The case involves the appellant who was accused of strangling a child in Perambalur on June 21, 2007. The appellant pleaded alibi, stating that she was not present at the time and place of the incident. The Trial Court and the High Court rejected the plea of alibi due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The defense counsel also pointed out discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, PW-1 Basheera. However, the Court rejected the argument, stating that such discrepancies are natural and do not necessarily discredit the witness’s testimony. Ultimately, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.
“The submissions made in the alternative that in the given set of circumstances, the present case could only be of culpable homicide not amounting to murder has only been noted to be rejected. Even if it be taken that there was a quarrel of the appellant with her mother-in-law (PW-1) in the morning of the date of incident because the appellant wanted to go the place of her father, it cannot be said that such a quarrel would make it a case of grave and sudden provocation. The circumstances as proved on record, and the manner of commission of crime, make it clear that the present case cannot be brought under any of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC; and conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted.”
VAHITHA …………..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU ..…..RESPONDENT decided by the Supreme Court on Feb.22, 2023