Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C. Kumarappan, JJ
Muniyappan @ Chinnapillai – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident (Para 3) |
| 2. trial court proceedings (Para 4) |
| 3. investigation process (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defense's contention (Para 7) |
| 5. prosecution's stance (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. analysis of evidence (Para 10) |
| 7. extra-judicial confession (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. admissibility of confession (Para 13 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. eyewitness reliability (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. judgment outcome (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
The instant Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction passed against the first accused in S.C. No. 14 of 2018, dated 27.09.2021, by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.
2. In the said Sessions Case, there were two accused, viz., Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, and Palanisamy. As against the second accused/Mr.Palanisamy, the Trial Court acquitted him from all charges. Thus, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/first accused.
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant/first accused, qua Muniappan @ Chinnapillai, had two wives, viz., Mariammal and Amutha. The second wife, Amutha was allegedly murdered by the first accused. He has got three children through the deceased Amut
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient and inconsistent evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to reasonable doubt.
The court found that eyewitness testimony and extra-judicial confessions were unreliable and insufficient to uphold a conviction, resulting in acquittal.
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
