IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State, through, The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, in S.C.No.114 of 2017, dated 08/06/2022 and consequently to acquit the appellant.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Ramesh and the complainant Mageshwari are husband and wife. They are blessed with two female children. The accused suspected the fidelity of the complainant. Due to which, there was misunderstanding between the couple. The complainant was living separately from the accused for the past six months. Both the children were living with the accused. Three months back, the accused contracted second marriage, the complainant requested the accused to hand over the two female children to her. However, the accused refused. So, she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Kodaikanal. On 12.04.2016 at about 06.00 am, with the consent of the accused two female children were handed over to the complainant. On the same day at about 09.00 pm, while the complainant, her mother, grand-mother and grand-father (deceased Ramar) along with the children were taking food in their house, the accuse
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had intentionally inflicted fatal injuries, leading to the conviction under multiple sections of the IPC.
The conviction was affirmed based on consistent eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies.
The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded greater evidential value, establishing credibility unless major contradictions arise.
Eyewitness testimony, accused's conduct, confession, and forensic evidence prove attempted robbery and murder beyond doubt despite minor investigative lapses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural delays can undermine the case.
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
(1) In order to constitute offence under Section 498A of IPC, prosecution has to establish that accused treated deceased with cruelty.(2) It is duty of Court while considering evidence to separate gr....
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.