Holding

The appellate court held that the prosecution evidence was cogent and credible, and no infirmity existed to disturb the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Summary

The appellant Kittusamy, along with Channappan and Palanisamy, were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the killing of Ayyasamy, their son‑in‑law. The prosecution case relied on three eyewitnesses – the victim's cousin and his parents – who described the accused arriving armed and inflicting seventeen injuries, and on a post‑mortem report indicating death due to brain contusion and shock. The defence argued that the eyewitness testimony was not credible and conflicted with the medical evidence regarding the time of death. The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding a "ring of truth" in the witnesses' accounts and no material infirmity. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, holding that the evidence was cogent and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any defect warranting interference, and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the eyewitness testimony of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑3 is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the discrepancy between the prosecution's alleged time of the incident and the medical opinion on time of death creates a reasonable doubt affecting the conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdersection 302 IPCsection 34 IPCeyewitness testimonymedical evidenceconviction upheldcriminal appeal

Judgment

"'-
A KITIUSAMY
v. l
STATE OF TAMIL NADU

AUGUST 13, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

~-~
Penal Code, I 860-Sections 302 read with s. 34-Conviction under,
based on testimony of witnesses-Upheld by High Court-Justification of-
Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses cogent and credible-Thus, no
c infirmity to warrant interference-Conviction by courts below justified-
Evidence.

According to the prosecution case, A was married to Y, Al's daughter.
The parties had strained relations. A2 and A3 are sons of Al. On the-fateful
D day, around 6.00 AM, Al to A3, armed with weapons came to the house of A.
Al to A3 attacked A and inflicted 17 injuries on his body. Cousin brother of
A and A's parents witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged. Investigation was
carried out. Accused were arrested and recoveries were made. Trial court
x -
relying on the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 convicted the accused for the offence
under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and passed sentence of
E imprisonment for life. High Court upheld the same. Hence the appeal.

Appellant contended that the evidence was not credible and cogent; and
that the evidence of PWs I, 2 and 3 was contrary to medical evidence of record.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: I.I. The High Court rightly observed that there is a ring of truth
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The appellant could not point out
any infirmity, which would warrant interference with the impugned judgment
of the High Court. (Para 9] (1003-GI

G 1.2. PWs. I to 3 gave the elaborate details of the weapons held by the
accused and the manner of assault by them. PW 6-doctor noted that there
were 17 injuries found on the body of the deceased which could be caused by ....
the weapons held by Al to A3. With regard to doctor's evidence about the "'
approximate time of death, he had nowhere stated that death took place around
H 1000
KITTUSAMY v. STATE OFT AMIL NADU [PASAYAT, J.] 1001
mid night The recovery of the weapons of assault was also established. A
(Para 7) (1003-D, E, F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. l 061 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2002 of the High Court of B
Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 1998.

Vidya Dhar Gaur for the Appellant.

V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. l. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of
D
I'
J(
the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The said
appeal was filed by the appellant and two others. The accused-appellants are
Kittusamy, Channappan, and Palanisamy (for the sake of convenience the
accused persons are described as "A I, A2 and A3 "). Each of them was
convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). E
3. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Deceased Ayyasamy is the son-in-law of Kittusamy (Al). Chinnappan
(A2) and Palanisamy (A3) are the sons of Al.
~ F
Deceased Ayyasamy married Valliammal, daughter of Al, about 15 years
back. From the wedlock, two children were born. After sometime, Chinnakutty,
second daughter of Al was kept as concubine by the deceased. After four
months, she left the house of the deceased and eloped with somebody else.
Four years prior to the date of occurrence, Valliammal, daughter of Al, unable
to bear the torture at the hands of the deceased, left the house of the
G
deceased and joined her parents with her children.
't

On 3.11.1996 at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased Ayyasamy came to the
house of the accused, where the wife of the deceased along wjth her children
were residing, and asked his wife to come with him to lead the matrimonial
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.
-I-
A life. She.refused to accompany him. The accused also told the deceased that ~
)
they would not allow Valliammal to join him anymore. Then, the deceased
abused the accused in filthy language and went back to his house.

