Madras High Court
Karthick vs State By
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.09.2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 03.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.2281 of 2024
Karthick ... Appellant
Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
J-1, Saidapet Police Station,
(Law and Order), Chennai – 15.
Crime No.1083 of 2018. ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellant dated 08.02.2023 passed in S.C.No.400 of 2019 by the
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court is made by V.SIVAGNANAM,J.) The accused in S.C.No.400 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, is the appellant herein.
2.The then Inspector of police namely Vijayakumar, prosecuted the accused for having caused the death of Sowmiya by murdering him an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3.In the trial Court, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses PW1 to PW11 and marked 21 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and also marked 10 material objects MO1 to MO10. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence has been examined and marked 1 document Ex.D1.
4.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents.
Page 2 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
5.The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, found guilty of the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The period already undergone by the accused from 23.11.2018 to 12.02.2019 and from 08.02.2023 to 10.02.2023, shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
6.Out of fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the accused, Rs.4,000/- each is ordered to be paid as compensation to Selvan.Harish and Selvan.Ashwin, children of the deceased under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be disbursed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of appeal.
7.Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to Selvan.Harish and Selvan.Ashwin, aged 10 and Page 3 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 8 years respectively at the time of occurrence, who are the children of the deceased Tmt.Sowmiya, represented by a lawful guardian, after due enquiry Under Section 357A(1) Cr.P.C., out of the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the accused filed this present criminal appeal.
8.The prosecution case is that the accused loved the deceased Tmt. Sowmiya and married her 10 years ago prior to the occurrence and they were living together. As the deceased was talking over the mobile phone for long hours, the Appellant/accused doubted her fidelity and quarreled with her. Due to the dispute on 13.11.2018 at about 06.00 am, a quarrel broke out between them and the parents of the deceased went and brought her to their house situated at the place of occurrence. On the next day 14.11.2018 at about 10.00 am the appellant/ accused came to the house of the parents of the deceased, entered into the bedroom where the deceased was present, locked the door and cut her neck and wrist with the blade knife on several places and caused her death at the spot. Hence the Page 4 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 complaint by the mother of the deceased.
9.Based on the complaint, a case was registered in J.1 Saidapet Police Station in Crime No.1083/2018 u/s. 302 IPC against the Appellant/accused on 14.11.2018 at about 10.00 hours by Thiru Vijayakumar, the then Inspector of Police and took up the case for investigation. During the course of investigation, the then Inspector of Police went to the scene of Crime, drew the rough sketch, prepared an observation mahazaar in the presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.
10.During the course of investigation, on 23.11.2018 at about 13.30 hours, the then Inspector of Police arrested the Appellant/accused, enquired him and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of witness and after completing all legal formalities, the Appellant/accused was produced before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and remanded him to Judicial custody. After completion of an elaborate and detailed investigation, the then Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Page 5 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 Chennai and the same was taken on file in P.R.C. No. 53 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019. Then the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mahalier Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai and taken on file in S.C. No. 400 of 2019 dated 20.11.2019.
11.During trial, the prosecution has examined 11 Witnesses and marked 21 Exhibits and also 10 Material objects were marked. On the defence side, no witness was examined and one document was marked as Ex.D1.
12.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. PW1 Tmt.Vanitha mother of the deceased is the only eye witness to the occurrence. According to the prosecution, PW1 Tmt.Vanitha appeared before the Police Station at 11.30 hours and gave a written complaint Ex.P1 which was received at 12.00 hours and subsequently, FIR was registered in Crime No.1083 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC. During the cross examination, PW1 stated that she did not know when she went to the Police Station, it may be 3.00 p.m.. Page 6 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 Further, stated that after seizing the material objects by the police, she gave the complaint. This evidence shows that the complaint would have been given at 3.00 p.m. But seizer mahazer shows that it was prepared on 14.11.2018 at 2.00 p.m.. It makes the prosecution case doubtful and the genuineness of the FIR is also doubtful. PW2 Sekar and PW3 Manickam deposed that the police were present at the house between 10.30 to 11.00 hours. At the time of occurrence, the accused also suffered self injury but the police failed to receive the complaint from him. There are many contradictions in respect of sending the body to the hospital and seizure. PW4 Yuvaraj is a chance witness. PW7 Tariq Anwar is a relative to PW1. PW5 Dr.John Solomon recorded in the accident register Ex.P4 that when he admitted the accused for treatment, one Mumtaj brought him to the hospital and stated that he was attacked with Aruval by his wife but Mumtaj was not examined by the prosecution. The judgment and conviction of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and has committed a grave error in charging and convicting the accused and thus, the prosecution failed to prove the charge Page 7 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and thus, pleaded to acquit the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC.
