IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Prem Nivas – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented through its, The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.110 of 2022 dated 11.06.2025, on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 are brothers and A.3 is a friend of A.1 and A.2. A.1 fell in love with the younger sister of the deceased and married her without the consent of her family. After the marriage, they were living separately. Due to this, there was continuous enmity and no cordial relationship between A.1 and deceased's family.
3.While being so, on 25.04.2021, at about 11.15 a.m., when the deceased and his family members were returning to their house after taking bath, some by two wheeler and others by walking, near a goat shed, the accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and scolded him in filthy language. They picked up a quarrel with him and A1 went to his house and brought a knife and stabbed the deceased on his left thigh, thereby severing a major artery, causing a fatal injury and heavy bleeding. The other two accused also attacked the deceased with a wooden log on his head. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Lalgudi


The prosecution's failure to provide corroborating evidence regarding the appellant's involvement in the murder led to the acquittal, reinforcing the principle that guilt must be established beyond a....
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The court affirmed that the prosecution met the burden of proof for murder and attempted murder, establishing intent and lack of self-defense.
A conviction for culpable homicide requires establishing intent, which was lacking in this case, leading to a revised charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant procedural irregularities or unreliable witness testimony can lead to an acquittal.
The court reclassified a murder charge to culpable homicide due to unresolved doubts regarding witness credibility and the actual circumstances of the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exceptions under Section 300 of IPC to determine the appropriate conviction and sentence for the appellants.
The prosecution failed to prove murder due to significant evidence discrepancies and delays in reporting, highlighting reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the degree of intention and knowledge, with the court finding the appellant guilty of culpable homicide under Section 304-II IPC.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intention of the accused, with grave provocation leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.
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.