Skip to main content

Madras High Court accepts children’s evidence in murder case

The children saw the father killing their mother

They were aged 11 and nine when their mother was murdered in 2009. The whole prosecution case centred around their testimony before the trial court.

Confirming the life sentence awarded to their father for the murder, the Madras High Court said it was accepting the children’s evidence before the lower court.

The prosecution case was that the murder took place on April 6, 2009 when the children, a boy and a girl, were sleeping in their house. Their father, M. George Arul Thangam, hit their mother, Pushpalatha’s head with a grinding stone. Pushpalatha succumbed to injuries.

On September 21, 2010, the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari, sentenced George Arul Thangam to life imprisonment.

Hence, the present appeal by Thangam before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Upholding the conviction, a Division Bench comprising Justices S. Rajeswaran and T. Mathivanan, said the testimonies of prosecution witnesses seemed to be unassailable, and they were not tainted with any suspicion. On appreciation of the evidence, the Bench said the trial court had correctly found the accused guilty under section 302 (murder) IPC.

Regarding child witness, Justice T.Mathivanan, writing the judgment for the Bench, observed that the children had unambiguously spoken about the presence of their father at the time of the occurrence and also his culpability in killing their mother with the grinding stone. All that was required in considering the evidence of a child witness was scanning it carefully. If after doing so it was found that there were no flaws in the evidence of a child there was no impediment in accepting the evidence.

The Bench said that in the present case, it did a meticulous analysis of the evidence of the two children. Having scrutinised their evidence, it did not find flaws in it. The court said it was also of the considered view that they were not moulded or tutored prior to their examination.

Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-accepts-childrens-evidence-in-murder-case/article5434003.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...