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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 4526

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Govindan @ Govindasamy
Versus
State, by the Sub-Inspector of Police
Crl.A.No.502 of 2010
Decided On : 20-10-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Jayakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and investigative findings to establish guilt in cases lacking direct evidence.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Rape and Murder - Sections 376(2)(f), 302, IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 376(2)(f), 302, IPC - The court discussed the evidence and circumstances against the accused, including witness testimonies, medical opinions, and investigative findings. The court highlighted the lack of direct evidence and the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The judgment emphasized the importance of witness testimonies and the consistency of evidence in reaching the decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the rape and murder of an 8-year-old child. The accused was found guilty of both charges, while another accused was acquitted. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, medical opinions, and investigative findings to establish the guilt of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of rape and murder based on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and investigative findings. The court emphasized the importance of witness testimonies and the consistency of evidence in reaching the decision.

Issues: The key issues included the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the interpretation of investigative findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of witness testimonies and the consistency of evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Judgment :-

M.Chockalingam,J.

1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Erode made in S.C. No.18/2007 whereby the Appellant/A1 was stood charged along with A2. A1 was charged for the offence under Sections 376(2) (f) and 302, I.P.C. and A2 was charged for the offence under Section 213, IPC and on trial, A1 was found guilty of both the charges and awarded life imprisonment for both the charges whereas A2 was acquitted of the said charge.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal can be stated as follows:

(i) P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the brothers. The deceased child Sandhiya is the daughter of P.W.6 and she was under the care and maintenance of P.W.1 during the relevant time. The victim child was 8 years on the date of occurrence, i.e., 20.11.2005. On the date of occurrence, the victim was playing along with another child/P.W.4 in front of the house of P.W.2. Since the child did not come back home till 5O’clock, P.W.1 me P.W.2. and asked about the child. He replied that at about 3.30 P.m., he saw the child Sandhiya and P.W.4/child Hema playing with the First Accused in front of P.W.1’s house. Then, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went in search of the child. When they met P.W.3, he told that he saw the child in the Company of the First Accused in front of the house of P.W.12 at about 3.45 p.m. Immediately both of them went and searched in front of P.W.12’s house but they could not find the First Accused or the child Sandhiya. So they went to the house of P.W.4 and asked the child. She replied hat when she along with Sandhya were playing, the First Accused came there and was also playing with them and since she did not like the behavior of First Accused, she returned home leaving Sandhiya along with the First Accused/Appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with other went in search of the child. Information was given to P.W.6, the father of the child. All of them were making search and at that time P.W.5 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused washing his face and hands in the Public tap near one Muthusamy’s house. Then P.W.9 informed that at about 4.30 p.m., she saw the First Accused coming from the house of P.W.12. Immediately, when all of them went inside the house of P.W.12, they found the dead body of the child, Sandhiya. On 20.11.2005 at about 3 O’ Clock the Accused had parked the cycle in front of P.W.10’s house and took the cycle at 6.00 p.m.

(ii) P.W.1, after ascertaining the above fact, proceeded to the Vellode Police Station and gave Ex.P1-report at 7.00 p.m. P.W.21-Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of Ex.P1-Complaint registered a case in Crime No.186/2005 under Section 376 and 302, IPC. The First Information Report-Ex.P17 was dispatched to Court.

(iii) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., P.W.22 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P2 and also drew a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.18. The photographs were also taken and M.Os.3 and 4 the series of photographs and negatives. P.W.17 is the photographer. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the child Sandhiya in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P19-inquest and he also called for finger print expert and on 21.11.2005, the finger print expert took the finger prints. An empty bottle was also recovered from the place of occurrence.

(iv) The dead body of the child Sandhiya was subjected to post mortem. P.W.15-Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Erode gave opinion in Exs.P4 and P5 wherein he has opined that the child would have died of neurogeric shock due to vaginal and uterus cervix injury, due to sexual assault. Pending investigation, the First Accused was arrested on 23.11.2005. He came forward to give confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P8 pursuant to which he produced M.O.5-pant M.O.7-shirt and M.O.6-














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
whatsapp-icon Back to top