Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, M.S.RAMESH
Arun @ Arunkumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Challenging the conviction passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.148 of 2012 dated 30.08.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants 1 and 2.
2. The learned Additional District & Sessions Court, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.148 of 2012, has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows:-
| Offence | Sentence |
| Section 302 IPC | Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment |
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused persons had participated in a puberty function, a day prior to the date of occurrence i.e., 05.05.2011. The appellants picked up a wordy quarrel with the deceased in the function. At about 3.30AM on the next morning, the appellants and four other persons knocked the doors of the deceased, took him along with them and committed murder of the deceased.
4. Originally, a case was registered in Crime No.865 of 2011 for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against A1, A2 and others. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW16, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.1 to M.O.19. The Trial Court had acquitted A3 to
Circumstantial evidence and last seen alive theory are crucial in establishing guilt for murder when supported by credible witness testimony, despite minor inconsistencies.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on a single unreliable witness led to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases; the last seen theory has limited application when there is a significant time gap between the la....
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.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere confessions are inadequate without corroborative evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must satisfy strict principles to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants setting aside of conviction.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent chain of circumstances; extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of connection to prove guilt, ruling out reasonable hypotheses of innocence; failure to establish such links results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
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
