Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU and V.S.RAVI, JJ.
Velu - Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by the - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.181 of 2012
Decided On : 26.10.2015
Motive - Murder - IPC 294(b), 302, 506(ii) - The court discussed the evidence and motive presented by the prosecution, the credibility of witnesses, and the timing of the occurrence. The court highlighted the importance of eyewitness testimony and the corroboration of evidence in proving the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Mr. Serry Antonyraj. The prosecution presented evidence of the motive, the sequence of events leading to the murder, and the medical findings on the deceased's body. The appellant denied the charges and did not present any witnesses or evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and corroboration of the events leading to the murder.
Issues: The issues included the timing of the occurrence, the credibility of witnesses, the presence of food in the deceased's stomach, and the absence of bloodstains on the weapon used in the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony and the corroboration of evidence in establishing guilt. The court also noted the lack of explanation for the injuries found on the accused and dismissed the defense's arguments regarding the timing of the occurrence and the absence of bloodstains on the weapon.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court were confirmed. The appellant was directed to serve out the remaining period of the sentence.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.290 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.03.2011, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Serry Antonyraj. PW2 was his associate. PW1 is the father of the deceased. Some time before the occurrence, the deceased and PW2 had attacked the accused. In respect of the said occurrence, the deceased and PW2 were prosecuted before the Court, where the deceased and PW2 was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. Because of the above occurrence, the accused was inimical towards the deceased and PW2.
(b) PW1, PW2 and the deceased were all residing at Lingampatti Village, Tuticorin District. The accused was also residing in the same village. On 31.03.2010, in the evening, there was a function in the local school, attended to by the general public as well as the students. PWs.1 and 2 attended the said function. By about 8.45 p.m., PWs.1 and 2, as soon as the function was over, had gone to the nearby Kanmoi. The deceased also followed them. Within a short while, the accused also came there. He was armed with an aruval. On seeing the deceased, the accused reached him and attacked him with the aruval indiscriminately. PWs.1 and 2 raised alarm and tried to rescue him. The accused criminally intimidated them by brandishing the aruval. Therefore, they could not go near the deceased. After the deceased had fallen down with serious injuries, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. PWs.1 and 2 went near the deceased and thereafter, found him dead. Then, they returned to the village and informed the family members. Then, PW1 went to the Police Station to make a complaint.
(c) PW16 -the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nalattinpudur Police Station received the complaint from PW1 at 11.15 p.m. on 31.03.2010. He registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 IPC. Ex.P16 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded the complaint -Ex.P15 and the FIR -Ex.P16 to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
(d) PW17 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence at 1.00 a.m. on 01.04.2010 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of PW7 and another witness. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence between 3 to 5.00 a.m. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, during which he examined PWs.1 and 2 and few more witnesses. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.
(e) PW11 – Mrs.Suyambu Meenakshi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 01.04.2010 at 11.00 a.m. She found the following injuries:
“External injuries:
1) Cut injury 8 x 4 x 5 cm in the anterior middle part of neck running horizontally from 2 cm from left sternomastoid muscle to 4 cm laternal to midline in the right side of anterior part of neck cutting through trachea and oesophagus.
2) Cut injury 15 x 4 x 3 cm extending from left angle of mandible running horizontally through the left side of neck upto 3 cm lateral to midline in the left side of neck exposing muscles and tendons.
3) Cut injury 18 x 4 x 3 cm extending from left side of lower lip running horizontally through left side of neck upto 4 cm lateral to midline in the right side of neck exposing muscles and tendons. This injury is 3 cm above injury (2).
4) Cut injury 18 x 4 x bone extending from right angle of mandible running horizontally through depth right side of neck extended upto 4 cm la
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
