Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Mariyammal – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town East Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. analyzing prosecution's evidence and its insufficiency. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 18) |
| 2. arguments regarding the failure to prove guilt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 20 , 22) |
| 3. conclusion of judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
1. PW1/defacto complainant has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District in S.C. No.201 of 2017, acquitting the respondents 2 and 3/accused 1 and 2 for the offences under 120(B), 302, 302 r/w. 201 and 302 r/w. 109 IPC.
2.1. PW1 - Mariyammal is the sister of the deceased. A1 is the wife of the deceased. A2 is the paramour of A1. On 30.03.2016, the deceased returned to home after completing his work, had his dinner at 9.00p.m. and he had gone to his bed. After some time, the deceased was vomiting and calling PW1, his sister. She came out from her room and reached the room where A1 is residing. When PW1 asked A1 why his brother was shouting, for which A1 replied that he was in drunken mood and shouting and told that if he sleeps well, he would be alright and also told PW1 to go to bed.
2.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any doubts require acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence and clear witness accounts.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must provide credible and consistent evidence to sustain a conviction; acquittal upheld due to reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal of the appellant.
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
