Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.POORNIMA, J
Muniyasamy @ Pon Muniyasamy – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeals | S.C.No.266 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor
Credible eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, even if other witnesses turn hostile; absence of motive does not negate direct evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Appeals against conviction and sentence for murder - Appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Balamurugan - Evidence primarily from father of the deceased, with other eyewitnesses turning hostile - Court upheld conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence. (Paras 1, 12, 26, 30)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The evidence of a single credible eyewitness can suffice for conviction, even if other witnesses turn hostile - The absence of motive does not negate direct evidence of the crime. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Balamurugan, who was stabbed multiple times during an altercation. The incident occurred on 27.10.2013, leading to the victim's death shortly after. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the deceased's father and corroborating evidence. (Paras 26, 32)
Issues: Whether the evidence of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction, and whether the absence of motive affects the prosecution's case. (Paras 12, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient for conviction, and the absence of motive does not diminish the weight of direct evidence. (Paras 29, 30)
Result: Criminal Appeals dismissed, and the trial court's judgment affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the investigation and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments by the appellants. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. detailed arguments on witness credibility. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and reasoning. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 32) |
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 in the judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.266 of 2015 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC . A1 and A2 had been convicted for offence punishable under of the and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment each.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) On 27.10.2013, Arumugasamy P.W.1 lodged a complaint in which it was stated that the deceased Balamurugan is his son, a driver aged about 31 years. Three years ago, he had married one Muneeswari, daughter of Muniyasamy. They were not blessed with children. Due to misunderstandings, she left to her parental home. Subsequently, a panchayat was held, and she took back her jewels. Thereafter, both were living separately. He met his wife occasionlly.
(b) Brother of Muneeswari, Pon Muniyasamy-A1 created problems with his son. The complainant hence cautioned him. On 27.10.2013 at 3.15 p.m., himself and his son-in-law Robinson were talking about real estate, behind the Registrar Office. They heard some noise near the New Bus Stand where a crowd was gathering. They also rushed to the place, and noticed that Muniyasamy @ Pon Muniyasamy- A1, his friends A2- Manikandan, A3-Balasubramanian, A4-Shanmuga Raj @ Arjunan, A5-Ramalingam, and A6-Kannan @ Valliyooran Kannan were fighting with his son Balamurugan. When he tried to stop them, A3 to A6, held his son and A1 and A2 took out knives. A1 stabbed his son's left stomach, left ribs and left arm. A2, inflicted cut injury on his upper lip, and right chest. His son was lying in a pool of blood. The complainant and others raised a hue and cry. The accused fled away from the bus stand. They accused were found in an inebriated condition. The complainat's son was struggling for life, and therefore, he took him in 108 ambulance to a Government Hospital. The Doctor declared that he was brought dead, and his body was kept in the mortuary. Hence, the complaint.
(c) P.W.13, Thiru Shanmugavadivu, after receiving the complaint Ex.A1 at about 16.45 hours registered a case in Crime No.664 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, and 302 of IPC . The FIR has been marked as Ex.P24. He forwarded the complaint and FIR to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi and other copies to the concerned Officers for reference.
(d) P.W.18, Thiru.Kumaresan, Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation. On 27.10.2013 at about 18.13 hours, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P27 in the presence of witnesses Thiru.Mariyappan – PW6 and Thiru.Dharmaraj – PW7. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P28 and recovered blood stained cement M.O.7 and ordinary cement M.O.8 under a recovery Mahazar Ex.P.29. On the same day, from about 20.30 to 23.00 hours, he conducted inquest on the dead body, and prepared inquest report Ex.P20. Thereafter, in order to conduct postmortem of the dead body, he sent a requisition letter to the Dean, Government Hospital through Grade-I Constable Thiru.Samudraselvan- P.W.10.
(e) P.W.11 Dr.Manohar conducted the autopsy on the dead body and made the following observations:
“The following ante mortem injuries were noted in the body: -
1. A stab wound of size 3cms x 0.5
