The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered material contradictions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2019, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur in S.C.No.81 of 2017 and acquit the appellant.)

M.S. Ramesh, J.

The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.81 of 2017, dated 14.10.2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur, whereby, the sole accused / appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 449 I.P.C., and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment; life sentence for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of the payment of fine, to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment; and 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone, was ordered to be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The facts that are germane for deciding the present appeal can be summarised as follows:

2.1. The appellant had married the deceased Vijayalakshmi as his second wife, about 11 years prior to the date of the crime. For the past three years, prior to the occurrence, the appellant had been suspecting the fidelity of his deceased wife, owing to which there had been frequent quarrels and about 2 months before the incident, the deceased Vijayalakshmi had deserted the appellant and went to the house of her mother viz., Minnalkodi.

2.2. In this situation, on 27.05.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., the appellant had tresspassed into the house of the mother of the deceased and her sister-in-law and demanded his wife Vijayalakshmi to reconcile with him. When the deceased Vijayalakshmi had refused to come, he had demanded the Thali back and while doing so, he had dragged her towards the backyard, by holding the deceased''s Thali chain, hair and saree and pushed her down with an intention to commit murder. Accordingly, he had taken a knife which he had concealed in his hip and had caused cut injuries in her right jaw, right shoulder, head, left breast and right forearm and thereby committed the offence of murder.

2.3. During the occurrence, when the deceased''s sister-in-law had attempted to stop him, the appellant caused a cut injury on her hand. Thus, the appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 324 IPC and accordingly, was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court, as referred to above.

3. Before the trial Court, the sister-in-law of the deceased, Kamalam, who was an injured eyewitness was examined as P.W.1 and the police complaint she had given was marked as Ex.P1. The deceased mother, Minnalkodi was examined as P.W.2. Immediately, after the incident, the neighbours viz., Saravanan and Arumugam, who had rushed to the scene of crime and witnessed the deceased lying on the floor, were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively. One Kalyanasundaram, who had seen the accused running from the scene of occurrence, was examined as P.W.6. The daughter of the deceased Muviyarasi, who had identified the two wheeler of her father, was examined as P.W.9. The Doctor, Udhayabanu, who had conducted the postmortem, was examined as P.W.10 and the postmortem report and his opinion were marked as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 respectively. Thiru Jegatheesan, Sub Inspector, who had registered the FIR was examined as P.W.12 and the FIR was marked as Ex.P9. The Doctor Rengasamy Ravindran, who had treated P.W.1 was examined as P.W.15 and the accident report and wound certificate were marked as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 respectively. The investigation Officer was examined as P.W.17.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant