Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, M.S.RAMESH
Silambarasan – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam Police Station (Crime No.66/2014) Puducherry – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
The instant criminal appeals have arisen against the order of conviction passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in S.C. No. 3 of 2015, dated 13.03.2019.
2. Originally, there were three accused: the appellant in Crl.A.No.191 of 2019, viz., Silambarasan is the first accused, and the appellant in Crl.A.No.357 of 2019, viz., Prasath is the second accused. The third accused, Venkatesh though filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.564 of 2019, since he died during pendency of this appeal, the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed as abated, vide order dated 11.09.2024. Both these appeals arise from S.C. No. 3 of 2015 and hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose the two pending appeals together by way of a common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the respective appellants according to their the litigative status mentioned before the Trial Court.
4. While flittering the facts, the facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are stated herein below:-
(a) It was between 13.30 and 15.30 hours on 06.06.2014, PW1/Bubesh Anand shocked as his phone call was not attended by his mother [deceased] between 1.30 p.m and 2.00
The court reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must connect all links beyond reasonable doubt and that possession of stolen items without explanation infers guilt.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4)....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
Point of Law : Last seen theory not to be true, motive was not proved, recovery of firearm was doubtful, material contradictions found in evidence rendered and no sufficient link to come to irresisti....
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to 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
