SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, M. Jothiraman, JJ.
Dr. R. SriLekha - Appellant
Versus
Sathish @ Kuppan - Respondent
Crl.A.No.578 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Karna Maharajan, Legal Aid Counsel, Mr. S. Silambuselvan, Mr.E.Kannadasan, Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mrs.M.Arifa Thasneem

Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Section 372 - Criminal Appeal against judgment of acquittal - Prosecution’s evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal by the trial court - Key witnesses turned hostile, and evidence appeared contradictory - The motive and involvement of each accused was unclear, undermining prosecution’s case - Acquittal upheld. (Paras 6, 22, 23)

(B) Evidence - Role of eyewitnesses - The testimony of eyewitnesses, PW3 and PW4, is inconsistent and undermined by the failure of key witnesses to support the prosecution's narrative - The credibility of the prosecution's claim of motive is also questionable. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appeal contests the acquittal of the accused charged with murder following an incident that occurred on 19.04.2013, where the deceased was attacked by multiple assailants leading to death - Various witnesses, including relatives and eyewitnesses, provided conflicting accounts of events.

Findings of Court:
The trial court deemed the prosecution's evidence insufficient due to substantial contradictions and lack of credible eyewitness accounts, leading to an acquittal.

Issues: Central issues included the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the establishment of motive, and whether the evidence presented substantiated the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the State to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and noted that contradictions in witness testimonies significantly weakened the prosecution’s position - The trial court's judgment was found to be justified and logically sound, confirming the acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

Result: Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the acquittal.

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

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

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. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:

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 that time, 4 persons armed with machete alighted from the Ambulance and assaulted the deceased. A1 murdered the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences by showing machete. People who witnessed the occurrence fled away. PW3 and PW4 also fled away from the place.

2.2. PW4 – Sivakumar deposed that he knew A1 alone and not known the other accused. On 19.04.2013, between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., when he went to the finance company belongs to the deceased to talk with him. After he met the deceased, he closed his shop. While so, the deceased went to attend nature’s call. At that time, A1 along with 3 or 4 persons have assaulted the deceased with machete.

2.3. PW5- Sahul Hameed deposed that police prepared the Rough Sketch and also recovered Ordinary Soil – M.O.4 and Blood Stained Soil – M.O.3 and he signed in the Observation Mahazar – Ex.P2 and Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P3.

2.4. PW6 – Nagaraj deposed that he is running an auto. He heard that the deceased was lying down near the school gate. PW13 – Vinoth also deposed that he is working as Ambulance Driver and police enquired him.

2.5. PW14 – Dr.S.Murali deposed that on 19.04.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., while he was in duty along with one Dr.Muthukrishnan, one person has come to the hospital with injuries in his hand. One Chandrasekar has come to the said hospital with injury in his hand. On enquiry, he informed that while cutting fruits he sustained torn injury on his right hand palm, for which the said Dr.Muthukrishnan made stitches.

2.6. PW15- K.Soundararajan – Village Administrative Officer deposed that police requested him to be a witness in one case. On 10.07.2011, he went to Vellore North Police Station along with his assistant Mr.Kumar at 7.00 a.m. There, A1 was under the custody of police. He knew him. On enquiry made by the Inspector of Police, A1 has given confession statement and the same has been recorded. Based on confession statement of A1, he took them to the place near Thulasi Lodge and A1 identified M.O.1 -machete and M.O.2 - machete and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police. He has signed in the confession statement and his signature is Ex.P4 and also signed in the Seizure Mahazar – Ex.P15.

2.7. PW16- K.Sugumar, then Head Constable of Vellore North Police Station deposed that on 19.04.2013 at about midnight 12.00 a.m., he handed over the First Information Report in Crime No.391/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore and also to higher officials.

2.8. PW17- Poonjcholai, then Inspector of Police deposed that on 19.04.2013 while he was in duty, he has received a complaint at 11.00 p.m and he registered a case in Crime No.391/2013 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 506 (ii) IPC. Ex.P6 is t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top