Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Solai @ Kudukudu, S/o. Alagappan – Appellant
Versus
Crl.A(MD)No.639 of 2022 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basic facts of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court verdict and sentences (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding delays and witness testimonies (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. issues with evidence and witness reliability (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. prosecution's failure to prove the charge (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final decision to acquit the appellant (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.76 of 2019, dated 22.07.2022, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and accused are brothers and that there was a dispute between them with regard to the share of their ancestral property. While being so, on 12.08.2017 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was sitting in the bridge nearby Vannangkaruppur Temple, the accused forcibly pushed him down, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the bridge and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi. Thereafter, he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, where h
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which in this case was not met due to evidence inconsistencies and unexplained delays.
The prosecution failed to prove murder due to significant evidence discrepancies and delays in reporting, highlighting reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant procedural irregularities or unreliable witness testimony can lead to an acquittal.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
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 establish a clear motive and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction in criminal cases.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove intent for murder, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
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
