Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Veluchamy – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellants' contentions on prosecution credibility (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence reliability (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. doubts raised on prosecution's claims (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's decision on appeal (Para 28) |
| 6. conclusion and order of acquittal (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.12 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court / District Court, Karur.
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eyewitnesses, however, they are not trustworthy and it is unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis of their testimonies. Their evidences are artificial, unnatural and unbelievable one. Though the al
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.
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 failed to prove murder due to significant evidence discrepancies and delays in reporting, highlighting reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
The judgment underscores the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, emphasizing the unreliability of evidence when establishing charges.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, and delays in FIR registration do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
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
