Madras High Court
Karnan vs State Rep By on 3 April, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.03.2025
Pronounced on : 03.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2021
Karnan .. Appellant/Sole accused
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.304 of 2019) ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 20.01.2021
passed in S.C.No.45 of 2010 by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar
District, at Srivilliputhur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondent :Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
_____________
Page No. 1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.374 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
The appellant is the husband of Muthulakshmi (the deceased). He was
charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the
death of his wife on 19.09.2009 at about 8.00 am by hitting on her head with
a wooden log.
2.The prosecution to substantiate the charge, examined 20 witnesses.
Marked 12 documents and 4 material objects. In defence, there was no
evidence marked.
3.The Sessions Court at Srivillipudur, on considering the evidence
placed and its evidenciary value, held that the accused/appellant guilty of
offence under section 302 IPC and convicted him to undergo life
imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 5000/- in default to undergo 6 months
Simple Imprisonment.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
Case of the prosecution:-
4.Mayakrishnan(PW-1) in his complaint-Ex.P.1 dated 19.09.2009, had
informed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram that his daughter
Muthulakshmi married to one Karnan nine years ago and they have two sons
and one daughter. He after developing illicit intimacy with a lady by name
Muniammal, his son-in-law started torturing his daughter. A month ago, his
daughter unbearable of the torture came to the parent home and stayed with
them. 10 days ago, he, his wife and relatives advised Muthulakshmi and sent
her back to her husband house. On 19.09.2009 at about 9.30 a.m., from
Lakhshmanan he heard that Karnan had assaulted his daughter with wooden
log and she had been taken to the Hospital at Srivillipudur. Immedicately, he
came to Othampatti Village and enquired his grand son Marrieswaran and
others in the village. From them, he came to know that, Karnan and
Muthulakshmi had quarrelled over the illegal affair and during the quarrel,
Karnan hit Muthulakshmi with the wooden log saying, “till you are alive,
you will be an hinderance. So get lost”.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
5.Based on the above information, in Cr.No:304 of 2009 registered
against Karnan for offfence under section 302 IPC and taken up for
investigation. Nagarathinam(PW-19), Inspector of Police had examined the
witnesses and recorded their statements. Conducted inquest and sent the
Muthulakhsmi body for postmortem through Head Constable Perumal. He
arrested the accused Karnan at 17.30 hours near the Ramakrishna Madam
bus stop. In the presence of Bramanayagam, Village Administrative Offiver
and his Assistant as witnesses, recorded the confession of the accused. Based
on the disclosure, the blood stained shirt of the accused(M.O.1) and the
blood stained wooden log (M.O.2) were recovered. The blood stained saree
and blouse of the deceased were collected from the mortuary (M.O.3 and
M.O.4). PW-19 on his transfer, handed over the investigation to
Muthukumar (PW-20), Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation.
After collecting the serology report and recording the statement of the
scientific officer, PW-20 filed the final report.
6.PW-1 in his chief examination had reiterated his complaint. He had
denied the suggestion that due to previous enmity with the accused, he is
giving false evidence. PW.2-the minor son of the deceased, who was about 4
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
years old at the time of occurrence and 13 years old at the time of examining
him in chief recorded on 21.02.2018, contrary to his previous statement, had
deposed that, he and his mother went to the house under construction for
watering the wall. At that time his, mother accidently fell from the scaffold
and sustained head injury. His paternal uncle Arjunan took her in a vehicle to
the Hospital. He came to know his mother died in the hospital. Later, this
witness was recalled and cross examined by the prosecution on 30.09.2020.
After declaring him as hostile witness, he was confronted with leading
questions. In the course of cross examination, this witness had implicated his
father / the accused and also deposed that earlier he was tutored by his father
to depose falsely.
