Charge
Back
P. N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pudukottai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 in S.C.No.165 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer[Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases], Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.)
Common Judgment:
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 in S.C.No.165/2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer[Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases], Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. The Trial Court framed six charges, as detailed below.
| Charge | Penal Provisions | Accused |
| 1 | 120(b) IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 2 | 148 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 3 | 341 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 4 | 302 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 5 | 307 IPC | A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 |
| 6 | 323 IPC | A4 |
2. By judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed below:
| Section of Law | Accused | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 148 IPC | A1 to A7 | Rigourous Imprisonment for one | |
The significance of the injured witnesses' testimony and the impact of psychological trauma on witnesses were central to the judgment.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
The court determined that while the appellants participated in an unlawful assembly leading to death, their intent was not murder, qualifying the offense under culpable homicide not amounting to murd....
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
Credibility of eyewitness accounts and refutation of the appellant's claim of murder for gain were central to the court's decision.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the evidence of injured witnesses to be reliable and free from material contradictions in order to sustain a conviction.
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