Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal was filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 20.11.2021 in S.C.No.06 of 2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai. The appellant Durairaj was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 with default simple imprisonment of three months. The prosecution case was that the deceased Uma Maheswari had previously married Kalimuthu, separated, later married the accused, and had a daughter. On 27.04.2014, after returning from a housewarming ceremony, the accused in an intoxicated state stabbed her with a knife multiple times. She was hospitalized, and an FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. A dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on the same day. The victim died on 30.04.2014, and the section was altered to 302 IPC. Inquest and postmortem were conducted, and the cause of death was opined as stab injury to abdomen and corresponding internal wounds. The accused surrendered on 12.05.2014, and a confession was recorded leading to recovery of knife and blood-stained clothes. After investigation, final report was filed. The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC, examined 20 prosecution witnesses, marked 24 exhibits and 7 material objects, and convicted the appellant. In the appeal, the appellant argued that the place of occurrence was contradictory between the dying declaration and observation mahazar, that the dying declaration was recorded when relatives and neighbours were present creating possibility of tutoring, and that the arrest confession and recovery were doubtful. The appellant also pointed out that the deceased had not divorced her earlier husband and the accused had not divorced his wife. The High Court heard arguments and perused records. The excerpt of the judgment provided ends before the final conclusion, so the ultimate decision and ratio are not available. The court was examining whether the trial court judgment was proper or liable to be set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction and Sentence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Trial court convicted appellant for murder of deceased and sentenced life imprisonment with fine and default simple imprisonment; appellant filed appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging conviction on grounds of contradictory evidence and unreliable dying declaration (Paras 1-7). B) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability and Tutoring - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 374 - Dying declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate on 27.04.2014 at 4 p.m. was challenged as possible tutoring because relatives and neighbours were present; appellant argued declaration not corroborated and not proved; Court examined declaration where deceased affirmed marriage to accused and described accused confronting her in intoxicated state (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Procedure - Place of Occurrence - Contradiction Between Observation Mahazar and Witness Statements - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 374 - Appellant argued that eye witnesses and dying declaration stated occurrence inside house but observation mahazar showed outside, collapsing prosecution case; Court noted this ground and considered records (Paras 7, 9-12). D) Evidence - Confession and Recovery - Doubtful Arrest Confession and Recovery - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Appellant contended that arrest confession and recovery of knife and blood-stained clothes were doubtful; Court to evaluate credibility of recovery evidence in light of all circumstances (Paras 7, 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is proper or liable to be set aside, particularly in view of alleged contradictions in place of occurrence and reliability of dying declaration and recovery evidence.
Law Points
- conviction under Section 302 IPC
- dying declaration reliability
- place of occurrence contradiction
- recovery of weapon
- appellate review under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
- burden of proof
- circumstantial evidence
