BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
Murugan @ Subbaiah – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.792 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2026
JUDGMENT :
R. POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neehtimandram, Madurai, in S.C.No.263 of 2015 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.1000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
a) The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased. The mother of the deceased lodged a complaint stating that the accused was in the habit of creating problems by suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. On 17.07.2010, the complainant received a phone call from one Alagarsamy informing her that her daughter had been admitted to the Government Hospital, Melur, and requesting her to come to the hospital immediately. The complainant and her son, namely Senthil Kumar, went to the hospital and found the deceased with burn injuries all over her body. First aid was given at the Government Hospital, Melur. Thereafter, for further treatment, the deceased was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where she succumbed to the injuries on 18.07.2010 (b) On the date of occurrence, the appellant locked his wife and their two children inside the house. Thereafter, the accused took a kerosene can, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.
(c) P.W.16, Thiru.Anbazhagan, Head Constable, Melur Police Station, upon receiving intimation from the Government Hospital, Melur, proceeded to the hospital, examined the deceased, received the complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, and registered a case in Crime No.195 of 2010 for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, he forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
(d) P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, Melur, took up the investigation and visited the place of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P6), and recovered the material objects viz., red colour saree, black colour inskirt and ragged blouse (M.O.3 to M.O.5). During the course of investigation, as the victim died on 18.07.2010, he altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC under Ex.P15.
(e) On 18.07.2010, P.W.18 conducted an inquest on the dead body and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P16). He arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement under Ex.P17. Pursuant to the confession, the material objects, namely a kerosene can and a match box (M.O.1 and M.O.2), were recovered.
(f) P.W.11, Dr. Chandrasekar, provided first aid to the deceased and referred her to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment. He also issued the Accident Register (Ex.P19).
(g) The dying declaration (Ex.P12) of the deceased was recorded by P.W.15, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.
(h) P.W.18, Mr. Ramakrishnan, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, and after completing the investigation, filed a final report against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. On receipt of the records, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, took the case on file in P.R.C. No.29 of 2012 and issued summons to the accused. After the appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records were furnished to him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, under Section 209 Cr.P.C. for further proceedings.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, on receipt of the case records, numbered the case as S.C. No. 263 of 2015 and took the case on file. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Secti
Dying declaration – In cases where dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict accused in absence of corroborative evidence.
Reliability of dying declarations is crucial for conviction under IPC Section 304(ii); conviction upheld as statements were consistent and trustworthy.
The dying declaration of the deceased, supported by medical evidence and circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 of IPC.
Dying declarations, if consistent and credible, can support a conviction without corroboration, as established by the court.
The court affirmed that a dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction if it is found to be voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, even without corroboration.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Dying declarations and circumstantial evidence can substantiate a conviction for homicide under IPC.
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.