13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and rightly convicted, after scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and supporting documents. In this case, death was the direct result of the injuries inflicted by the accused on vital organs of the body of the deceased. It is clearly deposed by PW1 Vanitha. Further, PW6 Doctor evidence also corroborated that the injuries caused by the accused is sufficient to bring about her death and there is no ground for interference and thus, pleaded to dismiss the appeal as it has no merit.
14.We have considered the matter in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
Page 8 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
15.With regard to quality of evidence, the following observations in Malik's Murder Trial Text Book is worthwhile to be noted as follows: As a general rule, a Judge should weigh not number witnesses. The tendency of modern improvements in the rules of evidence has been to admit every kind of evidence, leaving it to the Court to form its own opinion of the weight to be assigned to the evidence when admitted. The old Evidence Act (Section 28, Act II of 1855) enacted that, except in cases of treason, the direct evidence of one witness, who is entitled to full credit should be sufficient for proof of any fact and the present Act (Section 134 post) enacts that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case be required to the proof of any fact. The number of witnesses therefore, is a less important consideration than the weight to be attached to the individual testimony of each or to the sum of the testimonies of all taken together. But the number of witnesses may nevertheless under certain circumstances, be of very great importance "where direct testimony", says Mr.Starkie, "is opposed by conflicting evidence, or by ordinary experience, or by the probabilities supplied by the circumstances of the case, the consideration of the number of witnesses becomes most material. It is more improbable Page 9 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 that a number of witnesses should be mistaken, or that they should have conspired to commit a fraud by direct perjury than that one or a few should be mistaken or willfully perjured. In the next place, not only must the difficulty of procuring a number of false witnesses by greatly increased in proportion to the number but the danger and risks of detection must be increased in a far higher proportion; for the points on which their false statements may be compared with each other, and with ascertained facts, must necessarily be greatly multiplied". The first portion of these remarks applies with far less force in India than in England; but the latter portion is equally applicable in both countries. In false cases in India there is generally no lack of witnesses; and any deficiency in the weight of the witnesses individually is sought to be made up by number. In fact one mark of a false case is not uncommonly the extraordinary number of person who are said to have seen some occurrence, which in the natural course of things would have been witnessed by a limited number of persons only. At the same time cases sometimes arise which illustrate the truth of the remark that two or three persons are far more easily found than a larger number, who from motives of interest or malignity, will combine to Page 10 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 aggrandize themselves or to ruin and opponent. Their story, too, being for the most part simple, is readily concocted and remembered, while its very simplicity renders it extremely difficult, on cross-examination, to detect the imposture. It is on this account that the uncorroborated statements of single witness, especially when they testify to atrocious crimes, such as rape, etc., or are known, like accomplices, to be persons of bad character and to have an interest in the result, have ever been regarded with merited distrust, and are now in practice, generally deemed insufficient to warrant a conviction. It sometimes happens that several witnesses are called, and appear to be bearing concurrent testimony to the same thing when they are really attesting different things, one witness being called to prove one of the facts, and other witness to prove another of the facts, which go to make up the entire case; but two witnesses being never called to prove the same fact, lest, they should contradict each other on cross-examination.
16.There are decisions of the different High Courts in India in which the Court insisted on corroboration of the testimony of single witness not as a proposition of law but in view of the circumstances of those cases. On Page 11 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 consideration of the relevant authorities and the provision of the Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:
(1) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Court should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness those evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case Page 12 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 comes.
