IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
K.Thangaraj @ Thangam – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and credibility. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence presented. (Para 11 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding the charges and responsibility. (Para 12 , 14 , 21) |
| 5. final conclusion on the appeal's dismissal. (Para 16 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
1.This appeal arises out of the Judgment passed in S.C.No.115 of 2017 dated 23.11.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of I.P.C.
3.On the date of occurrence ie., on 11.04.2017, when the deceased went by bus to Mary Jenova Hospital, Srivilliputhur, for work, the accused followed the bus in his two wheeler and called the deceased to come to VPM Jewellery shop, Srivilliputhur at about 01.15 p.m. He brainwashed her, telling her that she was going to marry someone else anyway, and that until then, they could continue to chat. He compelled her to board his motorcycle and took her to Periyakulam Kanmai. Thereafter, he stopped the vehicle and compelled the deceased to marry him. It was

The prosecution must prove charges of murder and kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on circumstantial evidence and establishing a clear connection to the crime.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
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 and extra-judicial confessions require strict scrutiny and corroboration for a conviction under murder charges, highlighting their inherent weaknesses.
Dying declarations must be reliable; mere speculation of suicide may lead to alternative charges if harassment is proven.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; absence of conclusive evidence necessitates acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution failed to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient and unreliable evidence.
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.
The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession was insufficient to establish murder, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide instead.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of intent to kill, influenced by intoxication and sudden provocation.
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.