7.PW.3-Mariammal neighboring resident, PW.4-Santhi, who resident
behind the house of the deceased, PW.8-Oyyammal, the owner of the house
where the incident occurred are eye witnesses. They all have consistently
deposed that on that fateful day, the deceaswd Muthulakshmi and Karnan
were quarrelling. They saw Karnan hitting Muthulakshmi with a wooden log
on her head. Among the prosecution witnesses to speak about the
occurrence, PW-7 alone had turned hostile to prosecution. PW-2 who turned
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
hostile, but deposed in support of the prosecution in the cross examination.
8.The recovery of blood stain cloth and the wooden log based on the
confession of the accused is spoken by Bramhanayagam (PW-10). As per
Ex.P.5-the serology report, the blood of the deceased is 'B' Group. Same
group blood found in the shirt of the accused a0nd in the wooden log marked
as M.O-1 and M.O-2 respectively.
9.Muniammal with whom the accused alleged to have developed
intimacy and was caused for the dlspute between the accused and the
deceased was examined as PW-17. Though she had deposed that she is not
aware how Muthulakshmi died, she had admitted that after her death, the
accused had married her and she is having two children through him. Same
fact is found admitted by PW-2 in the cross examination.
10.The trial Court based on the above evidence convicted the accused
and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs
5000/-. The said judgment is challenged on the following grounds:-
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
“(a)The trial Court failed to appreciate the eye
witnesses (P.W.2) in proper perspective. P.W.2 after
adhering the legal requirement of examination of child
witness. He was subjected to Chief Examination on
21.02.2018 where he categorically stated that deceased fell
down from the hight of the building, while sprinkling water.
She was immedicately taken to the hospital by one Arjunan,
who is senior father of P.W.2. That Arjunan has not been
examined as witness for the reasons best known to the
prosecution. The prosecution recalled P.W.2 on 30.09.2020,
belatedly and made him hostile by subjecting him in to the
cross examination. The attempt of recall made by a
prosecution belatedly after lapse of 2 years is unknown to
criminal law.
(b)The Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of
doctor(P.W.14), who treated the deceased while she was
alike clearly stated that he was informed at accident fall.
The AR entry Ex.P.6 reflected the same. Further, P.W.14 did
not speak of the exact cause of death of the deceased.
Admitedly, the deceased sustain two head injuries. No
explanation as to which injury is the fatal injury.
(c)The prosecution failed to obtain the opinion from
postmortem doctor as to the cause of death by showing the
alleged wooden log. Further the doctor-P.W.14 clearly
admitted that the injuries of the deceased could have been
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
caused due to the accident fall from hight of building. The
defense version has been only probabilised, but also proved
by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.14.
(d)The trial Court failed to consider evidence of P.W.
3 who is one of the eye witnesses admitted in cross
examination that the belatedly reached the scene of
occurrence and she did not enter into the house if the
deceased, where the occurrence took place.
(e)The complaint-Ex.P.1 is highly doubtful and
belated one, since according to the prosecution case, P.W.1
lodged complaint which came to be marked as Ex.P.1, per
contra P.W.6 deposed that the complaint was dictated by
police and he wrote the same. So the complaint written by
P.W.6 has not been produced by the prosecution.
(f)The trial Court failed to consider that the
occurrence resulted out of sudden wordy quarrel and
admittedly the weapon of the offence was available there in
the scene of crime itslef, by any stretch imagination. The
offence of murder will never be made out rather than
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(g)The trial Court failed to consider that the none of
the eye witnesses and also doctor did not identify the
weapon of crime as it has been cited in the commission of
crime.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
(h)The trial Court failed to note that the prosecution
had not proved the offences against the appellant without
any reasonable dobt and the benefit of doubt was not
granted in favour of the accused.”
