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 :
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.
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 Amutha. Among them PW1 and PW2 are his daughter and son respectively. Besides them, they also have another daughter by name Manju. The second accused is also the son of the first accused, through his first wife, viz., Mariammal. The prosecution further states that after the demis
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 must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
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
