KITTUSAMY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 13-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

"'-
A 
KITIUSAMY 
v. 
l 
STA TE OF TAMIL NADU 
AUGUST 13, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Sections 302 read with s. 34-Conviction under, 
~-~ 
based on testimony of witnesses-Upheld by High Court-Justification of-
c Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses cogent and credible-Thus, no 
infirmity to warrant interference-Conviction by courts below justified-
Evidence. 
According to the prosecution case, A was married to Y, Al's daughter. 
The parties had strained relations. A2 and A3 are sons of Al. On the-fateful 
D day, around 6.00 AM, Al to A3, armed with weapons came to the house of A. 
Al to A3 attacked A and inflicted 17 injuries on his body. Cousin brother of 
-
A and A's parents witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged. Investigation was 
x 
carried out. Accused were arrested and recoveries were made. Trial court 
relying on the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 convicted the accused for the offence 
under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and passed sentence of 
E imprisonment for life. High Court upheld the same. Hence the appeal. 
Appellant contended that the evidence was not credible and cogent; and 
that the evidence of PWs I, 2 and 3 was contrary to medical evidence of record. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I.I. The High Court rightly observed that there is a ring of truth 
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The appellant could not point out 
any infirmity, which would warrant interference with the impugned judgment 
of the High Court. (Para 9] (1003-GI 
G 
1.2. PWs. I to 3 gave the elaborate details of the weapons held by the 
accused and the manner of assault by them. PW 6-doctor noted that there 
were 17 injuries found on the body of the deceased which could be caused by 
.... 
the weapons held by Al to A3. With regard to doctor's evidence about the 
"' 
approximate time of death, he had nowhere stated that death took place around 
H 
1000 
I' 
J( 
~ 
't 
KITTUSAMY v. ST ATE OFT AMIL NADU [P ASAY AT, J.] 
1001 
mid night The recovery of the weapons of assault was also established. 
A 
(Para 7) (1003-D, E, F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. l 061 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2002 of the High Court of B 
Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 1998. 
Vidya Dhar Gaur for the Appellant. 
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabu 
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of D 
the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The said 
appeal was filed by the appellant and two others. The accused-appellants are 
Kittusamy, Channappan, and Palanisamy (for the sake of convenience the 
accused persons are described as "A I, A2 and A3 "). Each of them was 
convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 
E 
3. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
Deceased Ayyasamy is the son-in-law of Kittusamy (Al). Chinnappan 
(A2) and Palanisamy (A3) are the sons of Al. 
F 
Deceased Ayyasamy married Valliammal, daughter of Al, about 15 years 
back. From the wedlock, two children were born. After sometime, Chinnakutty, 
second daughter of Al was kept as concubine by the deceased. After four 
months, she left the house of the deceased and eloped with somebody else. 
Four years prior to the date of occurrence, Valliammal, daughter of Al, unable G 
to bear the torture at the hands of the deceased, left the house of the 
deceased and joined her parents with her children. 
On 3 .11.1996 at about 10.00 P .M., the deceased Ayyasamy came to the 
house of the accused, where the wife of the deceased along wjth her children 
were residing, and asked his wife to come with him to lead the matrimonial H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A life. She.refused to accompany him. The accused also told the deceased that 
-I-
~ 
) 
they would not allow Valliammal to join him anymore. Then, the deceased 
abused the accused in filthy language and went back to his house. 
On 4.11.1996 at about 6.00 A.M., Al to A3 came to the house of the 
deceased, where he was residing alone, with weapons. Al, A2 and A3 were 
B armed with stick, iron rod and aruval respectively. Noticing all the accused 
coming with the weapons, the deceased got afraid and began to ru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.