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, the
evidence of PW-2 was 4 years old child at the time of occurrence. When he
was 13 years old, came to the Court to depose about the occurrence. At that
time, he was under the care and custody of the accused and his paternal
grand parents. Therefore, he was tutored by the accused to depose falsely,
Two and half years later, after the witness was removed from the influence of
the accused, he had truly deposed about the occurrence. Though there was
about 2 ½ years gap between the chief examination and cross examination,
the evidence given by the child witness after removing the influence is more
reliable, since the evidence given by him in the cross examination is
consistent to his previous statement to the police as well the evidence of
PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-8.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
12.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that,
the overt act of the accused causing head injury to his wife and the cause for
his irritation and frustration is proved through the witnesses to the
occurrence. These witnesses are residents nearby and natural witnesses. The
admission of PW-17 that she, after the death of Muthulakshmi, had married
the accused and the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-8 that the husband
and wife used to quarrel over the relationship of the accused with PW-17 is
proof for motive. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that minor contradictions, if any are not of much significance to disprove the
case of the prosecution.
13.Heard the rival submissions placed by the Learned Counsel for the
appellant/accused and the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
14.The prosecution case is that Muthulakshmi was done to death by
her husband Karnan, by hitting her on the head with wooden log-M.O.2. The
attack was the consequence of quarrel between them with respect of the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
illicit relationship between the accused and PW-17. The incident occurred at
about 8.00 am, reported to the police at about 11.00 am by PW-1, who is the
father of the deceased. Ex.P-6 is the Accident Register maintained at
Srivilliputhur Government Hospital. The entry in the Accident Register
reveals that the said Muthulakshmi was brought to the hospital by one
Arjunan (brother-in-law of the patient). He had informed the duty doctor that
the said Muthulakshmi sustained injury when she fell from the scaffold of
the building under construction. At that time of admission into the hospital,
she was alive but, not conscious. She died around 9.55 am. The post mortem
report reveals that she had sustained two lacerated injuries on her scalp each
10.2 x 5 x 2.5 cm bone depth. Aberration on the right cheek and contusion
over the right wrist also noted. The copy of the FIR had reached the Judicial
Magistrate on 20.09.2009 at 1.10 pm.
15.As a defence, to create doubt about the prosecution case of
homicidal death, the suggestion put to the post mortem doctor that if a
person fall accidently from a elevated place, may sustain the above injuries
and the entry in AR made based on the information given by Arjunan, the
brother of the accused are relied. In addition the evidence of PW-2, in his
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
chief examination deposed in favour the accused also relied.
16.Even if the evidence of PW.2-a child witness is kept aside, this
Court finds the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 and PW-8 are consistent and
overwhelming. Nothing to doubt about their credibility is available on
record. These witnesses are neighboring residents and natural witnesses. The
occurrence had happened at about 8.00 am. The father of the deceased was at
that time working in his field. He was informed about the incident through
Lakshmanan(PW-6) the neighboring land owner. PW-6 had affixed his
signature in the complaint-Ex.P-1. The observation mahazar-Ex.P8 and the
rough sketch-Ex P-10 are prepared by PW-19. In the observation mahazar,
the place of occurrence is mentioned as the house of the accused and it is a
thatched house. In the rough sketch, there is nothing to indicate there is any
building under construction or piling of wooden logs on the ground. No
suggestion in the cross examination of PW-19 about the existence of a
building under construction put, so as to probablise the defence theory of
accident fall.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
17.The credibility of the entry in Ex.P-6 made on the information of
Arjunan, the brother of the accused and the contradictory evidence of the
minor witness PW-2, who had later admitted that he was tutored by the
accused cannot stand before the evidence of other eye witnesses PW-3,
PW-4 and PW-8, the confession and recovery witness PW-10 and the
serology report Ex P-5 which proves the guilt of the accused / appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt.
18.Therefore, we find that the grounds raised in the appeal are not
sustainable to interfere the finding of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal
Appeal stands dismissed. The respondent police is directed to secure the
appellant/accused forthwith and confined him in the prison to undergo the
remaining period of sentence. The bail bond if any, shall stand cancelled.
[G.J.,J] & [R.P., J]
03.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
Ns
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Ns
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court,
Virudhunagar District,
at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mamsapuram Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Predelivery Judgement made in
03.04.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 05:02:47 pm )
