Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Suresh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 181 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Criminal Appeal - Criminal Law - Section 302, 341, and 34 of I.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, the contradictions in witness testimonies, and the applicability of legal principles from various judgments. The court found the appellants guilty based on direct evidence and upheld the trial court's judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with restraining and stabbing the deceased at a music concert, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses and the recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the contradictions in witness testimonies, the motive for the crime, and the nature of the injuries. It upheld the trial court's finding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Contradictions in witness testimonies, motive for the crime, and the nature of the injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on direct evidence and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, upheld the trial court's finding, and dismissed the appeal.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were confirmed. The appellants were ordered to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in S.C. No. 50 of 2014, dated 26.02.2020, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, and set aside the same and acquit the appellants/accused from the charges levelled against them.
1. The appellants are the Accused 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 50 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul.
2. The second accused being a juvenile, a case against him was split up and been tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. On completion of investigation in Crime No. 483 of 2011 by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, the following charges were framed by the Court below against the appellants/A1 and A3 and they were subjected to trial:
2nd Appellant/A3: 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses, marked 24 documents and 8 material objects.
4. The criminal law was set into motion by the brother of the deceased Chandru. He is the first informant as per the prosecution. His statement was recorded by the Police as Ex.P1. Based on the said statement, the F.I.R. [Ex.P14] was registered on 13.06.2011 at about 02.30 a.m. in Crime No. 483 of 2011. The content of the first information runs as below:
5. The accused persons were arrested. In the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and their confession statements were recorded. Pursuant to the information disclosed in the confession statement, the weapon used for the commission of offence and blood stained clothes of A1 was recovered under a Seizure Mahazar.
6. The trial Court being satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the appellants as under:
| 1st Appellant/A1 | Section 302 I.P.C. | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. |
| Section 341 I.P.C. | One month simple imprisonment. | |
| 2nd Appellant/A3 | Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. |
[Both the sentences was ordered to run concurrently]
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court judgment suffers improper appreciation of evidence and erroneous acceptance of uncorroborated evidence. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased, claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence and he is the first informant as per the prosecution case. He turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution. He has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at Mettupatti and he came to Kudaiparaipatti only on receiving information about the incident. At the request of the Pol
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
Point of law: Offence of Murder – Chain of circumstances proved – Common intention – Conviction justified.
Credible eyewitness testimony can substantiate a murder conviction despite claims of bias and the absence of a clear motive, as direct evidence holds more weight than circumstantial arguments.
The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when witness testimonies are inconsistent and unreliable, leading to a lack of credible evidence for 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
