramaniam, Panchayat President. When the injured was taken to Ilayankudi Government Hospital, the medical officer who examined the injured Vallimayil declared that she was already dead.

(e) On receipt of phone message from Government hospital, Ilayankudi, P.W.11 Inspector of Police, went to the hospital at 4.00 a.m. and recorded Ex






















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top