Back
M. S. RAMESH, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Surat @ Ram Surat – Appellant
Versus
State by, The Inspector of Police, Bagalur Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahalir Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.125 of 2016, dated 25.10.2018.
For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are addressed according to their ranks before the trial Court.
2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per the final report, is that the accused, namely Surat @ Ram Surat, who hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh and P.W.1, namely Ganesh, who hails from the State of Assam, were jointly working in a rose garden belonging to one Narayana Reddy (P.W.2). Since P.W.1 had complained to P.W.2 that the accused was not attending to his work properly, owing to which, P.W.2 had dismissed the accused from the job, there was an enmity between them. On 07.11.2015 at about 07.00 P.M., the accused, in order to take revenge against P.W.1, tried to attack him with an iron rod and when P.W.1 ran away from the scene, he attacked his wife Sukkiramani (P.W.9) and his 3 year old daughter Myna. Owing to the attack, while P.W.9 suffered grievous injuries, her daughter died on the spot. On completion of the
The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded greater evidential value, establishing credibility unless major contradictions arise.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
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 for murder and grievous hurt, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing guilt.
The higher evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony and the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot be considered mat....
The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law, and the absence of motive does not weaken the case if there is clear and unambiguous direct evidence.
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere motive or last seen theory is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The appellate court overturned the acquittal of the accused by establishing that reliable eyewitness and medical evidence confirmed their formation of an unlawful assembly leading to murder.
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
