Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Veerasekar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.23 of 2016 dated 10.03.2020, by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai.
2.The accused in S.C.No.23 of 2016, on the file learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai District have filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2020 in S.C.No.23 of 2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai District.
| Sl.No | Accused No. | Offence Punishable under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment and fine |
| 1 | A1 | 341 of IPC | To undergo 1 month of Simple Imprisonment |
| 2 | A1 | 294(b)of IPC | To undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment. |
| 3 | A1 | 324 of IPC | To undergo 3 years of simple imprisonment. |
| 4 | A1 | 506(ii) of IPC | To undergo 2 years of simple Imprisonment. |
| 5 | A1 | 3(1) of TNPPDL Act | To undergo 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Rigorous imprisonment. |
| 6 | A2 & A3 | 341 of IPC | To undergo 1 month of simple imprisonment. |
| 7 | A2 & A3 | 294(b) of IPC | To undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment. |
| 8 | A2 & A3 | 323 of IPC | To undergo one year |
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence, the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the careful examination of witne....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness statements can lead to acquittal.
Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and prior enmity does not inherently ensure evidence reliability.
(1) Murder – Merely being an interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony – However, evidence of such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspec....
The absence of corroborating evidence and contradictions in witness testimony create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal in a murder conviction.
The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt; any ambiguity or inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence justifies acquittal.
The testimony of a witness must be trustworthy and free from major contradictions in order to convict the accused. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts.
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
