Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
M. Raja – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
The appellant/ sole accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 29.04.2019 in S.C.No.161 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Vellore District in and by which he was convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment |
|---|---|
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment |
| 201 IPC | 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. PW1- Tr.Selvam is the father of the deceased Rajesh. He states that he is running an Hollow Bricks company. The accused joined under him as Hollow Brick Machine Operator in the year 2001. At that time, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance. Thereafter, PW1 deducted a sum of Rs.1,000/- from his salary. The accused demanded advance amount and the same was refused by PW1. Hence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. PW1 intervened and pacified them.
2.2. On 14.05.2014, PW1 handed over his two wheeler in a mec
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and conclusive chain connecting the accused to the crime, failing which conviction cannot stand.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where all elements must connect the accused to the crime without gaps.
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 burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must provide credible and consistent evidence to sustain a conviction; acquittal upheld due to reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the need for strong, reliable, and trustworthy evidence in cases of grave offenses, highlighting the importance of establishing a cogent motive and the necessity of circumstan....
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links must cohesively establish guilt; doubts in identification and admissibility of evidence impact conviction validity.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
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
