Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN
Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution establishes the appeal through circumstantial evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments by both parties regarding circumstantial evidence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and confessions (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court reviews evidence and highlights contradictions in witness statements. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 6. circumstantial evidence sufficiently indicates guilt despite lack of eyewitnesses. (Para 13) |
| 7. final judgment and sentencing of the appellants (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.1 and 2, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide judgment dated 06.04.2017 in S.C.No.204 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur District.
2 (i). It is the case of the prosecution that the first appellant is the husband of the deceased whose marriage took place five years before the occurrence; that they had a daughter who was aged four years; that one year before the occurrence, the first appellant suspecting that the deceased had illegal relationship wit
The court distinguished between the use of confessions during investigation and confessed FIRs, permitting confessions to benefit the accused, particularly in assessing mitigating circumstances in se....
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.
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, primarily relying on the testimony of a witness which lacked corroboration and credibility.
Extra-judicial confessions made in police presence are inadmissible if not proven voluntary, requiring solid evidence for circumstantial convictions.
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
The presumption of innocence in criminal law reinforces the burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; acquittals cannot be disturbed without compelling evidence.
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
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