17.In view of these considerations there can be no hesitation in holding that the contention that in murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that “no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact”. The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after the due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognised in Section
134. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a Page 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding Judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quality of the evidence necessary for proving Page 14 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 or disproving a fact. Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable.(2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
18.In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if Courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situation may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to tender oral testimony open to Page 15 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the Court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver, both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. (Vadivelo Thevar v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 at 618, 619.)
19.In this case, the husband Karthick accused murdered his wife Sowmiya. The occurrence took place in the house of his wife Sowmiya. The only witness to the occurrence is PW1 Tmt.Vanitha, who is the mother-in-law of the accused and mother of the deceased.
20.The case of the prosecution is that the accused loved the deceased Tmt.Sowmiya and married her 10 years ago prior to the occurrence and Page 16 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 they were living together. As the deceased was talking over the mobile phone for long hours, the appellant/accused doubted her fidelity and quarreled with her. Due to the dispute on 13.11.2018 at about 06.00 a.m., a quarrel broke out between them and the parents of the deceased went and brought her to their house situated at the place of occurrence. On the next day 14.11.2018 at about 10.00 a.m. The appellant/accused came to the house of the parents of the deceased and entered into the bedroom where the deceased was present, locked the door and cut her neck and wrist with the blade knife on several places and caused her death at the spot. Hence, the complaint by the mother of the deceased.
21.PW1 Vanitha, mother of the deceased gave the complaint Ex.P1 and the same was received by PW10 Vijayakumar and registered FIR Ex.P10. PW2 Sekar, father of the deceased corroborated the evidence of PW1 his wife Vanitha with regard to the murder of his daughter. PW3 Manickam, since not supporting the prosecution case, was treated as a hostile witness. PW4 Yuvaraj, is the chance witness to the observation mahazer and seizure mahazer Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 respectively prepared by Page 17 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 Investigating Officer PW10 Vijayakumar.
22. PW5 Dr.John Soloman treated the accused and issued accident register Ex.P4. PW6 Dr.Karthika Devi conducted post mortem upon the body of the deceased and issued post mortem report Ex.P6. PW7 Thariq Anwar, eye witness to the seizer mahazer and his signature is in Ex.P7. PW8 Dr.Subramani initially saw the body of the deceased with injuries and sent it to the mortuary for postmortem and issued accident register Ex.P8. PW9 Lazar, Sub Inspector of Police produced Form 95 (1) Ex.P9 before the Court. PW10 Vijayakumar, Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer, received the complaint Ex.P1 and PW11 Pugalendi, Inspector of police, after continuing the investigation, filed biological report and serology report Ex.P20 & Ex.P21 respectively.
