Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, R. POORNIMA
Selvi – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Nagar Police Station, Madurai Dist. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(C.V. Karthikeyan, J.)
(PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, dated 09.10.2013 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.)
The first accused Selvi in S.C.No.131 of 2012 who had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment by judgment, dated 09.10.2013, by the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. It must be stated that totally eight (8) accused faced trial before the trial Court and apart from this appellant /A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 were also convicted for the substantial offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The 8th accused was a juvenile offender.
3. Questioning that conviction and sentence, A4, A5 and A7 had filed Crl.A.(MD)No.332 of 2013 and A6 had filed Crl.A.(MD)No.61 of 2014. By a common judgment dated 25.05.20
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and discredited circumstantial evidence.
The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses....
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain of events linking the accused to the crime; failure to prove motive or support claims undermines conviction.
The application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act necessitates the prosecution to establish foundational facts, particularly the 'last seen' theory, before adverse inferences can be drawn aga....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires a proven last seen theory before an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to their acquittal.
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
