Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Krishnamoorthy @ Narayanasamy – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police Kottakuppam Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the murder case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments and contentions of the appellants. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal principles established in relation to unlawful assembly. (Para 10 , 24 , 30) |
| 4. court's findings on evidence and witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26) |
| 5. conclusion affirming conviction. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
1. The appellants, who are accused 1 to 9, have filed these criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2019 in S.C.No.305 of 2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in and by which the appellants are convicted and sentenced as under:
2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
2.1. PW1/defacto complainant – Siva @ Sri Ram is the son of the deceased Krishnan. He deposed that the deceased had entered into a Sale Agreement with one Shanmugam of Mathur Village to purchase his land. The said Shanmugam did not sell the land to the deceased, but sold the land to A4. Hence, the deceased had filed a Civil Suit against the legal heirs of the said Shanmugam and one Kuppusamy six months prior to the occurrence. Hence A4 had d
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.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases involving conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
The prosecution must prove specific overt acts of each accused in a murder case; mere presence is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
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 testimonial weight of an injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence and consistent eyewitness accounts, warrants conviction, overriding the trial court's acquittal.
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.
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
