BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
Gunasekaran – Appellants
Versus
The State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Andipatty Police Station – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.222 of 2020
Decided On : 27-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
R. POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Theni, in S.C.No.4 of 2016 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The complainant is the sister of the deceased Suriyakumari. Her sister was married to one Kannan 10 years back and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. Her sister Suriyakumari borrowed money from the accused Gunasekaran and thereafter, developed illegal intimacy. The wife of the accused Gunasekaran complained about the illegal relationship to the police. Both of them were summoned before Batlagundu Police Station. The complainant, his mother, deceased had gone to the police station and assured them that they would pay the money to the accused and her sister would not have any relationship.
(b) In the meantime, accused Gunasekaran, requested Suriyakumari to accompany him to Mumbai, and the same was refused by Suriyakumari stating that she wanted to look after her children. Her husband after knowing the affair with the accused, sent her sister to her parental house, he took his children with him and left the matrimonial house. Therefore, her sister has been staying in her mother's house for the past 14 days.
(c) On 23.04.2015 at about noon, her sister, deceased Suriyakumari informed the complainant that the accused continuously troubling her. The complainant stated that time was not good so they decided to meet an astrologer.
(d) On, 23.04.15 at about 8.15 p.m., both the complainant and her sister were on their way to Om Shakti Astrology Centre located on the first floor of Muthu Kannan complex near the Andipatti bus stand.

and then took out a hidden knife, stabbed her below the left side of her chest. When the complainant tried to stop him, he attempted to attack her. Her sister defended with her hand and protected her. The accused inflicted injuries, on the left side face, and the right side neck of Suriyakumari. When both raised an alarm, the astrologer upon hearing the alarm rushed to the scene of the occurrence and tried to catch the accused, but he fled away with a knife.(e) The complainant and Thiru.Kannan, Astrologer took the victim in an auto to Dr.Murali for treatment, he had asked them to take her to Ka. Vilakku Government Hospital. At that time, the Police came to the place and she took her sister in the Police ambulance and admitted her in Ka.Vilakku Government Hospital. The Doctor examined her and declared as brought dead. Her statement was recorded by the police. Hence, prayed for action against the accused.
(f) The complaint statement Ex.P1 was recorded by P.W.33, Tmt.Pandiyammal, Sub Inspector of Police on 23.04.2015 at about 21.45 hours and then went to Andipatti Police Station and registered a case in FIR No.204/2015, under Ex.P15 for the offence under section 302 IPC. She had sent the complaint statement and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and copies to other officials. She handed over the case file to P.W.34 Thiru.Nallu for investigation and assisted him with the investigation.
(g) P.W.34 Thiru.Nallu, Inspector of Police received the FIR at about 02.00 hours went to the place of occurrence on 24.04.2
The court reaffirmed that a single credible witness can substantiate a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The court highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence in witness testimonies, particularly concerning juvenile witnesses.
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.
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.