IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
State represented by The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Ponnuvel – Respondent
Crl.A.No.130 of 2019
Decided On : 17-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused dated 13.04.2018 in SC.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court [Fast Track Court], Kancheepuram and convict the respondent/accused for the charges framed against him.
The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed in SC.No.14 of 2015 by the Additional Sessions Court [Fast Track Court], Kancheepuram vide order dated 13.04.2018.
2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, are as follows:-
(b) While so, when PW12-Mr.Munusamy, Sub Inspector of Police was in the Uthiramerur Police Station, PW1-Sudhakar and PW2-Kanniyammal came to the police station and gave police complaint-Ex.P1 and the same was received and registered in Crime No.175 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 324 and 302 IPC. After registering the FIR, he made arrangements to forward the same to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and to the Investigating Officer.
(c) On receipt of the FIR, PW14-Mr.Kumar, Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 02.04.2014 at about 06.15.a.m. He, in the presence of PW3-Natarajan and one Dhanasekar, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P16). On the very same day, at about 7.15 a.m, the Investigating Officer collected the sample soil, as well as the blood stained soil, in the presence of PW4-Chitti Babu and PW5-Ethiraj. He then directly proceeded to the Chengalpattu Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1-Sudhakar, and PW2-Kanniyammal.
(d) Immediately thereafter, he conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses, and also made arrangements for the postmortem of the body of the deceased. In the meanwhile, at about 2.00.p.m, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused Ponnuvel, in the presence of PW5-Ethiraj and PW6-Shanmugam. After the arrest, the accused has given a voluntary confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of the same witnesses. On the basis of the confession statement, a discovery of fact was effected by recovery of a blood stained black striped white shirt [M.O.2], and blue jeans [M.O.3] under Mahazar Ex.P19. At about 7.00.p.m, the accused was remanded the judicial custody. The Investigating Officer-PW14 examined the Doctors viz., PW9-Dr.Mahesh Ram and PW11-Dr.Sathish Rajan and recorded their statements. He also recorded the statement of the postmortem Doctor-Dr.Balaji Rajasekar [PW10]. After that, he forwarded the alteration report to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(e) On his transfer, PW15-Mr.Manimaran took up further investigation and recorded the statements of the scientific officers-Mr.Srinivasan [PW13] and Ms.Subalakshmi and also col
Kalinga Alias Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka
The presumption of innocence must prevail in appeals against acquittal, requiring compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's decision.
The presumption of innocence prevails in appeals against acquittal, and any reversal requires compelling evidence of error or illegality in the trial court's findings.
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.
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with an order of acquittal, even if it believes that there is some evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or illegal.
Acquittal of the accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, and delays in FIR registration do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.