Conviction for murder upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony despite the absence of the child's mother, emphasizing the sufficiency of corroborative evidence.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai-1, in S.C.No.130 of 2009, dated 23.12.2009, convicting and sentencing the appellant/sole accused as follows :

Conviction Sentence Section 363 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, three months simple imprisonment Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, six months simple imprisonment The sentences shall run concurrently.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

One Amudha and her child Danam (deceased) are platform dwellers.

The accused was in relationship with the said Amudha. On 16.11.2008 at about 10 p.m., when the accused took the said Amudha and her child to park to have relationship with her, on seeing that, when the deceased child cried, the accused felt that the child was causing nuisance to his enjoyment and decided to do away with the child. Therefore, he forcibly took both Amudha and her child (deceased) in an Auto and after some distance, he pushed aside the said Amudha out of the Auto and took the deceased child alone in the Auto and on the Seethammal Road, got down from the Auto, and pulled out the child, poured petrol on her head, and lighted fire and fled away in the Auto. Amudha is said to have followed the Auto for her child, but she could not find the Auto.

3.When P.W.1, who was working as a Driver in the Fire Services Department, was returning to his house from his job at about 11.25 p.m., he saw a 4 year old child walking on the road with burn injuries on Thiruvalluvar Road near Police Booth. Immediately, he enquired the child, however, the child did not speak anything. Therefore, he called the Police and also the Ambulance. An Ambulance from Apollo Hospital came and he sent the child in the Ambulance. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1).

4.P.W.18 (Sub-Inspector of Police, Teynampet Police Station) received the complaint (Ex.P1) and registered an FIR in Crime No.2361 of 2008 (Ex.P19) under the head “Accidental Fire” and forwarded the FIR to the Court and a copy to the Inspector of Police.

5.P.W.19 (Inspector of Police) took up the investigation. At that time, the mother Amudha also came to the Police Station, who had come in search of her child. She has stated that she and her child are road side dwellers and she used to have relationship with the accused. On that day, i.e., on 16.11.2008, at about 10.00 p.m., when she went with the accused to Park along with her child, the accused got angry due to the cry of her child and said that he will do away with her child. By saying so, he took her and her child in an Auto. Near Alwarpet Bridge, he pushed her out of the Auto and took her child alone in the Auto. She followed the Auto. When she came near Thiruvalluvar Road at Teynampet, she saw a crowd gathered and when she enquired, she came to know that a child came with full of burn injuries and they sent the child to the hospital. Therefore, she suspects that the accused should have set her child ablaze. The statement of Amudha was recorded and the same is marked as Ex.P20.

6.Based on the statement given by Amudha (Ex.P20), the Investigating Officer (P.W.19) altered the case to Sections 363 and 307 IPC vide Alteration Report (Ex.P21). Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P22). Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, P.W.5.

7.P.W.2 was an Auto Driver. When he was returning to his house after attending a Pooja, at about 11.15 p.m. o