Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5285
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Ramados
Versus
State by: Inspector of Police, Kayarlabath Police Station, Perambalur District
CRL.A.No.635 of 2010
Decided On : 07-12-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Thiyagarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment emphasizes the need for caution when relying on solitary evidence and the requirement for corroboration of evidence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Sec.302 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec.302 of IPC - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the requirement for corroboration of evidence. It also highlights the importance of quality over quantity of evidence in criminal jurisprudence. The judgment emphasizes the need for caution when relying on solitary evidence and the necessity to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of his wife. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and extrajudicial confession, but the defense raised doubts about the evidence's reliability.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the eyewitness testimony, was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. It emphasized the need for caution when relying on solitary evidence and acquitted the appellant of the charge.
Issues: The reliability of eyewitness testimony, extrajudicial confession, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the need for caution when relying on solitary evidence and the requirement for corroboration of evidence in criminal cases. It highlights the importance of quality over quantity of evidence in criminal jurisprudence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Mahila Court, Perambalur, in S.C.No.23 of 2010 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the paternal grandfather of the deceased Parvathi. He was a resident of Adhichanur Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. The deceased lost her mother in her childhood. Hence she was brought up by P.W.1. P.W.3 is also a close relative of the deceased. The accused/appellant who belonged to the same place, developed intimacy with her. Even before the marriage, she became pregnant. Then there was a demand to marry her, but he refused. She placed a complaint before All Women Police Station, Jayamkondam, and P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, made an enquiry as a result of which, he came forward to marry her, and accordingly married her on 6.6.2009. After the marriage, they were staying for a few days. While so, on 9.6.2009, the deceased took lunch to the accused/appellant who was in the forest area. P.W.1 also followed her. Suddenly he heard the distressing cry of his granddaughter, went nearby and witnessed that he pushed her down, strangulated her with the rope and also attacked her with a wooden-log. When P.W.1 went to the rescue, he was also criminally intimidated. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5. Then the accused/appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. Within a short span of time, she succumbed to the injuries.
(b) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where he gave a complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was present at that time. On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.171 of 2009 under Sec.302 o IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P11, was despatched to the Court.
(c) P.W.12, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P11, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P12. Then he recovered the material objects including the wooden log, from the place of occurrence. In the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Parvathi and prepared Ex.P14, the inquest report. While the matter stood thus, the accused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), P.W.8, and in the presence of his Assistant, P.W.9, he gave a confessional statement. The same was recorded. He also prepared a report marked as Ex.P15. Then the accused was taken to the police station and handed over to the Inspector of Police, and he was arrested. He came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded in the presence of the same witnesses. He also produced M.O.5, a bottle which contained the pesticide, and also M.O.2, coir rope, and they were all recovered under a cover of mahazar.
(d) Pursuant to the requisition, P.W.2, the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Ariyalur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Parvathi and gave his opinion in Ex.P4, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to neck compression about 12-24 hours prior to autopsy.
(e) On a requisition made, all the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department. The reports were received which are marked as Exs.P17 and P18, the chemical analysts reports, and Ex.P19, the serologists report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the e
