IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Manikandan @ Mickel @ Appu – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C.No.3 of 2017, dated 20.08.2019 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal.
2 The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2014, at the instigation of A2 to A5, in furtherance of their common intention, A1 murdered the deceased, who is none other than husband of A2 and uncle of A1. Hence a case in Cr.No.79 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, which was taken up in P.R.C.No.05 of 2017. Since the offence charged against the appellant/A1 is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, committed the case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal, which was taken on file in S.C.No.03 of 2017.
3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to 20 and one Court Document as Ex.C1. 13 material objects were exhibited as M.Os.1 to 13.
4 On compl
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and discredited circumstantial evidence.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; absence of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence weakens the case, resulting in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Section 302.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.