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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4963

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The court reaffirmed that a single credible witness can substantiate a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 - Conviction for murder - Accused convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for committing murder of Suriyakumari by stabbing her to death - Evidence demonstrated illegal relationship as motive, corroborated by eyewitnesses and medical reports - Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 12, 34)

(B) Evidence - Quality over quantity - A single credible witness can suffice for establishing guilt, corroborated by medical evidence and forensic analysis confirming blood-stained materials. (Paras 25, 34)

(C) Judicial procedure - Importance of timely cross-examination - Delay in cross-examination of witnesses raises concerns over reliability of testimony. (Paras 10, 18, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering Suriyakumari, who refused his advances, leading to a confrontation where he stabbed her fatally. The incident occurred outside an astrology center on 23.04.2015.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and supporting medical evidence, to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

Issues: The primary issues revolve around the sufficiency and credibility of eyewitness testimonies and alleged procedural errors in evidence collection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted that a credible witness's testimony can establish guilt, regardless of witness numbers, stressing the importance of proper procedural conduct in trials.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

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.

At that time, the accused approached them from the opposite direction and requested the complainant’s sister to immediately come to Mumbai, in response, both the complainant and her sister ignored him and left, proceeding to the astrology centre upstairs. The astrologer Kannan was present in the centre. He stepped up outside upon receiving a phone call. The complainant and her sister were sitting in a chair. The accused who had followed them abused her sister 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

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