BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
Karnan – Appellant
Versus
State, rep by The Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.304 of 2019) – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2021
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Muthulakshmi, based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence - The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- - The evidence of multiple eyewitnesses was deemed credible despite challenges regarding the testimony of a minor witness. (Paras 3, 10, 16, 17)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness accounts from neighbors who witnessed the incident, countering the defense's claims of accidental death. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with murdering his wife by hitting her with a wooden log during a quarrel, following a history of domestic abuse. The prosecution presented 20 witnesses, including eyewitnesses who testified to the assault. (Paras 1, 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the evidence overwhelming, particularly from eyewitnesses, and ruled that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony versus the defense's claim of accidental death and the reliability of the minor witness's testimony. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence from multiple eyewitnesses was consistent and credible, outweighing the defense's arguments and establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
JUDGMENT :
(G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.)
The appellant is the husband of Muthulakshmi (the deceased). He was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of his wife on 19.09.2009 at about 8.00 am by hitting on her head with a wooden log.
2.The prosecution to substantiate the charge, examined 20 witnesses. Marked 12 documents and 4 material objects. In defence, there was no evidence marked.
3.The Sessions Court at Srivillipudur, on considering the evidence placed and its evidenciary value, held that the accused/appellant guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and convicted him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 5000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.
Case of the prosecution:-
4.Mayakrishnan(PW-1) in his complaint-Ex.P.1 dated 19.09.2009, had informed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram that his daughter Muthulakshmi married to one Karnan nine years ago and they have two sons and one daughter. He after developing illicit intimacy with a lady by name Muniammal, his son-in-law started torturing his daughter. A month ago, his daughter unbearable of the torture came to the parent home and stayed with them. 10 days ago, he, his wife and relatives advised Muthulakshmi and sent her back to her husband house. On 19.09.2009 at about 9.30 a.m., from Lakhshmanan he heard that Karnan had assaulted his daughter with wooden log and she had been taken to the Hospital at Srivillipudur. Immedicately, he came to Othampatti Village and enquired his grand son Marrieswaran and others in the village. From them, he came to know that, Karnan and Muthulakshmi had quarrelled over the illegal affair and during the quarrel, Karnan hit Muthulakshmi with the wooden log saying, “till you are alive, you will be an hinderance. So get lost”.
5.Based on the above information, in Cr.No:304 of 2009 registered against Karnan for offfence under section 302 IPC and taken up for investigation. Nagarathinam(PW-19), Inspector of Police had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Conducted inquest and sent the Muthulakhsmi body for postmortem through Head Constable Perumal. He arrested the accused Karnan at 17.30 hours near the Ramakrishna Madam bus stop. In the presence of Bramanayagam, Village Administrative Offiver and his Assistant as witnesses, recorded the confession of the accused. Based on the disclosure, the blood stained shirt of the accused(M.O.1) and the blood stained wooden log (M.O.2) were recovered. The blood stained saree and blouse of the deceased were collected from the mortuary (M.O.3 and M.O.4). PW-19 on his transfer, handed over the investigation to Muthukumar (PW-20), Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation. After collecting the serology report and recording the statement of the scientific officer, PW-20 filed the final report.
6.PW-1 in his chief examination had reiterated his complaint. He had denied the suggestion that due to previous enmity with the accused, he is giving false evidence. PW.2-the minor son of the deceased, who was about 4 years old at the time of occurrence and 13 years old at the time of examining him in chief recorded on 21.02.2018, contrary to his previous statement, had deposed that, he and his mother went to the house under construction for watering the wall. At that time his, mother accidently fell from the scaffold and sustained head injury. His paternal uncle Arjunan took her in a vehicle to the Hospital. He came to know his mother died in the hospital. Later, this witness was recalled and cross examined by the prosecution on 30.09.2020. After declaring him as hostile witness, he was confronted with leading questions. In the course of cross examination, this witness had implicated his father / the accused and also deposed that earlier he was tutored by his father to depose falsely.
7.PW.3-Mariammal neighboring resident, PW.4-Santhi, who resident behind the house of the deceased, PW.8-Oyyammal, the owner of the house where th
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, rejecting claims of accidental death.
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, establishing that the evidence of murder was beyond reasonable doubt and rejecting claims of sudden provocation.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
The reliability of child witness testimony is crucial and must be scrutinized carefully; corroborative evidence is essential for convicting based on such testimony, especially when significant incons....
The court ruled that a conviction based on the testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny, and inconsistencies can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
It would always be open for prosecution to decide on quality and quantity of evidence that they wish to lead in order to establish charge and this Court cannot comment on such aspect of matter, as lo....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, affirming that procedural lapses did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court determined the absence of intent in the accused's actions, modifying the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to causing grievous hurt (Section 326 IPC).
Intent or knowledge to cause death required for murder under Section 302 IPC not established; case qualified under Section 326 IPC.
Conviction under Section 302 RPC unsustainable on uncorroborated child witness testimony with material contradictions, hostile key witnesses, doubtful weapon recovery, and unproved motive, entitling ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.