Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.Ramesh, N.Senthilkumar, JJ
Jayaraj – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By: The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 09.04.2018 in S.C. No.313 of 2012, the appellants have preferred these appeals. The appellants before this court are A3 and A2 respectively. Originally, a case was registered by the prosecution, more specifically by the Inspector of Police, B-6 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore District in Crime No.1332 of 2011 as against the appellants herein and another person. After investigation was over, the respondent police filed a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, which was numbered as PRC No.16/2012. As the case is triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was taken on file by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge as S.C. No.313 of 2012. During the pendency of the trial, the first accused absconded in participating in the trial and therefore, the case as against the first accused was split up and proceeded as against A2 and A3 herein.
2. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined 20 witnesses as PWs.1 to PW20 and
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime, particularly in murder cases where direct evidence is crucial.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on a single unreliable witness led to acquittal.
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.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires undeniable proof of all circumstances leading solely to guilt, which was not satisfied in this case.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent chain of circumstances; extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence.
Circumstantial evidence and last seen alive theory are crucial in establishing guilt for murder when supported by credible witness testimony, despite minor inconsistencies.
A conviction for murder cannot stand solely on circumstantial evidence without corroborative links to the accused's involvement in the crime.
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
