Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
State, Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore Range, Thalavady Police Station – Appellant
Versus
Maran @ Senguttavan @ Manivannan @ Mullaivalavan @ Kannaiyan, S/o. Singaram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial overview of charges laid. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions put forth by the state. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from defense counsel. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. nature of evidence presented. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. significance of extra-judicial confessions. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. court's final ruling on acquittal. (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Jothiraman J.
The State has preferred this criminal appeal, as against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.09.2018 made in S.C.No.51/2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, in and by which the respondents / Accused 1 to 8 and 10 are acquitted for the offences as under:
| Rank of the Accused | Charges framed under Sections |
|---|---|
| A1, A2 and A5 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC |
| A3 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 |
| A4 | 120(B), 452, 148, 364A and 365 IPC and 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 |
| A6 and A7 | 120(B), 365 r/w. 109, 364 r/w.109 IPC, 25(1B)(a) and Section 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 |
| A8 to A10 | 120(B), 364(A) r/w. 109, 365 r/w.109 IPC. |
2. Brief case of the prosecution as per the prosecution witness:
2.1. PW1-T
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory evidence and lack of credible eyewitness accounts.
Long delay in holding test identification parade will weaken prosecution case.
The court affirmed that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for actions taken in support of their common objective, showcasing the interplay between direct and circumstantial evidence in e....
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The court established that intent in inflicting fatal injuries was insufficient for murder under Section 302, leading to classification as culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
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