On 4.11.1996 at about 6.00 A.M., Al to A3 came to the house of the
deceased, where he was residing alone, with weapons. Al, A2 and A3 were
B armed with stick, iron rod and aruval respectively. Noticing all the accused
coming with the weapons, the deceased got afraid and began to run from his
ho11se towards Northern side. But all the accused chased hin:i to a considerable
distance and ultimately, surrounded and attacked the deceased with the "' "--
weapons causing 17 injuries. Three persons (PWs l, 2 and 3) witnessed the
incident.
c
Then, P.W.l went to Avanashipalayam police station and gave Ex.Pl ~

complaint to Sub Inspector of Police (PW-10). A case under Section 302 read
with Section 34 l PC was registered against the accused.

Inspector of Police (PW- l l ), on receipt of the information, visited the
D
scene of occurrence at about 11.30 A.M. He prepared Observation Mahazar
~
and rough sketch. He also conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. x
He recovered blood stained earth, sample earth and other things from the
scene of occurrence. He sent Ex.P-9 requisition to the Doctor, Palladam
Government Hospital to conduct autopsy.
E
Doctor (PW-6) conducted postmortem and issued Postmortem Certificate
(Ex.P-10) giving details of the injuries found all over the body. He was of the
opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of contusion of brain
matter and shock and haemorrhage due to injury to lungs.

F On 5-11-1996, at about 1.00 PM, Inspector of Police (PW-11) arrested Al
'(
to A-3 and obtained their confession statements and in pursuance of the
same, he recovered weapons M.0.1 (stick), M.0.2 (iron rod) and M.0.3 (aruval).

Inspector of Police (P.W.12), who was the successor to P.W. l l, finished
the investigation and filed charge-sheet against all the accused under Section
G 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. As the accused
persons pleaded innocence, they were put on trial. In order to further its f
version, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. It was noted by the trial court
that PWs l, 2 and 3 were eye-witnesses and their version was sufficient to
.- H
~

~
KITTUSAMYv. STATEOFTAMILNADU [PASAYAT,J.] 1003

hold the accused persons guilty. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of A
imprisonment for life and fine awarded were confinned. Before the High Court,
the primary stand of the appellant was that the evidence is not credible and
cogent; the evidence of PWs. I, 2 and 3 is contrary to the medical evidence
on record. The Doctor stated that the occurrence could have taken place
around 4 a.m., whereas the prosecution stated that the occurrence took place B
around 6 a.m. The High Court did not accept the stand as noted above and
confinned the conviction and sentence.

-' .__. 5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant reiterated
the stand taken before the High Court.
c
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the
judgment.

7. It is to be noted that PW l was the cousin brother of the deceased
while PWs. 2 and 3 were his parents. Though efforts was made to show that
PWs 2 and 3 stay at a different place, as rightly observed by the ttial court D
and the High Court that really is not relevant and that PWs. 2 and 3 stated
,.. as to why and how they were at the place of occurrence. PWs. l to 3 have
given the elaborate details of the weapons held by the accused and the
mann:er of assault by them. PW 6 the doctor noted that there were 17 injuries
found on the body of the deceased which could be caused by the weapons E
held by Al to A3. So far as the doctor's evidence about the approximate time
of the death is concerned, it is to be noted that the doctor had nowhere stated
that death took place around mid night. On the contrary he stated as follows:

"As I opined that the deceased could die from 12 to 16 hours, I
am saying here that the deceased could die from 12 to 16 hours. F
Depend upon the trigger mart on body, I had mentioned the time of
death. I stated that there was digested liqi.;id in his stomach."

8. The recovery of the weapons of assault has also been established.

9. The High Court has rightly observed that there is a ring of truth in G
the evidence of PWs. The appellant could not point out any infirmity, which
would ·warrant interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
In view of the above, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.
H