Back
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C.Kumarappan, JJ
R.Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
The instant Criminal Appeals arising against the order of conviction passed in SC.No.24 of 2017 vide order dated 06.03.2019, by and in which the accused were found guilty under Section 376(2) (g) and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2. There are two accused in this case. The first accused Krishnamoorthy preferred Crl.A.No.445 of 2019 and the 2nd accused Vadivel preferred Crl.A.No.12 of 2021. Since both the appeals are arise out of a judgment in S.C.No.24 of 2017, we deem it appropriate to dispose both the appeals jointly.
3. The necessary facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this case are narrated hereinbelow:-
(a) According to the prosecution, this is a case of rape and murder of 70 years old woman by name “(XXXXX)” (hereinafter called as “victim”), which took place on the intervening night of 20/21.09.2016 at about 1.00 AM. There is no direct evidence to say how, when and by whom the offence was committed. On 21.09.2016 at about 8.00.AM the deceased was first seen alive by one Prema [PW4]. Thereafter, the other witnesses had also visited the scene of occurrence and interacted with victim, and she was alive, till she reached the hos
Confessions of co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence; corroboration from other evidence is essential for conviction.
Confessions of co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence; corroboration from other evidence is essential for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Extrajudicial confession can support a conviction if credible, corroborated by other evidence, and satisfies standards for circumstantial evidence.
The court established that circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction when it forms a clear, unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused, despite the lack of direct evidence.
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
