Madras High Court
Chandrasekar vs The State Rep. By Its on 9 September, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.42 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 01.09.2025
Pronounced on 09.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.A(MD)No.42 of 2022
Chandrasekar : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State Rep. By its
The Inspector of Police,
Somarasampetti Police Station,
Trichy District : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Trichy made in S.C. No.101 of 2018 dated 03.12.2021
and allow the Criminal appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.B. Jammel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.42 of 2022
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Court, Trichy, in SC No.
101 of 2018, dated 03.12.2021.
2. By the above judgment the trial Court had convicted the
appellant and sentenced him, as detailed below:
Penal Provisions Sentence of Fine Amount
Imprisonment
498(A) of IPC Two years Rigorous Rs.1000/- i/d to
Imprisonment undergo two months
simple imprisonment
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- i/d to
under go six months
simple imprisonment
The sentences shall run concurrently
3.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
3.1 The deceased is the wife of the appellant and he used to
quarrel with his wife suspecting her fidelity, and on the date of
occurrence i.e., on 13.12.2017, he had assaulted his wife with a
mason scale, which resulted in her death. A case was originally
registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.432 of 2017. During investigation,
charges were altered to those under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
3.2 After completion of investigation, the respondent police
laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy,
and the same was taken on file as PRC No.17 of 2018.
3.3 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions and made over to the Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli, in
S.C.No.101 of 2018 for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C.,. The trial
Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC.
3.3 In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 33 witnesses and marked 27 exhibits and 9
material objects.
3.4 After examination of witnesses, when the appellant was
questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the
charges. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was
any document marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record
and hearing either side, by judgment and order dated 03.12.2021,
convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed in Paragraph No.2
supra. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the
accused has filed the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that though P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, was
cited as a witness, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws.3
to 5 are the children of the appellant and the deceased, and they have
not stated anything about the presence of P.W.1 at the time of
occurrence. Further, there is a material contradiction that P.W.1 is said
to have brought the deceased to the hospital, whereas even the
accident register and medical evidence show that only the deceased’s
brother took her to the hospital. The trial court failed to take into
consideration those contradictions, which are material and would go to
the root of the prosecution case. The deceased fell down in the
bathroom, due to which she sustained injuries, and there is no
material to show that the deceased died only because of the attack.
Further, P.Ws.3 to 5, the children of both the appellant and the
deceased, had also stated that they were studying in another room,
and there was frequent quarrelling between their parents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
Subsequently, their mother went to take a bath. Thereafter, they
searched and later found the body of the deceased in the bathroom of
their neighbour namely Vidhya since there was no bathroom in their
house. P.Ws.6 to 14 and P.W.16 turned hostile and did not support the
case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 5 are related witnesses and
therefore interested witnesses. Since the evidence is from related
witnesses, it cannot be recorded that their evidence is reliable. P.W.1 is
said to be a witness to the occurrence and claimed he saw it and took
his sister to the hospital, whereas other witnesses have stated that
only the brother of the appellant took the deceased to the hospital.
Though P.Ws.3 to 5 have stated that their mother was attacked by the
appellant (father) with a mason scale on her head, the doctor deposed
that she died due to blunt injuries to the stomach. There are material
contradictions, and further, the recovery of the material object is also
doubtful. Though P.W.1 stated that the investigating officer had come
to the place of occurrence at the residence of the deceased and the
weapon (mason scale) was at the occurrence place, the investigating
officer deposed that it was recovered based on the confession
statement given by the accused in the well of the Sivan temple.
