Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
A. SELVAM & V.S. RAVI, JJ.
Chinnathambi
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police
Crl. A. (MD) No. 87 of 2013 & MP (MD) No. 2 of 2013
Decided on: 20-03-2014
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction and sentence of the accused for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case is based on the evidence of the daughter of the accused and deceased, who testified to the conduct of the accused and the events leading to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on the evidence of the daughter of the accused and deceased. The court held that the burden of proof lay with the accused, and since he failed to discharge this burden, the evidence of the daughter was relied upon for the conviction.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence provided by the minor daughter of the accused and deceased, and the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the daughter of the accused and deceased, as the accused failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The court also emphasized the need for careful analysis of the evidence of a child witness.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were confirmed.
A. Selvam, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.47 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur.
2. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Valli is the wife of the deceased and both of them have got married in the year 1997 and blessed with two children. The accused has had suspicion over the conduct of the deceased. On 18.03.2009 during evening hours, since the deceased has not cooked rice, a tussle has arisen between the accused and deceased. On 19.03.2009 at about 05.30 am, both the accused and deceased have gone to a field in which they are having leasehold rights for the purpose of irrigating the same. On the way to their field, in eucalyptus grove of one Ramakrishnan, the accused has attacked the deceased indiscriminately and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to overtacts alleged to have been committed by the accused, the deceased has passed away.
3. After receipt of information, PW1, Kaliyamoorthy, Village Administrative Officer has given Ex.P1, complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.73 of 2009 by the Sub Inspector of Police, who has been examined as PW19.
4. On the basis of Ex.P1, the Investigating Officer, PW20 has taken up investigation and examined connected witnesses, collected material objects and after completing investigation, laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Kumbakonam and the same has been taken on file in PRC No.15 of 2009.
5. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and taken on file in Sessions Case No.47 of 2010.
6. The trial court after considering the available materials on record has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to the accused. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
7. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 20 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 to 14 have been marked.
8. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.
9. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant.
10. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased by name Valli and both of them have got married in the year 1997 and blessed with two children. The accused has had suspicion over the conduct of the deceased. On 18.03.2009 during evening hours, the deceased has failed to cook rice and due to that a miff has arisen in between them. On 19.03.2009 at about 05.30 am, the accused and deceased have proceeded to their land, in which they are having leasehold right under the guise of irrigating the same and on their way, in the midst of eucalyptus grove of one Ramakrishnan the accused has attacked the deceased indiscriminately by using an aruval and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to overtacts alleged to have been committed by the accused, the deceased has passed away.
11. In the instant case, even though as many as 20 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution, nobody speaks about the occurrence. The trial Court has invited conviction and sentence only on the basis the evidence given by one Sathya (PW2) who is none other than the daughter of the deceased and accused. The other witnesses namely PWs.3 to 7 who have
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
