Back
M. S. RAMESH, C. KUMARAPPAN
Kaliyamurthy – Appellant
Versus
State through Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in SC.No.130/2016 on the file of the Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 14.03.2019 and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the appellants.
The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore in SC.No.130 of 2016 vide order dated 14.03.2019.
2. The facts in brief, barring unnecessary details and leading to the filing of this appeal, are as under:-
(a). One Pakkirisamy and Kamala [PW5] are husband and wife. PW1-Venkatachalapathi, PW4-Dhamayanthi and the deceased Vijaya are their children. The accused are their neighbours. There was a long drawn grudge between the accused and Pakkirisamy family on account of stagnation of the Sewerage water flowing from the first accused residence. In this regard, on 14.08.2015, when PW1's father Pakkirisamy had questioned the first accused, he got enraged and assaulted Pakkirisamy and his wife Kamala [PW5] on 15.08.2015. Consequently, a police complaint was given by PW1. Immediately after the occurrence, Pakkirisamy and Kamala
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder, finding them part of an unlawful assembly with a common object, supported by consistent eyewitness and medical testimony.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient and inconsistent evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
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
