SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Kaliyamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State through Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No.217 of 2019
Decided on : 05-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.V.Lakshmanan
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii), 302 r/w 149 - Criminal Appeal against conviction - The Trial Court convicted the accused for various offences including murder, based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence - The court found the testimonies of injured witnesses credible despite minor contradictions - The prosecution established the presence of the accused and their involvement in the assault leading to the death of the deceased. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 29, 30)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The reliability of eyewitnesses is paramount, especially when they are injured parties - Variations in their accounts regarding the number of assailants do not undermine their credibility if they are consistent on the core facts of the incident. (Paras 9, 16, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction for murder following a violent altercation between neighbors, resulting in the death of Vijaya and injuries to her family members. The accused were found guilty based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence linking them to the crime.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction, stating that the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the credibility of the injured witnesses.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the presence of the accused at the scene, and the interpretation of medical evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured parties, carries significant weight, and minor discrepancies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in SC.No.130/2016 on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 14.03.2019 and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellants.

The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore in SC.No.130 of 2016 vide order dated 14.03.2019.

2. The facts in brief, barring unnecessary details and leading to the filing of this appeal, are as under:-

(a). One Pakkirisamy and Kamala [PW5] are husband and wife. PW1-Venkatachalapathi, PW4-Dhamayanthi and the deceased Vijaya are their children. The accused are their neighbours. There was a long drawn grudge between the accused and Pakkirisamy family on account of stagnation of the Sewerage water flowing from the first accused residence. In this regard, on 14.08.2015, when PW1's father Pakkirisamy had questioned the first accused, he got enraged and assaulted Pakkirisamy and his wife Kamala [PW5] on 15.08.2015. Consequently, a police complaint was given by PW1. Immediately after the occurrence, Pakkirisamy and Kamala [PW5] were admitted in the hospital as inpatients and their accident registers were marked as Exs.P4 and P5. While so, on the next day on 15.08.2015 at about 6.00 a.m, when the deceased Vijaya proceeded to collect water from a nearby pump, the first and second accused berated the deceased Vijaya with filthy language, and the first accused assaulted the deceased with iron pipe, owing to which, she fell down on the floor. Thereafter, the 2nd accused has assaulted her on the stomach with a brick. The 3rd and 4th accused also assaulted her indiscriminately with bricks, on her chest and mouth. When PW1 to PW4 intervened to protect the deceased, the accused also assaulted and abused them in filthy language.

(b). It is the case of the prosecution that PW1, PW3 and PW4 are the injured witnesses. These witnesses were also admitted at the Cuddalore Government Hospital, as inpatients. The AR copy issued by PW15 in favour of PW3, PW-1 and PW4 were marked as Exs.P9, P10 and P11 respectively. The AR copy of the deceased Vijaya was marked as Ex.P12. After they were admitted in the hospital, intimation was given to the police and PW16-Mr.Dhanapal, the Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to Cuddalore OT Police station, recorded the statement of PW1 at the hospital and registered an FIR in Crime No.515 of 2015 at about 9.00.am on the very same day [15.08.2015] for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC.

(c). After registration, he forwarded the FIR to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, which reached the Court at about 6.30.p.m on the same day. Further, he forwarded the FIR to the Investigation Officer [PW17]. On receipt of the copy of FIR, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 15.08.2015 at about 10.15.a.m and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2], and Rough Sketch [Ex.P14], in the presence of witnesses PW6-Raji and PW3-Sivalingam. He has also seized the iron pipe and broken bricks from the scene of occurrence. He then recorded the statements of those who witnessed the occurrence, and proceeded to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and recorded the statement of Venkatachalapathi [PW1], Sivakumar [PW2], Sivalingam [PW3], Dhamayanthi [PW4], Pakkirisamy and Kamala [PW5].

(d). He would further state that since the deceased Vijaya was unconscious, her statement was not recorded. On the very same day at about 16.00 hours, he arrested the accused 1 to 3 viz., Kaliyamurthy, Murugan and Jagan, and remanded them to judicial custody. In the meanwhile, on 16.08.2015 at about 4.30.a.m, when he had received the information from JIPMER hospital about the death of Vijaya, he altered the charge to the offence under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the file to the Inspector of Police, for further investigation.

(e). Thereafter, Mr.Seeni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top