Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Vadivel – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for multiple offences (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. prosecution witness testimonies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. assessment of evidence credibility (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. insufficient evidence for certain charges (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. modification of charges and conviction (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in SC No.139 of 2017, dated 06/11/2019.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 20/05/2016 at about 05.30 pm, while the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Dhanushkodi Police Station along with his subordinates were involving in vehicle check up at Dhanushkodi, near A.T.M.Sea Foods Company, they have intercepted an auto bearing registration No.TN-65-P-8132 for check up. At that time, the accused who is the driver of the said auto scolded the police officials with filthy language and threatened with dire consequences, taken the auto rashly and dashed on the Head Constable Ramkumar, by which he fell down and also dashed the bike of SI Gnanasekaran Bose bearing regis
Conviction for grievous assault modified to negligent driving due to lack of evidence, emphasizing rigorous standards for police conduct and witness reliability in criminal cases.
The identification of the appellant as the assailant and the established nature of injuries confirm convictions under Sections 394 and 324 IPC despite acquittal of attempted murder.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the evidence can raise doubts about the case.
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
The court emphasized the necessity of a proper investigation to identify aggressors in cases involving mutual assaults, ruling that flawed procedures led to wrongful convictions.
Precedent established by previous judgments, including final Supreme Court decisions, is binding in administrative proceedings and must be followed unless clearly invalidated.
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
