No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme 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