Back
M. S. RAMESH, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Murugan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Chengalpet Dist. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramesh, J.)
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, Chengalpet District, dated 31.07.2018 in S.C.No.144 of 2009.)
The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 302 IPC, through the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, dated 31.07.2018 passed in S.C.No.144 of 2009. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This judgment is put under challenge in the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the deceased Palaniv
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere motive or last seen theory is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
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 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 testimony of injured witnesses is accorded greater evidential value, establishing credibility unless major contradictions arise.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and lapses in the investigation may not necessarily affect the prosecution case.
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
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
