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
| 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
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.
Conviction requires not just evidence of guilt but also an established motive and reliable eyewitness accounts; procedural inaccuracies can compromise the prosecution's case.
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.