Back
M. S. RAMESH, C. KUMARAPPAN
Dillibabu – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connection with S.C. No. 81 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions and District Judge, Tiruvallur and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions and District Judge, Tiruvallur in S.C. No. 81 of 2015 dated 28.03.2019.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the first accused against the order of conviction passed in S.C. No. 81 of 2015.
2. Originally, there were two accused, but the trial Court acquitted the second accused. Hence, the instant criminal appeal has been filed by the first accused.
3. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Criminal Appeal are that the deceased, Venkatesan, is the husband of the second accused. The second accused is a Nurse by avocation. While so, the first and second accused developed an illicit intimacy. After knowing the illicit intimacy, the deceased Venkatesan questioned the first accused and quarrelled with the second accused. Since both of them felt that the deceased is the obstacle for their illicit intimacy, they planned to do away him and hatched a conspir
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on unreliable witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient and inconsistent evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere motive or last seen theory is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction cannot be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, especially when key witnesses turn hostile, undermining the prosecution's case.
The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
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
