LexVADIVELU THEVAR versus THE STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS V ADJVELU THEV .AR v. THE STATE OF MADRAS (with connected appeal) (JAGANNADHADAs, B. P. SINHA and P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 981 Murder-Convictio11 on the testimony of a single witness- P,-opriety-Capital sentence, if appropriate-Extenuating circum- stance-Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 134. The appellants were charged with murder and convicted on the sole testimony of a wimess. The first appellant was sentenced to death and the second to five years' rigorous imprisonment. It was contended for them, inter alia, that the conviction and sentences should not be upheld because in a case: involving a charge of murder-the court should not, on the ground of prudence, convict an accused person upon the testimony of a single witness, and, in any case, impose the extreme penalty of law. Held, that the question whether in such a case the court could convict l::im depended upon the facts and circumstances of the case and unless corroboration was a statutory requirement, a court could act upon such evidence, though uncorroborated, except in · cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness, an accomplice or · any o~hers of an analogous character. Where the court has recorded an order of conviction the question of sentence must be determined, not by the volume or character of the evidence adduced, b'.lt on a consideration of any extenuating circumstances which could mitigate the enormity of the crime. Mohamed Sugul Esa Mamasan Rer Ala/ah v. The King, A.LR. (1946) P.C. 3 and Vemir~ddy Satyanarayan Reddy and three others v. The State of Hyderabad, (1956) S.C.R. 247, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 24 and 25 of 1957. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 25, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 247 & 248 of 1956 and Referred Trial No. 41 of 1956 arising out of the judg- ment and order dated March 28, 1956 of the Court of Sessions, East Tanjore Division at Nagapatam, in r.ase S.C. No. 5 of 1956. Apiil It. 1957 V odive[u T lunar v. TkSt-u~of Madrru Sinn• ]. 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19571 H. /. Umrigar and S. Subramanian, for the appellants. P. S. Kailasham and T. M. Sen, for the respondent. 1957. April 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-These two appeals by special leave, which arise out of the same occurrence. are directed against the Judgment and Order dated July 25, 1956, of the Madras High Court, confirming the sentence of death passed by the Court of Sessions. East Tanjore Division, at Nagapattinam, under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1957, for the murder of Kannuswami. and modifying the order of conviction and sentence under s. 302, read with s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, to one under s. 326, Indian Penal Code, and reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to one for 5 years, in respect of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1957. In the .course of this judgment, we shall call the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1957, as the "first appeal- lant", and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1957, as the "second appellant". The occurrence which was the subject-matter of the charges against the two appellants took place at about 11-30 p.m. on November 10, 1955, at Muthupet, in front of the tea stall of Kannuswami, husband of Shrimati Dhanabagyam-prosecution witness No. 1- who will be referred to, in the course of this judgment as the "first witness", and who is the principal witness for the prosecution, because, as will presently appear, the prosecution case and the convictions and sentences .of the appellants depend entirely upon her testimony. The occurrence took place in the immediate vicinity of a cinema-house in which the second show was in progress at the time of the alleged cold-blooded murder. As there were no customers at that time at the tea shop run by Kannuswami, his wife called him for his . dinner to be served to him behind the tea stall, as the husband and wife used to live there. Kannu- swami was about to attend to the call for dinner when S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 983 an old man came into the shop and asked for a cup of tea. W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.