Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Naresh, S/o. Raja @ Sureswaran – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. describes the factual background of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. outlines the parties' arguments regarding intent and evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and sequence of events. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. modification of conviction based on the determination of intent. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final order of the court on the appeal. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.146 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore District, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
2.1 PW1—Vinothkumar, who is the brother of the deceased Vijayakanth, deposed that on 11.03.2013, a cart festival procession was conducted and the chariot proceeded from Karai towards Ranipet; while the chariot was proceeding near Ranipet Pillaiyar Koil, all the participants in the festival played drums and danced; at that time, the appellant has hit Vijayakanth; therefore, he (PW1) asked the appellant to move from the place and dance; enraged over the same, the appellant scolded him in unparlimentary words and again continued the dance; while dancing, the appellant assaulted his brother Vijayakanth; thereafter, the appella
The court ruled that the actions leading to death were a result of provocation, modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court determined that killing during a sudden quarrel, spurred by provocation, constitutes culpable homicide rather than murder, warranting a conviction under lesser charges.
The court established that a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires intent to kill, which was absent in this case, justifying a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
The conviction of the appellant for murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, confirming the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The right to private defense was exceeded; intent to kill established through the brutal nature of the attack, making the appellant liable for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 355 of IPC in cases where the accused's act results in injury but without the intention to cause death.
Conviction in criminal cases requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of credible evidence can lead to reversal of such convictions.
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
