Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1891
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Ravikumar - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Madurai City - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 486 of 2017
Decided On : 24-10-2019
For the Appellant :S.M.A. Jinnah, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Chandrasekaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Corroboration of the testimony of a witness must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The prosecution had duly correlated the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 with the medical evidence in this case. Further, it was the quality of evidence which matters for proving a case and not the quantity and therefore, the prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the basis of minor contradictions, when statements of witnesses 1 and 2 examined are found to be cogent and reliable.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code- Sections 448 and 302-In a brutal murder, it cannot be expected that the injury must be exactly on the backside of the body, as there is every chance of the deceased in trying to escape from the attack of the accused and in that attempt, the deceased would have sustained injuries here and there. In Ex.P.19, there is an indication in regard to Injury No.3 that there is an oblique cut injury of size 11cm x 1cm on cutting the entire thickness of ear and extending back of temporal region up to bone depth with regular margin-Considering the totality of the circumstances and the ocular testimony adduced on the side of the prosecution
Statement of facts:
The accused, after watching a blue film in the house of one Selvam / P.W.17, had entered into the house of the deceased and started misbehaving with her. Since the deceased refused to adhere to his sexual desire, he attacked her with Aruval on her right neck, right side head, right ear and other parts of the body and caused her death, which resulted in registration of an FIR in Crime No.418 of 2013 for offences under Sections 448 and 302 IPC (i) Whether the prosecution, through the testimonies of witnesses, exhibits and material objects marked, is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
(ii) Whether the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned judgment for convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused are sustainable?
Finding of the court:
There were several injuries found on the body of the deceased, including the one on the backside of the right portion of the head and cross injuries on both side of the body. In a brutal murder, it cannot be expected that the injury must be exactly on the backside of the body, as there is every chance of the deceased in trying to escape from the attack of the accused and in that attempt, the deceased would have sustained injuries here and there. In Ex.P.19, there is an indication in regard to Injury No.3 that there is an oblique cut injury of size 11cm x 1cm on cutting the entire thickness of ear and extending back of temporal region up to bone depth with regular margin-Considering the totality of the circumstances and the ocular testimony adduced on the side of the prosecution-There is no prima facie ground raised in the memorandum of appeal to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court and no mercy can be shown to the accused in this case.
Result: Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan & N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 28.02.2017 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.341 of 2013 and acquit the Appellant.)
The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in S.C.No.341 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, stands convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 448 and 302 IPC as follows:
| Sl. No. | Offence | Conviction and Sentence |
| 1. | Section 448 IPC | To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of Three Months. |
| 2. | Section 302 IPC | To undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of Six Months. |
The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of remand was set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 19.04.2013 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused, after watching a blue film in the house of one Selvam / P.W.17, had entered into the house of the deceased and started misbehaving with her. Since the deceased refused to adhere to his sexual desire, he attacked her with Aruval on her right neck, right side head, right ear and other parts of the body and caused her death, which resulted in registration of an FIR in Crime No.418 of 2013 for offences under Sections 448 and 302 IPC.
3. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai in P.R.C.No.62 of 2013 and was subsequently, made over to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences against the accused person, has examined 17 witnesses, marked 24 documents and exhibited 20 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of offences and convicted him as stated supra.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant / accused submitted that though P.W.2 had stated that she noticed the entire occurrence through the window of the deceased's house, in the rough sketch produced on the side of the prosecution in Ex.P.21, there was no window marked. Further, it was also reiterated by P.W.3 in his cross examination, who is a Mahazar Witness that no window was found in the house of the deceased and therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is unreliable. The learned counsel further submitted that there are several material contradictions and omissions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which will affect the root of the case. Moreover, no reason has been adduced on the side of the prosecution as to why the material documents were sent to the Court belatedly.
5. It was also pleaded that P.W.2 deposed that the accused had attacked the deceased in her piscine position and even as per the version of the prosecution, there was no injury found on the backside of the deceased and therefore, there is no corroboration in the version of P.W.2 and P.W.16 / Investigating Officer and hence, the case of the prosecution in implicating the accused is highly doubtful and unsustainable.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / accused has submitted that the recovery of material objects was spoken to by P.W.4, who is a painter and there are a lot of contradictions in his evidenc
