BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ.
Sudhakar - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 248 of 2021
Decided On : 01-10-2024
Criminal Law - Homicide - IPC Sections 302, 307 - The court upheld the conviction for murder and attempted murder, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the established motive stemming from prior enmity.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for murdering two individuals and attempting to murder a third during a retaliatory attack stemming from a prior family dispute. The incident was witnessed by several individuals, leading to the registration of an FIR shortly after the event.
Issues: Whether the conviction for murder and attempted murder was justified based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness accounts and the established motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, carries significant weight. Minor discrepancies in their accounts do not undermine the overall credibility of their testimonies.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder.
JUDGMENT :
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
1. The sole accused in S.C.No.172 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court at Trichy, aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.09.2019 by which judgment, he had been convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and under Section 307 IPC (1 count) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count and in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each count and also sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC (1 count) and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the de-facto complainant, Panneer (PW-1), son of Chellammal (D1) and nephew of Amaravathy (D2) had lodged a complaint on 14.04.2013 at around 06.30 pm alleging that at around 05.30 pm on the same day, the appellant/accused, Sudhakar, had indiscriminately attacked and caused the death of his mother, Chellammal (D1) and aunt, Amaravathy (D2) and caused injuries to Sathish @ Sathish Kumar (PW-2). On the basis of this complaint, PW-16, Subramanian, Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy, had registered FIR in Cr.No.163 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 307, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. On conclusion of trial, the appellant/accused, Sudhakar was acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC, but convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC (2 counts) and 307 IPC (one count) and sentenced as aforementioned.
3. The facts in brief are that there existed previous enmity between the family of the de-facto complainant, Panneer (PW-1) and the accused, Sudhakar, owing to dispute relating to a garbage pit. In December 2011, three brothers of de-facto complainant by names, Ravi, Ramakrishnan and Elangovan, had attacked Suresh, elder brother of the accused and caused injuries consequent to which, even after taking treatment in hospital, Suresh was forced to remain in the house and died in March 2013. It is contended by the prosecution that the accused, aggrieved over the death of his elder brother, had proclaimed that he would retaliate against any member of the family of the de-facto complainant. Consequent to such threat, the three elder brothers of the de-facto complainant, namely, Ravi, Ramakrishnan and Elangovan, had left the place and resided elsewhere for about 15 days.
4. It is further contended that Sudhakar with intention to kill any member of the family of the de-facto complainant, on 14.04.2013, at around 05.30 pm, when Chellammal (D1) was cleaning the front yard of her house at Kaliamman Kovil Street, had attacked her with an aruval on her head, cheek, hands and all over the body and she collapsed in the same place, dead. It is contended that this was witnessed by PW-1, Panneer, PW-2, Sathish @ Sathish Kumar, PW-3, Arivalagan, PW-4, Lavanya and PW-5, Lakshmi. It is further contended that PW-4 Lavanya was the granddaughter of Chellammal (D1) and PW-5 Lakshmi was a close by resident. It is further contended that PW-2 and PW-3 had come to the scene of crime in a motorcycle to go to a house nearby and on seeing the appellant/accused attacking Chellammal (D1), PW-2 Sathish @ Sathish Kumar tried to prevent the attack and he was in turn, attacked with an aruval by the appellant/accused on the head and hands again and again which caused injuries to him, as a result of which, he fell down unconscious.
5. It is further contended that PW-1 chased the accused and tried to catch him at Singaram Theru. The accused threatened PW-1 in filthy language and proclaimed that he would kill him also. Later, the accused attacked Amavaravathy (D2), who was standing in front of her house at Singaram Theru and who incidentally was the aunt of PW-1 with patta kathi (sword) on her
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
The evidence of eye witnesses is of great importance in criminal cases, and their testimony should be carefully evaluated to determine its reliability and consistency.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite any defects in the investigation.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
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.