A conviction for murder can stand if the prosecution establishes motive and presence of the accused through reliable testimony, despite some witnesses turning hostile, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

P. Velmurugan, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C.No.66 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram), Krishnagiri District, dated 16.10.2019.

2 The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is working at Bangalore in the Dell Laptop Company and he is having three sisters namely Manjula, Vennila and Sagunthala and one brother P.W.4 namely Punith Kumar. 10 years prior to the occurrence, his elder sister namely Vennila got married with one Jayabal and having two children namely Sivani and one Vetrivel and due to some misunderstanding between them, the said Vennila deserted the matrimonial home and went to the house of P.W.1 and lived along with him. 2 years prior to the occurrence there was some misunderstanding arose between herself and P.W.1, hence she was living separately at Bethalapalli, foot hills. In these circumstances, the deceased Vennila developed illicit intimacy with the husband of the appellant and the husband of the appellant used to stay with the deceased. Hence the appellant being enraged over the illicit relationship between the deceased and appellant’s husband, decided to do away the deceased and hence on 21.10.2017, at about 11.00 p.m. she went to the house of the deceased and had wordy quarrel with the deceased, in continuation of the same, stabbed the deceased with knife on right side of her stomach. Immediately the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital and Doctors, after check-up, at about 12.00 p.m. declared the deceased brought dead. Hence P.W.1, brother of the deceased preferred a complaint before the respondent police.

3 Based on the complaint Ex.P1, a case was registered in Cr.No.675 of 2017 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, which was taken up in P.R.C.No.01 of 2018. Since the offence charged against the appellant/accused is triable only by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, committed the case to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, which was taken on file in S.C.No.66 of 2018, who in turn, made over the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

4 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to 20, besides seven material objects M.Os.1 to 7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and incriminating materials culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and he denied the same as false. On the side the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

5 The learned Sessions Judge, after trial and after hearing the learned counsel on either side, by judgement dated 16.10.2019, found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

6 Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.

7 Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that in this case all the eye witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant only based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are the brothers of the deceased and they are only hearsay witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the attack alleged to have made by the appellant towards the deceased.

7.1 There are major contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.16, who received the complaint, with regard to the time of filing the complaint. P.W.1 in his evidence stated th