BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Sasikumar - Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.353 of 2021
Decided on : 27-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and offense description (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history and judicial actions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. trial proceedings and evidence review (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments on inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Para 9) |
| 5. eyewitness accounts and corroboration (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. credibility of eyewitnesses and related evidence (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. prosecution's burden and forensic evidence (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. arguments about timing and evidence reliability (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. conclusion and verdict of the appeal (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul in S.C.No.31 of 2017 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The deceased Malliga is the daughter of the complainant, Chinna Karuppan. She was married to the accused eight years ago. It was a love marriage. They were blessed with two male children, namely, Kaleeswaran and Iyyanar. The complainant's son-in-law was doing coconut cutting work. From out of the income derived, he consumed alcohol and created unnecessary quarrel with his daughter. He had not spent a single penny towards family necessities and when the same was questioned by his daughter, he created problems with her. He also threatened her with dire consequences. His daughter came to his house and complained about him, but he pacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial home. Both were living with bitterness.
(b) On 08.07.2014 at about 07.00 p.m., when he was staying at his residence, the accused came in an inebriated condition and quarrelled with his daughter. Both the complainant and his wife shouted at him and separated them. His daughter was sitting in the veranda of one Senrayan, accused Sasi Kumar took a bill Hook from his house, shouted at his daughter 
and inflicted injuries on her right neck. His daughter fell down and was lying in a pool of blood. When the complainant tried to lift her, she had succumbed to her injuries. The incident was witnessed by Thangaraj, Senrayan, Selvaraj and others.
Hence, the complainant requested to take action.
(c) After receipt of the complaint at about 20.00 hours P.W.15, Thiru.Mayilraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2014 under section 302 of IPC and the same was marked as Ex.P.11 and sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai and other copies were sent to the concerned officials through Grade-I Constable 310 Thiru.Periya Maruthu.
(d) P.W.18, Thiru.Senthil Kumar, Inspector of Police, after receipt of the FIR, took up the matter for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence at about 22.00 hours and prepared Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.7, Rough Sketch under Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.12, Tmt.Saranya, the Village Administrative Officer and Thiru.Paneer Selvam, Village Assistant. He also recovered blood stained earth and ordinary earth (M.O.3 & M.O.4) under a recovery mahazar Ex.P.10.
(e) Thereafter, he examined witnesses, Chinna Karuppan, M.Balamurugan, Sendrayan, Kachammal, Thangaraj, Selvam and recorded their statements.
(f) On 09.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m.,he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared the inquest report under Ex.P.17.
(g) Thereafter, on secret information on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., he arrested the accused in the Pillaiyar Natham Bus Stand and recorded his confession statement Ex.P.18 and recovered blood stained bill hook, blood stained rose colour shirt with letters as 'AKSA' (in the collar) (M.O.1 & M.O.2) under a recovery mahazar Ex.P.9 in the presence


The conviction was affirmed based on consistent eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies.
Eyewitness testimony, accused's conduct, confession, and forensic evidence prove attempted robbery and murder beyond doubt despite minor investigative lapses.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the presence o....
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES IS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 ....
The reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of absconding as incriminating evidence, and the application of legal provisions under Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of....
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.