Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Vimala, S. Ramathilagam, JJ.
Krishnan – Appellant
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2017
Decided On : 12-10-2018
Kaithamalai Kumaran, Adv., Mohammed Riyas, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing the testimony of a child witness with care and caution, and the need to consider the quality and reliability of the statements made by a child witness.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC - [Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code] - [Sections 376(1) and 302 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence of witnesses, including a child witness, and the medical and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the legal principles regarding the testimony of a child witness and the weightage to be given to such evidence. The judgment upheld the trial court's decision based on the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence and the lack of explanation from the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC for raping and murdering the deceased, who was his niece. The prosecution relied on the evidence of witnesses, including a child witness, and medical and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offences under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC based on the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, the lack of explanation from the accused, and the medical and forensic evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the witnesses, especially the child witness, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the legal principles regarding the testimony of a child witness and the weightage to be given to such evidence. It emphasized the need for close scrutiny and careful consideration of the quality and reliability of the statements made by a child witness.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision to convict the appellant for the offences under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC.
S.Ramathilagam, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, in SC.No.3 of 2012.
2. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. He stood charged for the offence under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence under sections 376(1) and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 376(1) IPC and to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default three more months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Trial Court is as follows:
The deceased Punitha is the daughter of the defacto complainant Mani and the accused is the own brother of the complainant. The said deceased Punitha was married to one Ramesh, who left his wife and his son Ajay due to misunderstanding. The deceased Punitha having developed intimacy with one Siva and that the deceased Punitha and her son were living in a rented house at Kuchipalayam and the above said Siva was maintaining them. The background of the accused was that he is the paternal uncle of deceased Punitha and prior to 11 years from 09.01.2010, the wife of the accused eloped with another person and the mother of the accused also passed away five years ago and the accused was living with his father at Kandampalayam. While so, the deceased Punitha took the accused for treatment when he became sick and thereafter the accused was staying with the deceased at Vinayakapuram. The deceased used to ask the accused to press her legs whenever she feels pain believing the accused to be in the status of her father. But, the accused developed lust over deceased Punitha and on 09.01.2010, at about 4.30 p.m., when the Punitha asked the accused to press her legs, the accused decided to exploit her sexually and also decided even to kill her if she protests and consequently the accused committed rape on Punitha by force and against her will and consent and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC. At the same time and place and in the course of same transaction, when the deceased Punitha raised alarm while protesting, he developed enmity against her and due to such enmity, the accused with an intention to cause death of Punitha stabbed her on the right, left side and back of her neck and also on her lower part of right chest, right side of her head with knife and also bitten her body. As a result of which, the deceased Punitha died on the spot due to shock and hemorrhage and thereby the accused committed murder punishable under section 302 IPC. After filing of the charge sheet, the accused was furnished with all copies of documents and the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused under section 376(1) and 302 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty by denying the charges and claimed for trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses, marked 35 exhibits and 7 material objects.
5. The statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded and the appellant denied all the incriminating materials and his involvement in the above said offence and neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side.
6. The trial Court, after scrutinizing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and also the appellant and the evidences adduced by them came to a conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted him for all the charges by holding that the prosecution has established the guil