Therefore, the recovery of the material object is highly doubtful. There
are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
which also vitiates the case. Further, P.Ws.3 to 5, the children of the
deceased and the appellant, at the time of giving evidence during trial,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
were living in the house of P.W.1, their maternal uncle, and they were
tutored by P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted. The
trial court failed to consider the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.3
to 5 and, by accepting their evidence, convicted the appellant. Other
witnesses, P.W.15 and P.W.17, the parents of the deceased, and P.W.1,
the brother of the deceased, are all interested witnesses, and their
evidence cannot be accepted. Further, there are material
contradictions in the evidence of the mahazar witness and the
investigating officer. The trial court failed to consider these material
contradictions, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, there was a five-hour delay in registering
the complaint, and the reason for the delay was not explained by the
prosecution. He would further submit that the deceased is the mother
of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are now left without their mother, while the
appellant, their father, is in prison, and now there is nobody to take
care of the children. Therefore, he would pray for acquittal.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the appellant is the husband of the deceased and he doubted her
character. As a result, there used to be frequent quarrels between
them, and on the date of occurrence, when the deceased returned
from her workplace, the appellant started quarrelling with her, slapped
her with a mason scale, and attacked her in the stomach, due to which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
she sustained injuries. P.Ws.3 to 5, the children of the deceased, who
were present in the house at the time of occurrence, have clearly
spoken about the quarrel and taking their mother to the hospital,
where the doctor declared her brought dead. He would further submit
that P.Ws.3 to 5 are the children of the deceased, aged between 9 and
14. On receiving information from the spot, P.W.1 went to the place of
occurrence and thereafter lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1). Based on the
complaint, the respondent police registered a case and, after
completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet, and thereafter the
case was posted for trial. Though P.Ws.3 to 5 are the children of the
deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. Though they are eye
witnesses to the occurrence, the appellant has not examined any
witness. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who
were present at the time of occurrence and spoke about it. The
appellant has taken a defence of tutoring, and therefore it is for the
appellant to prove the same. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 clearly shows
that at the time of occurrence, they were not present at the scene, but
studying in a nearby room. They deposed that their father attacked
their mother with a mason scale, after which she went to a nearby
house bathroom, since there was no bathroom in their own house.
Subsequently, after a search, they found the body of the deceased at
their neighbour Vidhya's bathroom. Thereafter she was taken to the
hospital. Subsequently, the police came to the spot and conducted an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
investigation. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh,
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 390, wherein it was held as follows:
58. We summarize our conclusion as under: -
(I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a
witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his
or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly.
(II) As perSection 118of the Evidence Act, before the evidence of
the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be
conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if the child-witness is
capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the import
of the questions that are being put to him.
(III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the Trial
Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness
understands the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state
why he is of such opinion.
(IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the preliminary
examination and the demeanour of the child and their ability to
respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by
the Trial Court. The correctness of the opinion formed by the Trial
Court as to why it is satisfied that the child witness was capable of
giving evidence may be gone into by the appellate court by either
scrutinizing the preliminary examination conducted by the Trial
Court, or from the testimony of the child witness or the demeanour
of the child during the deposition and cross-examination as
recorded by the Trial Court.
(V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent
to depose i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in
evidence.
(VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the child
witness during the course of its deposition and cross-examination
and whether the evidence of such child witness is his voluntary
expression and not borne out of the influence of others.
(VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a
child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A
child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent
witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon
without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for
conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events
of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same
does not require any corroboration whatsoever.
(VIII)Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be
insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence
where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or
riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no
hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or
required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case.
(IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they
are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded
and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If
the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any
tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior
purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the
confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the
guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations
by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his
deposition.
(X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their
testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else
or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has been any tutoring of a
witness, the same may possibly produce two broad effects in their
testimony; (i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication.
(i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been altered or
new details are added inconsistent with the version of events not
previously stated must be eradicated by first confronting the
witness with that part of its previous statement that omits or
contradicts the improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving
the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the omission or
contradiction. If such omission or contradiction is admitted there is
no further need to prove the contradiction. If the witness denies
the omission or contradiction the same has to be proved in the
deposition of the investigating officer by proving that part of police
statement of the witness in question. Only thereafter, may the
improvisation be discarded from evidence or such omission or
contradiction be relied upon as evidence in terms ofSection 11of
Evidence Act.
(ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is alleged to be
doctored or tutored in toto, then such evidence may be discarded
as unreliable only if the presence of the following two factors have
to be established being as under: -
▪ Opportunity of Tutoring of the Child Witness in question whereby
certain foundational facts suggesting or demonstrating the
probability that a part of the testimony of the witness might have
been tutored have to be established.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
This may be done either by showing that there was a delay in
recording the statement of such witness or that the presence of
such witness was doubtful, or by imputing any motive on the part
of such witness to depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such
witness in falling prey to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion
that there is a possibility of the witness in question being tutored is
not sufficient.
▪ Reasonable likelihood of tutoring wherein the foundational facts
suggesting a possibility of tutoring as established have to be
further proven or cogently substantiated. This may be done by
leading evidence to prove a strong and palpable motive to depose
falsely, or by establishing that the delay in recording the statement
is not only unexplained but indicative and suggestive of some
unfair practice or by proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring
and was influenced by someone else either by cross-examining
such witness at length that leads to either material discrepancies or
contradictions, or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness
rife with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony, or
through such degree of incompatibility of the version of the witness
with the other material on record and attending circumstances that
negates their presence as unnatural.
(XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating certain
parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason to discard
her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is in substance
being deposed by the child witness is something that he or she had
actually witnessed. A child witness who has withstood his or her
cross-examination at length and able to describe the scenario
implicating the accused in detail as the author of crime, then minor
discrepancies or parts of coached deposition that have crept in will
not by itself affect the credibility of such child witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
(XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can
be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the
untutored part, in case such remaining untutored or untainted part
inspires confidence. The untutored part of the evidence of the child
witness can be believed and taken into consideration or the
purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness.
He would further submit that the charge against the appellant has
been proved and thereby he seeks dismissal of the appeal.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State and have consciously gone through the evidence and
materials on record.
8. P.W.1 is the complainant and he spoke about the motive.
P.W.15 is the father of the deceased and P.W.17 is the mother of the
deceased and they have also spoken about the motive. From the
evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, it is seen that their father used to suspect
the character of their mother and there were frequent quarrels
between the mother and the father. On the date of occurrence, when
the deceased came from the workplace, the appellant shouted at her
using unparliamentary words and kicked her in the stomach, thereby
causing injuries which resulted in her death. The doctor who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
conducted the autopsy was examined as P.W.25 and the post-mortem
certificate was also marked as Ex.P.11. A reading of the evidence of
P.W.25 and Ex.P.11/Post-Mortem Certificate shows that the deceased
died due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of blunt injuries in the
abdomen.
9. The reading of the entire evidence of P.W.25 and Ex.P.11
shows that the cause of death was multiple injuries sustained by the
deceased. Therefore, a reading of the entire evidence of P.W.1, P.W.15
and P.W.17 shows the motive that the husband had suspected the
character of the wife, as established from their evidence. P.W.3 to
P.W.5 are the children of the deceased and the appellant and they
deposed that there were quarrels between their father and mother and
that their father had also suspected the character of the mother.
Further, on the date of occurrence, the appellant attacked their mother
with a mason stick.
10. The main defence taken by the appellant is that P.W.3 to
P.W.5 are the children of the appellant and during the trial they were
with P.W.1, who is the maternal uncle of the children, and he had
tutored them. From a reading of the charge sheet and the statement
recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., it is seen that P.W.3 to P.W.5,
who are the children of the appellant and the deceased, clearly spoke
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
about the occurrence and, according to their evidence, they were
alone in the house at the time of occurrence. After registering the
case, the police came to the place of occurrence and at that time the
children told them about the incident. The learned counsel argued that
there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 and,
as such, they are tutored witnesses and their evidence is not
trustworthy. But, in the view of this court, all the three children have
clearly spoken about the occurrence in which the appellant attacked
his wife with a mason scale. Further, all the children have spoken
about the frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant.
