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 :
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:
2.2. Ten days prior to the date of occurrence, Panchayat was convened and at that time, A4 threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if he enters into the disputed land, he would do away his life. In the Panchayat, A4 was directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the deceased, but A4 did not pay the amount.
2.4. Then A2 attacked the deceased. A1 attacked PW3, who went for rescuing the deceased, with iron pipe and log. A2 and A5 attacked PW3 with wooden logs. When PW2 went to stop the
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.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
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
