Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Ezhumalai, S/o. Etiappan – Appellant
Versus
Murugan, S/o. Kanniyappan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged murder and sequence of events (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of the appellant versus respondent (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on prosecution evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. appeal dismissed; trial court upheld (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
The defacto complainant / PW1 has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2019 made in S.C.No.107 of2015 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track), Sriperumbudur, in and by which the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents 1 to 5 herein, arrayed as A1 to A5, who are charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 342 and 302 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code .
2.1. PW1 – Tr.Elumalai is the father of the deceased. On 06.09.2014, A2 quarrelled with him stating that PW1’s son had taken photographs in cellphone while A2’s second daughter was taking bath in the bathroom. A2 informed to PW1 that he will bring relatives to conduct Panchayat. Accordingly, A2 brought 5 members and made quarrel with PW1. PW1 sought apology and informed them that his son did not commit any mistake. Even though PW1 admitted his son’s mist
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 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
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.
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 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 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.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and conclusive chain connecting the accused to the crime, failing which conviction cannot stand.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must establish clear links and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the reliability of dying declarations is paramount.
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
