Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police, Austinpatti Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal conviction details and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. defense arguments on prosecution failures (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 19) |
| 3. procedural aspects of investigation (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. failure to prove guilt and reasonable doubt (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. acquittal of appellants (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
These appeals are directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.562 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District, dated 07.08.2023, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 120 -B, 302, 394 and 201 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2016 at about 03.00 p.m., the first accused invited the deceased to her house and requested her to stitch a saree border using a sewing machine. While the deceased was doing the stitching work in the house of the first accused, the first accused, in pursuance of a conspiracy, covered the face of the deceased with a jute bag, dragged her inside the house and repeatedly dashed her head against the floor. Further, the first accused tightened the jute bag in order to prevent the deceased from breathing, as a result of wh
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused, leading to their acquittal.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The court established that circumstantial evidence and extrajudicial confessions can suffice for conviction when they form a complete chain pointing to the accused's guilt.
Illicit relationships fuel conspiracy; murder established through circumstantial evidence, but conspiracy not proven against the second accused.
Minor discrepancies and shortcomings in statements made by witnesses after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
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
