Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, R. POORNIMA
A. Annal – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.206 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli allowing this appeal and to set aside the judgment dated 30.11.2020 and convict the respondents 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with 302 and 109 r/w. 302 I.P.C, 1860.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused / respondents 2 to 4 in the judgment dated 30.11.2020 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.206 of 2004 by acquitting the respondents 2 to 4 from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120(B) and 109 I.P.C, 1860. The appellant herein is the wife of deceased Iyyappan who has been examined as P.W.4 in the trial Court in S.C.No.206 of 2004, she had preferred this Criminal Appeal, against the order of acquittal, under Section 372 Cr.P.C, 1973.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. One Iyyapan, husband of the appellant, was done to death on 23.03.2004. A case was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C, 1973 and later, altered into Sections
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and lack of credible witnesses, emphasizing the need for substantial reasons to overturn such judgments.
An acquittal in a criminal case may be upheld if the prosecution fails to provide reliable evidence and witnesses exhibit significant contradictions, maintaining the standard of proof beyond reasonab....
The appellate court can overturn a trial court's acquittal if the findings are perverse, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony and the presumption of innocence.
Point of Law : The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction, or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its conclusi....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
