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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...