Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Saravanan - Appellant
Versus
The State, through The Inspector of Police, Mathur - Respondent
Crl.A(MD). No. 354 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2022
POCSO Act - Criminal Offence - Section 302 IPC - [POCSO Act, Section 302 IPC] - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The case involved the appellant's attack on the deceased, the father of his minor girlfriend, resulting in the victim's death. The court analyzed the prosecution's evidence, witness testimony, and the appellant's defense, ultimately finding the appellant guilty based on the clear and cogent evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for attacking the deceased, the father of his minor girlfriend, resulting in the victim's death. The prosecution's theory revolved around the appellant's prior relationship with the victim's daughter and the subsequent attack on the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC based on the clear and cogent evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimony and material objects. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's guilt under Section 302 IPC, the credibility of witness testimony, and the consistency of the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the clear and cogent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim's family members, and the absence of substantial inconsistencies in the evidence presented. The court also emphasized the role of witnesses in delivering justice and the distinction between related and interested witnesses.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in S.C.No.148 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.)
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.148 of 2014, wherein the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The prosecution theory runs as follows:
2.1. Tmt.Jagathambal is the wife of the deceased Subramanian. Subramanian and Jagathambal had two children by name, Sasikala [P.W-2] and Manikandan [P.W-3]. They were all residing in Vivekanandha Nagar, Mathur. Sasikala [P.W-2] and the appellant herein loved each other and eloped for which, a complaint was lodged by the deceased on 27.05.2012 with Thiru.Thiyagarajan [P.W-6] Sub-Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station and the same was registered in C.S.R.No.84/2012. P.W-6 conducted an enquiry, after securing the presence of both P.W-1 and the appellant. P.W-1 and the appellant informed P.W-6 that they got married to each other. Since Sasikala [P.W-2] was aged 15 years and a minor, she was sent back to her parents' house by the police. Enraged over this, on 09.07.2012 at about 2.15 p.m., when the family P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the deceased, after cleaning their house at Vivekanandha Nagar, were about to leave for Trichy, where they shifted their residence, the appellant came over there armed with a bill hook [M.O-1] and attacked Subramanian on his neck, head and above the left ear. This was witnessed by P.W-1 to P.W-3. The appellant fled the scene of occurrence with the bill hook. Subramanian was immediately rushed to Government Hospital, Thiruchirapalli for treatment.
2.2. Dr.Premalatha [P.W.9] examined the victim and found the victim Subramanian in semiconscious stage and his blood pressure 100/50 and pulse rate 102. He had also sustained the following injuries
1) Lacerated injury measuring 8 x 5 cm x bone deep with the temporal occipital region
2) Lacerated 4 x 3 x 3 cm over left parietal temporal region
3) A cut injury 10x3x3 cm from the left hand side of his head till the back side of his head.
Dr. Premalatha, admitted him in Intensive care unit for treatment. A copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P9. However, Subramanian succumbed to injuries at about 06.00 p.m., on the same day.
2.3. P.W.1 went to Mathur Police Station at about 07.30 p.m., on the same date and gave a statement [Ex.P1] before the police which was reduced into writing by Thiru. Rajendran [P.W.16], Sub Inspector of Police. He then registered an FIR [Ex.P.12] in Crime No.88/2012 against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and placed the records before the Inspector of Police for investigation. He also sent FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur thorough Thiru.Rajkumar [P.W.15], the Sub Inspector of Police. The FIR was placed before the Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, at about 03.00 a.m., on 10.07.2017.
2.4. Thiru.Manohar [P.W.17], Inspector of Police took up investigation in Crime No.88/2012, went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P3] and a Rough Sketch [Ex.P13] in the presence of Thiru.Palanisamy [not examined] and Thiru.Anbarasan [P.W-7]. He then recovered the bloodstained earth [M.O.10] and ordinary earth [M.O.11] from the place of occurrence under the cover of mahazar [Ex.P4] in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter he proceeded to the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Trichy, where the body of the deceased was kept, and conducted an inquest [Ex.P14] on the body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses. Subsequently, he sent the body for post-mo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on clear and cogent witness testimony, the role of witnesses in delivering justice, and the distinction between related and interested....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court reaffirmed the credibility of eyewitness accounts in criminal proceedings, emphasizing their significance even amid investigative lapses.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The court considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
Credibility of eyewitness accounts and refutation of the appellant's claim of murder for gain were central to the court's decision.
Assault with stick in sudden quarrel without premeditation falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, reducing Section 302 to 304 Part I conviction.
Evidence of domestic violence, when corroborated by witness testimonies and medical examinations, can establish guilt in murder cases under IPC.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence and witness cre....
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