This court could not find any material contradictions in the evidence of
P.W.3 to P.W.5 with regard to the occurrence. It is true that there are
some contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5. But those
contradictions do not take away the credibility of the evidence of the
children of the deceased who were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.5.
Though the mother died and the father has to take care of them, at
this juncture the children would not have stated that their father had
committed the offence unless it were true.
11. It is a settled proposition of law that since witnesses are
relatives, that alone cannot be the sole ground to discard their
evidence and they cannot be treated as interested witnesses, even if
they are child witnesses. Further, the evidence of child witnesses has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
to be taken with care and caution. The evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 is
clear and cogent. From the inception of the crime till the trial, their
stand was the same and they have clearly spoken about the crime and
their evidence remained cogent and clear.
12. Further, the parents of the deceased, P.W.15 and P.W.17,
have also corroborated the motive, deposing that the appellant often
expressed suspicion about the character of the deceased and even
asked them to take her back. Their evidence supports that of P.W.3 to
P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.15 and P.W.17 also corroborated the
motive of the appellant. However, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not
eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have not seen the incident.
P.W.3 to P.W.5, who are the children of the appellant and the
deceased, were the only persons present at the scene of occurrence in
the appellant’s house and they also witnessed the occurrence.
13. Further, the medical evidence also corroborates the
ocular testimony. The minor contradictions highlighted by the defence
are immaterial. It is also a well-settled law that defective investigation
alone cannot be a ground to discard otherwise credible evidence, and
the appellant is not entitled to acquittal on a technical ground. This
case is not based on circumstantial evidence where the prosecution
failed to prove the chain of circumstances; rather, it is based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
eyewitnesses namely, the children of the appellant and the deceased,
P.W.3 to P.W.5. The children would not give adverse evidence against
their own father merely due to tutoring on the other hand, they have
clearly spoken about the occurrence.
14. This court, being the appellate court the final fact-finding
court, has to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and give
an independent finding.
15. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5, supported by the medical
and other corroborative evidence, establishes that the appellant
attacked his wife during a quarrel, which resulted in her death.
16. From a careful perusal of the materials such as
complaint, First Information Report, charge sheet, and the evidence of
P.W.3 to P.W.5, the children of the appellant and the deceased, who
are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, P.W.1, the brother of the
deceased, P.W.15, the father of the deceased and P.W.17, the mother
of the deceased, though they are related witnesses, this court is of the
view that they have clearly spoken about the motive behind the
occurrence. Further, the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 corroborated that
there used to be frequent quarrels between the father and mother and
that the appellant used to suspect the character of the mother. From
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
the reading of the material, this Court is of the opinion that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the
appellant may be convicted under Section 304(ii) of IPC instead of 302
of IPC.
17. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, and also considering the fact that there were frequent quarrels
between the appellant and the deceased, on the date of occurrence,
due to sudden provocation, the appellant hit the deceased and she
died, causing the children to lose their mother. As stated above while
looking into the facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the
appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased during heated verbal
quarrel argument and not a pre planned attack which is carried out
with the sole intention of causing death of the deceased
18. Therefore, taking into consideration the mitigating
circumstances, the benefit of Exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC is
attracted to the fact situation, and the appellant is entitled to this
benefit.
19. In the result:
i) This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The conviction and sentenced imposed by the Court of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
Session against the appellant in respect of charge under Section
498(A) is confirmed.
ii) The conviction under Section 302 of IPC passed by the
Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli, in SC No.101 of 2018, dated 03.12.2021 is
modified into one under Section 304(ii) of IPC and the appellant is
sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment thereof with a
fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo six month simple
imprisonment.
iii) The period of sentence already undergone by the
appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., as against the
substantive sentence.
iv) The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the
accused to serve the remaining portion of sentence.
(P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,)
09.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
aav
To:
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Tiruchirapalli
2.The Inspector of Police,
Somarasampetti Police Station,
Trichy District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Section Officer
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.
aav
09.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 08:48:47 pm )
