Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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