Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Sulthan Alavudeen – Appellant
Versus
State, Represented by its, The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the incident and prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments raised by the appellant and the prosecution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's findings on evidence and witness credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. final decision on the appeal. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.51 of 2019 dated 20.04.2022, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
3.On the same day, at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.2 to P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9 along with deceased, were chatting in front of one Balan watch shop at south veli street. P.W.2 and deceased contacted the accused and called him to come there, but the accused did not turn up. Once again, they called him and informed that if he did not come, they would come to his house.
5.The deceased was immediately taken to Vadamalaiyan Hospital, wherein he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.479 of 2018 for the offences punishable und
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 court clarified that intention to kill is pivotal in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, confirming conviction under Section 304 Part II given absence of intent despite a fatal a....
The prosecution failed to prove murder due to significant evidence discrepancies and delays in reporting, highlighting reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
The court reaffirmed that specific overt acts are crucial for conviction in homicide cases, while witness reliability, particularly regarding tutoring, significantly impacts the assessment of evidenc....
The court held that lack of clear intent in a violent altercation necessitated a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 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.
The court distinguished culpable homicide from murder based on intentions and provocation, identifying a lack of mens rea for a murder conviction.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions stemmed from sudden provocation without intent to kill, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.
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
