Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Murugesan, S/o. Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. murder confession details (Para 2) |
| 2. defense arguments against prosecution evidence (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of evidence (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. doubts on prosecution's reliance on evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. acquittal of the accused (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
2.1 PW1 – Sridharan, Village Administrative Officer, deposed that while he was in his office along with his Assistants Angamuthu, Varadappan and Ramakrishnan on 18.02.2010 around 6.00 a.m., the accused appeared before him and gave a statement stating that he has murdered his father Sundaram on 27.01.2010 between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. in his house; the accused further confessed that his father Sundaram had sold his land for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and his father had given the entire amount to the elder son and when the accused demanded his part of the share, the deceased Sundaram rejected the same, on hearing which, the accused got angry and murdered Sundaram by holding his head and slamming it on the wall and after that, the accused, using an
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration through credible evidence; absence of supporting witnesses weakens prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; mere recoveries and extrajudicial confessions without independent corroboration are insuff....
Conviction in criminal cases requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of credible evidence can lead to reversal of such convictions.
The conviction of the appellant for murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, confirming the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
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 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 its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
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
