Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Thangesh and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Vanapuram Police Station - Respondent
Crl.A.No.58 of 2019
Decided On : 19-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details on the prosecution's evidence and charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
The appellants were arrayed as A1 to A6 before the Trial Court in SC.No.4 of 2012, wherein they were convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| Accused | Offences | Sentence |
| A1 | 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 326 r/w 149, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC | (i) To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences under Section 147, 148 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC, i/d 3 months simple imprisonment for each offences. (ii) To undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, i/d one week simple imprisonment for each offences. (iii) To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 2 years Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC (iv) to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 r/w 149 |
| A2 | 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 326, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC | (i) To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences under Section 147, 148 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC, i/d 3 months simple imprisonment for each offences. (ii) To undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, i/d one week simple imprisonment for each offences. (iii) To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 2 years Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC (iv) to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC |
| A3 | 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 326 r/w 149, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC | (i) To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences under Section 147, 148 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC, i/d 3 months simple imprisonment for each offences. (ii) To undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, i/d one week simple imprisonment for each offences. (iii) To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 2 years Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC (iv) to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC |
| A4 to A6 | 147, 148, 294(b), 302 r/w 149, 324, 326 r/w 149, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC | (i) To undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offences under Section 147, 148 and 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC, i/d 3 months simple imprisonment for each offences. (ii) To undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, i/d one week simple imprisonment for each offences. (iii) To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each i/d 2 years Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (iv) each to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC (v) each to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and each to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC |
2. Aggrieved with the above order of conviction, the appellants preferred the instant appeal.
3. To understand the full gamut of the issue, filtering the unnecessary detail, we deem it appropriate to narrate the actual prosecution case. In our case, the deceased name is Chandrababu, who is the son of PW2-Rajammal and brother of PW4-Haridas. According to the prosecution, PW4-Haridas had caused street sexual harassment to A7's daughter about 4 days prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, there was a confabulation and negotiation among the PW4's [Haridas] family and the accused's family, and it was believe
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Murder conviction quashed for lack of proof that specific appellants inflicted fatal blow; eyewitness contradictions, medical evidence allowing death by fall, parity with acquitted co-accused, and un....
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
