Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Shankar, S/o.Sarangan @ Sarangapani – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the factual background around the crime (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments about the credibility of witness testimonies (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. prosecution's case and evidence analysis (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 20) |
| 4. the significance of witness credibility and corroborating evidence (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. confirmation of conviction and dismissal of appeals (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.137 of 2013, dated 31.07.2019 convicting the appellants for the offence(s) and to undergo the sentence(s) as detailed hereunder:-
Challenging the above judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 has preferred Crl.A.No.648 of 2019, A2 has preferred Crl.A.No.509 of 2019 and A3 to A6 have preferred Crl.A.No.647 of 2019, respectively. Since the appeals are arising out of the common judgment, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the appellants will be hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 and A3 to A6 in this judgment.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-
(a) A1 to A5 are t
The conviction for murder was upheld based on the coherent and corroborated testimonies of injured witnesses, affirming that minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The court ruled that specific acts of A1 and A2 resulted in grievous injury and death; acquittal of others was justified due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness reliabi....
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.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, while minor contradictions in witness testimony should not undermine the core evidence substantiating the charges.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, based on the absence of premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel behavior by the accused.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
The judgment underscores the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimonies in criminal ca....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness accounts, asserting that discrepancies did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
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
