Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.114 of 2021, dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Theni, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and deceased were friends and used to consume liquor together. While being so, on 23.02.2021 at about 10.30 p.m., when the deceased and accused were sitting in a bridge in Keela Manjinayakkanpatty main road, near to the bus stop at Mela Manjinayakkanpatty, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni District, and consuming liquor, the father of the accused came there and scolded the deceased, instructing him not to offer liquor to his son and not to mingle with him. Immediately, the deceased shouted at the father of the accused, stating that his son had only offered liquor to him. Thereafter, the father of the accused took his son to their house.
3.After some time, the accused returned to the spot and questioned the deceased as to why he had reported to his father that the accused had offered liquor to him and also scolded and abused the deceased with filthy language in the pub
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 establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which in this case was not met due to evidence inconsistencies and unexplained delays.
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 court held that the accused's actions did not amount to culpable homicide under Section 304-Part II, modifying the conviction to a lesser offense under Section 323 IPC.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of intent to kill, influenced by intoxication and sudden provocation.
The court affirmed that the prosecution met the burden of proof for murder and attempted murder, establishing intent and lack of self-defense.
Convictions based primarily on dying declarations are deemed unsafe without corroborative evidence, especially where doubts about the reliability of such statements exist.
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
