Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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

Similar News