A conviction in a criminal case cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that evidence is categorised as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and lacks further independent material corroboration.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

1.All these criminal appeals have been filed by A4, A3, A1 and A2 respectively, against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 122 of 2019 dated25.09.2023, convicting and sentencing the appellants as follows:

The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Alexraj, who is the brother of A1 eloped with one Geetha Lakshmi, who is the daughter of PW1, in the year 2016. The deceased Dakshinamurthy and, Sakthivel who are the sons of PW1 brought back Geetha Lakshmi and a panchayat was conducted and the panchayatharas instructed the said Geetha Lakhshmi to be sent to the house of PW1 since she was a minor and had not attained the age of marriage at that point of time.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that the said Alexraj once again eloped with the said Geetha Lakhsmi within a month and hence, a complaint (Exhibit P9) came to be given by PW1 to the All Women Police Station, Dindigul. PW10, who is the Inspector of Police, received the complaint on 13.06.2016 and conducted an inquiry in CSR No. 164 of 2016. In this inquiry, the said Alexraj is said to have given an undertaking that he will not disturb the said Geetha Lakshmi. Considering the undertaking, he was let out with a warning. Unfortunately, the said Geetha Lakshmi committed suicide during June2016.

4. The further case of the prosecution is that the said Alexraj blamed Dakshinamurthy and Sakthivel, who are the sons of PW1, for the death of Geetha Lakhsmi and it is alleged that he threatened to kill them. On the fateful day on 10.09.2016, when the deceased Dakshinamurthy came near the confectionery factory of PW1 at about 11 p.m., A3 and A4 shouted that he has to be killed and the said A3 and A4 and two minor offenders, who are the children in conflict with law, are said to have caught hold of the deceased and restrained him from running away. Immediately, A1 and Alexraj (child in conflict with law) attacked the deceased with Aruval (MO1 and MO2) indiscriminately. When PW1 and her son Sakthivel (LW2) attempted to prevent that, A1 and the said Alexraj are said to have threatened them with dire consequences. A2 is said to have stabbed the deceased with a knife (MO3). When the neighbour came to the scene of crime, the accused persons are said to have threatened them with dire consequences. The deceased Dakshinamurthy died on the spot.

5. PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, is said to have given a complaint (Exhibit P1) to PW14 on 11.09.2016 at about 2 a.m., based on which an FIR (Exhibit P12) was registered in Crime No. 591 of 2016 against three named accused persons and others for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 506(2) of IPC. The printed FIR is said to have been sent to the court through PW11 on 11.09.2016 at 6 AM by PW14.

6. PW15 took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at about 3.15 AM on 11.09.2016 and prepared the observation mahazar (Exhibit P13) and rough sketch (Exhibit P14). PW15 recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He seized MO9 and MO10 under Athatchi (Exhibit P15) in the presence of PW7 and PW8. He thereafter sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Dindigul. The inquest was conducted at the mortuary in the presence of panchayathars