Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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