Karuppasamy Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Karuppasamy Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's conviction of the appellant/A3 under Sections 449 and 302 IPC should be set aside, given the alleged vital contradictions in prosecution witness evidence, delay in lodging complaint Ex.P1, absence of independent witnesses for arrest/recovery/confession, and alleged defects in the investigation conducted by PW21. +1 more

Court's answer

Motive between A1 and the deceased was established through PWs.1 to 3 and 9 to 11, and the eyewitness account of PW1 (wife of the deceased) is consistent, cogent, reliable and credible, giving no reason to discard it; hence the prosecution case stands proven despite the defence objections.

Ratio / Principle

A defect in the investigation is not the sole ground for disbelieving the prosecution case, and the accused are not entitled to acquittal merely on that ground; moreover, the appellant did not assert lack of enmity/connection in his Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C responses.

Key takeaways

Identification of the accused by PW1 is undisputed, PW1 specifically attributed the overt act of attacking the deceased with a billhook to the appellant/A3, and the medical evidence (Ex.P7 postmortem certificate) corroborated and tallied with the ocular evidence.ratio¶76
It is the quality, not the quantity, of evidence that proves the prosecution case, and the discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the defence are not material contradictions going to the root of the prosecution case; the doctor's postmortem opinion strengthens the case.ratio¶78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (BNSS S.415(2)) — Murder / house-trespass (Ss.449 & 302 IPC) — Appeal by A3 (Karuppasamy) against conviction and sentence by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi (S.C.No.137 of 2019, judgment dated 24.06.2024) — Defence pleas of vital contradictions in witness testimony, delay in lodging Ex.P1, non-recovery of bloodstained saree, possibility of real culprits being brothers of PW11, and defective investigation by PW21 rejected — Sole eyewitness PW1 (wife of the deceased) consistent, cogent, reliable and credible; motive established through PWs.1-3 and 9-11; medical evidence (Ex.P7 postmortem certificate) tallied with ocular evidence — Defect in investigation is not the sole ground for disbelieving the prosecution case and does not entitle the accused to acquittal — Discrepancies pointed out not material contradictions going to the root of the case — No perversity found in trial court's appreciation of evidence — Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count (Ss.449 and 302 IPC) affirmed; acquittal under Ss.294(b) and 506(ii) IPC left undisturbed — Appeal dismissed.