Back
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
M. E. SHAJITH, S/O. NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
In criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented must be sufficient to prove each element of the offence and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Relying solely on medical evidence that suggests a head injury can only be caused by hitting with a weapon, without corroborating evidence, does not automatically establish guilt. The defence argument that the injury could have resulted from a fall is a plausible explanation and must be considered fairly. The court should not convict based on the weakness or improbability of the defence but should instead focus on whether the prosecution has provided conclusive and direct evidence of the accused's guilt. Therefore, the reliance on this medical evidence as a circumstantial proof of guilt, without further corroboration, is not sufficient to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases.
JUDGMENT :
The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 508/2002 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery. The above case is charge sheeted by the Station House Officer, Thalassery, against the appellant and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 05.09.2000, at about 5.30 p.m., due to the previous enmity towards the deceased Thacharakkal Kannoth Puthiyamaliyekkal Babu that he was continuously drinking alcohol at the residents of 2nd accused, the accused committed murder of the deceased Babu.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12. Exts. P1 to P19 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. MO1 to MO10 are the material objects.
4. The 2nd accused died before starting the trial. Therefore, the case against him was abated. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found that the accused/appellant committed the offence under Section 304 part II of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused/appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
