SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Child Witness Testimonies, If Convincing, Should Not Be Dismissed: Madras High Court

13 September 2024 9:53 AM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling delivered on September 6, 2024, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction of Kasinathan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of his mother-in-law, Gowri, and grievously injuring his wife Revathi. The court dismissed Kasinathan’s appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment that found him guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC.

The crime took place on August 19, 2013, in Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. Kasinathan, enraged by familial disputes and hostility towards his mother-in-law, Gowri, entered her home armed with a Koduval (a sharp weapon) and attacked her while she was in the backyard with his wife, Revathi. He delivered fatal blows to Gowri, severely injuring her head, limbs, and torso. When Revathi attempted to intervene, she was also assaulted, sustaining multiple lacerations and fractures. The attack left Gowri dead and Revathi severely injured. Their two sons, Vishnu (PW13) and Vishwa (PW14), witnessed the entire incident.

Kasinathan was arrested, and after a detailed investigation, he was charged with murder and grievous assault. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, prompting the appeal.

Reliability of Child Witnesses: Could the testimonies of Vishnu and Vishwa, both minors, be relied upon as the primary evidence for convicting the accused?

Dying Declaration: The defense questioned the authenticity of the dying declaration made by Revathi, pointing out discrepancies, such as the absence of her signature at the end of the declaration.

Hearsay Evidence: The defense argued that there were no direct eyewitnesses apart from the minors, and the other witnesses were hearsay, reducing the strength of the prosecution's case.

Child Witness Testimonies: The court heavily relied on the testimonies of Vishnu and Vishwa. While recognizing that evidence from child witnesses must be scrutinized with caution, the court found their statements credible and consistent with other evidence. The court ruled that the testimonies of the children, supported by forensic evidence and circumstantial details, were sufficient to prove the accused's guilt.

Justice V. Sivagnanam cited precedents to emphasize that child witness testimonies, if convincing, should not be dismissed. The court also noted that there was no substantial proof that the children were tutored, as their statements were recorded soon after the incident, leaving little opportunity for manipulation.

Dying Declaration: The defense highlighted that Revathi’s dying declaration was incomplete because it lacked her signature at the end. The court acknowledged this discrepancy but ruled that the declaration could not be dismissed entirely. However, it did not form the sole basis for the conviction.

Forensic and Medical Evidence: The court further supported its judgment with forensic evidence, noting that the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased and the accused were of the same blood group, strengthening the prosecution's case. Additionally, the medical reports, including the post-mortem and injury reports, corroborated the children's account of the brutal attack.

The court concluded that the evidence, including the reliable testimony of the child witnesses, medical reports, and forensic analysis, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kasinathan was guilty of the charges. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence by the trial court were upheld.

Date of Judgment: September 6, 2024

Kasinathan vs. The State

Latest Legal News