IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
R. Rajaguru @ Guru – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Manachanallur Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.124 of 2018 dated 09.01.2023, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichirappalli, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the sisters of the deceased were working in Trichy. The deceased was a painter and after finishing his work, he used to reach Nochiyam at about 09.00 p.m. He would then call to his sisters over phone and they would all go to their village together. While being so, on 04.02.2017 at about 09.30 p.m., the deceased phoned one of his sisters and stated that he would come late, asking her to go home. Prior to the incident, he had seen his cousin sister together with A.1 in the town bus. Therefore, the cousin sister of the deceased was acquaintance with A.1. The deceased questioned their relationship, which led to a quarrel between them. This was informed by A.1, A.2 and A.3.
3. While being so, on 04.02.2017 at about 09.00 p.m., all three accused had purchased liquor and were sitting on the bridge leading to the Kollidam river bund near Pillaiyar T
In a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, mere last seen testimony is insufficient; a clear chain of circumstances must be established to support a conviction.
Prosecution must establish motive and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in murder cases; mere witness testimonies without clear linkage or motive fail to support conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of connection to prove guilt, ruling out reasonable hypotheses of innocence; failure to establish such links results in acquittal.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Circumstantial evidence must present a complete, consistent chain to establish guilt; lack of viable evidence or motive negates the prosecution's case.
Test Identification Parade – Identification of accused in test identification parade by eyewitness, though not conclusive, may, in a given case, give credence to identification of accused before Cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
Circumstantial evidence must be robust; prosecution must prove motive and establish connections to sustain convictions. Failure to do so results in acquittal.
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
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.