23.In this case, the only eye witness is the mother of the deceased and mother-in-law of the accused PW1 Vanitha. For better appreciation, Page 18 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 her evidence is reproduced hereunder:
14/11/2018 fhiy Rkhh; 8. 8/30 kzpf;F vjphp nghd;bra;jhh;/ vd;kfs; vd;d bra;fpwhh; vd;W nfl;lhh;/ Jh';Ftjhf brhd;ndd;/ vGg;gntz;lhk; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ mg;nghJ tPl;oy; vd; mg;gh o/tp ghh;j;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd;
ntiy bra;Jbfhz;L ,Ue;njd;/ vd; fzth;
ntiyf;F nghapUe;jhh;/ vd; kfs; brskpah
U:kpy; Jh';fp vGe;J Kfk; fGtptpl;L te;jhh;/
ehd; rikay; miwapy; ,Ue;njd;/ vjph te;jJ
vdf;F bjhpahJ/ vd; kfs; ,Ue;j bgl;U:kpw;F
nghdhh;/ ehd; Vnjh epHy; bjhpe;jJ vd;W ehd;
bgl;U:kpw;F ngha; ghh;j;njd;/ vjphp m';F
,Ue;jhh;/ rkhjhdk; ngr te;Js;shh; vd;W ehd;
rilay; miw nghndd;/ bgl;U:k; fjt[ lhky;
vd;W rhj;Jk; rj;jk; nfl;lJ/ ehd; Vnjh
ngRfpwhh;fs; vd;W ,Ue;njd;/ 10 epkplj;jpy;
Ia;nah vd;W vd; kfs; myWk; rj;jk; nfl;lJ/
ehDk; vd; mg;ght[k; fjit jl;ondhk;/ fjt[
jpwf;ftpy;iy eh';fs; fjit mGj;jp js;sp
me;j ,ilntisapy; ghh;j;jnghJ ,lJ ifapy;
vd; kfs; ,uj;jk; brhl;l brhl;l ifia
gpoj;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/ vjphp vd; kfis
ifapy; rha;j;J fjtpw;F gpd;g[wkhf
miHj;Jr;brd;whh;/ mg;nghJ gpnslhy; vjphp vd;
Page 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
kfspd; fGj;ij mWj;jhh;/ fjit jl;oa[k;
jpwf;f tpy;iy/ ehd; rj;jk; nghl;nld;/ nuhl;oy;
cs;sth;fSk; mf;fk; gf;fj;jpy; tPl;oy; cs;sth;fs te;J fjit cilj;jhh;fs;/ mg;nghJ vjphp vd;
kfs; gf;fj;jpy; gLj;Jf;bfhz;L mth; fGj;ij
fj;jpahy; mWj;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; Vd;lh
,g;go bra;apu vd;W fj;jpia gpL';fp Xuk;
itj;njd;/ vjphp fGj;jpy; mWj;j fhak;
,Ue;jJ/ vd; kfs; kaf;fj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwhh; vd;W
epidj;njd;/ vd; kfSf;F iffspy; kzpf;fl;od;
cs;g[wk; mUf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ fGj;jpy; ghykhf
mWf;fg;gl;L ,Ue;jJ/ ehd; vd; fztUf;Fk;.
Mk;g[yd;Rf;Fk; jfty; brhd;ndd;/ Mk;g[yd;rpy;
te;j egh; vd; kfis ghh;j;Jtpl;L
,we;Jtpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;/ vjphpia Mk;g[yd;rpy;
miHj;Jr;brd;whh;fs;/ nghyprpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ 24/Corroborating the evidence of PW1, PW2 has deposed in his evidence. The relevant portion of the evidence of PW2 runs as follows:
14/11/2018 md;W ehd; Ml;nlh Xl;l
nghapUe;njd;/ fhiy 10 kzpf;F vd; kidtp
vdf;F nghd; bra;J brskpahit vjph fGj;ij
mWj;J rhfoj;J tpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;/ ehd;
tPl;ow;F te;njd;/ vjphp tPl;oy; ,Ue;jhh;/ vjphp
fGj;ij mtnu mWj;J bfhz;ljhy; mtiua[k;
Page 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
Mk;g[yd;rpy; Vw;wp brd;whh;fs;/ vd; kfs; tPl;oy;
,we;jpUe;jhh;/ vd; kfSf;F ,uz;L iffspYk;
kzpf;fl;oYk; fGj;jpYk; mWj;J ,Ue;jJ/
nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/
25.The above two witnesses have clearly narrated about the occurrence and stated that the accused caused injuries and cut the deceased neck and wrist with the blade knife M.O.1 and the accused also cut his neck by using M.O.2 blade knife.
