Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
R. SriLekha – Appellant
Versus
Sathish @ Kuppan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant and respondents (Para 4 , 4) |
| 3. inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. need for evidence to prove guilt beyond doubt (Para 21) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
The daughter of the deceased has preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore dated 16.03.2022 in S.C.No.132 of 2019.
2.1. PW1 -Narayanan states that he is working in a private finance company and he has admitted his signature found in Ex.P1-complaint. PW2-Selvaraj is the brother of the deceased and he deposed that on 19.04.2013, he came to know that someone was murdered and he went to the occurrence place at 9.00 p.m. and found that his brother was murdered. PW3 – Krishnamoorthy deposed that he is an auto driver and he knew A1 alone and not known to other accused. On 19.04.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. to 09.00 p.m., when he was sitting in the finance company which belongs to the deceased along with PW4 – Sivakumar. While so, the deceased, G.G.Ramesh left the place informing that he has to attend nature’s call. At t
Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any doubts require acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence and clear witness accounts.
The testimonial weight of an injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence and consistent eyewitness accounts, warrants conviction, overriding the trial court's acquittal.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
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 court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness accounts, asserting that discrepancies did not undermine the prosecution's case.
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
