Evidentiary reliability of eyewitness accounts is critical in sustaining a conviction, even against contradictory testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.588 of 2017 dated 25.11.2022 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one week prior to 05.09.2017, the deceased and the accused had quarrelled with each other. Due to the said motive, on 05.09.2017 at about 01.45 p.m., in the afternoon, the accused with the intention to do away with the life of the deceased, trespassed into the house of the deceased and caused stab injuries over the deceased left chest, back and right hand. Immediately, the deceased was brought to the hospital and he was declared brought dead.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.1249 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.22 and marked Ex.P1 to P16. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.10. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 450 of I.P.C; he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the prosecution examined P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 to P.W.6 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, P.W.4 to P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, it is neither cogent nor consistent, and their testimonies contradict each other. Their evidence is also not corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. They are interested witnesses, and their evidence cannot be considered trustworthy. In fact, the prosecution failed to prove their presence at the scene of occurrence, as they used to go to work during the entire day. Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not have been present at the time of the occurrence.

7.The alleged occurrence took place while the deceased was in the process of having lunch. However, this was not supported by the post-mortem doctor who conducted the autopsy and opined that undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, this is completely fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, P.W.6 and P.W.11 had taken the deceased to the hospital; however, they did not even whisper about the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges, and the Trial Court mechanically convicted the accused.

8