26.We have perused the testimony of Doctor Karthika Devi PW6 and Post mortem report Ex.P6. It is clear from the testimony of Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, that she found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1/FWf;fhd btl;Lfhak; 4 x 1 brkP njhy;
Mhj;jpw;F fGj;jpd; Kd;g[wk; jhilapy; ,Ue;J 4 brkP f;F fPGk; khh;g[ vGk;gpy; ,Ue;J 9 brkP nkYk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 2/ xU FWf;fhd btl;Lfhak; 19 x 6 brkP mstpy; jz;Ltl Mhj;jpy; fGj;jpd; Kd;gFjpapy;
jhilapy; ,Ue;J 6 brkP fPGk; khh;g[ vGk;gpy; Page 21 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 ,Ue;J 7 brkP nkYk;/ tyJ fhJ vGk;gpy; ,Ue;J 6 brkP Jhuj;jpYk; ,lJ fhJ vGk;gpy; ,Ue;J 4 brkP Jhuj;jpYk;. jz;Ltl vGk;g[ bjhpa[k;go jz;of;fg;gl;l K:r;R FHha;fs;. ,uj;j FHha;fs;. ijuha;L FWj;J vGk;g[. euk;g[fs; kw;Wk; jir ehh;fs; fhzg;gl;lJ/ ehto vGk;g[ KGikahf fhzg;gl;lJ/ 3/xU FWf;fhd btl;Lf;fhak; 6 x 0/7 brkP njhy; MHj;jpw;F fGj;jpd; ,lJ gf;fk; jhil vGk;gpy; ,Ue;J 4 brkP fPGk;. ,lJ fGj;Jg;gl;il vYk;gpw;F 6 brkP nkYk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 4/xU rha;thd btl;Lf;fhak; 1 x 1 brkP njhy; MHj;jpy; ,lJ fd;dj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 5/xU FWf;fhd btl;Lf;fhak; 1/5 x 1 brkP njhy; MHj;jpy; tyJ g[$j;jpy; btspg[wj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ mJ njhy; gl;ilapy; ,Ue;J 10 brkP fPGk; tyJ KG';ifapy; ,Ue;J 16 brkP nkYk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 6/xU rha;thd btl;Lf;fhak; 3 x 1 brkP njhy; MHj;jpy; tyJ Kd;d';ifapy; cs; Page 22 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 g[wj;jpy; tyJ KG';ifapy; ,Ue;J 5 brkP fPGk;/ tyJ kzpf;fl;oy; ,Ue;J 15 brkP nkYk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 7/xU FWf;fhd btl;Lf;fhak; 3 x 2/5 brkP jir MHk; tyJ kzpf;fl;oy; cs;g[wj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 8/xU FWf;fhd btl;Lf;fhak; 6 x 2 brkP jir MHk; ,lJ kzpf;fl;oy; cs;g[wj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 9/xU FWf;fhd btl;Lf;fhak; 6 x 2 brkP jir MHk; ,lJ Kd;d';ifapd; cs;g[wj;jpy; ,lJ KG';ifapy; ,Ue;J 16 brkP fPGk; ,lJ kzpfl;loy; ,Ue;J 4 brkP nky; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 10/xU rha;thd btl;Lf;fhak; 6 x 1 brkP jir MHk; ,lJ Kd;d';ifapd; Kd; g[wj;jpy; ,lJ KG';ifapy; ,Ue;J 14 brkP fPGk;. ,lJ kzpfl;oy; ,Ue;J 6 brkP nkYk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ 11.xU rha;thd btl;Lf;fhak; 2 x 1 brkP Page 23 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 mstpy; ,lJ njhy; gl;ilapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
In the doctor's opinion, these injuries are certainly sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
27. In the abovesaid medical evidence, the fact is that death is the direct result of the injuries inflicted by the accused on vital organ of the body of the deceased.
28.In Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465), their lordship observed that the prosecution in the first place was required to establish objectively that a bodily injury had been caused. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional.
29.Having regard to the nature of wounds inflicted by the accused, it must be deemed that intention of the accused was atleast to cause such Page 24 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 bodily injury as was likely to cause death. When serious injury has been caused on a vital part with a dangerous weapon, it must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to kill the deceased.
30.On fact, we find that the prosecution satisfactorily proved that the accused did cause the injuries found on the deceased Sowmiya that the accused intentionally inflicted those injuries and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death was actually caused. The requirements of clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC (Sec.101 (c) The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) are fully satisfied and the offence committed is that of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC(Sec.103 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
31.In view of the above, the charge against the accused is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court based upon the proper Page 25 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 appreciation of the evidence let by the prosecution and there is no merit in the criminal appeal.
32. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed and conviction and sentence dated 08.02.2023 imposed on the accused by the trial Court in S.C.No.400 of 2019 is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No (S.M.S.J) (V.S.G.J) sms 03.10.2024 To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, (Law and Order), Chennai – 15.
Crime No.1083 of 2018.
Page 26 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sms Pre-delivery Judgement in Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.2281 of 2024 Page 27 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.410 of 2023 03.10.2024 Page 28 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis