Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran, Ms.Justice R.Poornima, JJ
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment in S.C.No.67 of 2013 dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C. No. 67 of 2013. It is a case of murder of wife by the husband.
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant herein had estranged relationship with his wife Bharadha Devi. On 03.08.2012, took her in his two wheeler under the pretext of going to temple, but took her to an isolated place and stabbed her repeatedly causing her death. It is the further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the scream of Bharadha Devi, P.W.2 rushed to the place and saw Bharadha Devi in pool of blood with several injuries. When he enquired her, she told him that she and her husband came in a two wheeler to go for a temple, her husband stabbed her and ran away. At that time, another person of his villag
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, affirming that procedural lapses did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
The testimony of a sole eye-witness can suffice for conviction if credible and corroborated by medical evidence, even if the extra-judicial confession is weak.
Circumstantial evidence and last seen alive theory are crucial in establishing guilt for murder when supported by credible witness testimony, despite minor inconsistencies.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, rejecting claims of accidental death.
The conviction under Section 302 was overturned due to reliance on insufficient and unreliable witness testimony, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.
The court ruled that reliance on police confessions for conviction is barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, necessitating complete circumstantial evidence for conviction.
A conviction in a murder case cannot be sustained on unreliable eyewitness testimony, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
