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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

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...