Back
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, JOHNSON JOHN
Arun sukumaran, S/o. Sukumaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Johnson John, J.
The appellants, who are accused Nos. 2, 1 and 3 respectively in S.C. No. 560 of 2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam, have filed the above appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 r/w Section 34 of IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2016.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sasidharan alias Sasi was the driver of a tourist taxi car bearing registration No.KL-17/A-7750 owned by PW1 and on the morning of 22.09.2008, he left his home with the taxi car as usual to the taxi stand near KSRTC bus stand, Muvattupuzha and has not returned to his house on that night and on the next day, when the owner of the vehicle attempted to contact him through phone, the reply was that ‘the phone is switched off’ and when the deceased failed to return even on 24.09.2008, PW1, the owner of the vehicle, has given Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, in Muvattupuzha Police Station and accordingly, PW48, Sub Inspector of Muvattupuzha Police Station, registered Crime No. 1223 of 2008 of Muvattupuzha Police Station for ‘man missing’ and thereafter, PW53, the then Circle Inspector
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence must firmly establish the guilt of the accused, and in the absence of such firm establishment, the benefit of reasonab....
The case relied on circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and forensic reports to establish the guilt of the accused.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Testimony of an expert is at best an opinion, which has to be given due weight by Court. Satisfaction arrived at by Court cannot be substituted with opinion of expert.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade, along with inadequacies in prosecution evidence, poses a reasonable doubt on the conviction under Section 395 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliability of the evidence of the material witnesses and the intention of the accused persons in causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordin....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable eyewitness identification, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the obligation to disclose crucial reports in ....
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
