SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
C. Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. A. No.93 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S. Vijayaraghavan
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms. M. Arifa Thasneem.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural failures in witness accounts can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(3) - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment for murder - Conviction based on testimonies of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence - However, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies, lack of corroborating evidence, and procedural delays. (Paras 1, 2, 22)

(B) Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case as the testimonies showed contradictions and gaps in the sequence of events. (Paras 21, 22)

(C) Eyewitness Credibility - Eyewitness accounts of the defacto complainant and other witnesses were found inconsistent and lacking in supporting evidence, resulting in reasonable doubt over the prosecution's case. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellants appealed against their conviction under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased who was assaulted with bamboo sticks and stones. The incident occurred on 03.09.2017. Witnesses claimed to have seen the assault, but their testimonies were inconsistent, creating doubts about the prosecution's narrative. (Paras 2.1, 2.4, 19)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness statements and a lack of corroborating evidence. The evidence regarding the time and circumstances of the deceased's injuries was found to be contradictory. (Paras 22, 23)

Issues: The main question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given the discrepancies in witness accounts and procedural delays in evidence submission. (Para 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not achieved due to numerous inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation, including the use of witnesses who were not reliable. (Paras 21, 22)

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment set aside, and appellants acquitted of all charges with refunds of fines if paid. (Para 23)

Table of Content
1. factual background and case details (Para 2)
2. defense arguments questioning prosecution's evidence (Para 3 , 4)
3. prosecution's assertion of evidence sufficiency (Para 5)
4. court's examination of evidence inconsistencies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. critique of prosecution's reliability and witness accounts (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. court's decision on reasonable doubt and acquittal (Para 22)
7. final outcome of the appellate decision (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants / accused 1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2023 made in S.C.No.386 of 2018 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in and by which both the appellants were convicted under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. On 03.09.2017 at about 6’O clock evening near PV colony, PW1 / Defacto complainant – Tmt.Uma Maheswari went to the deceased house and seen him. On the same day PW1 went to her sister’s house / PW2’s house. At that time. She received an information about her brother – Tr.Kalaivanan / deceased assaulted A1 by pelting stones. PW1 went to the deceased’s house and gave advise to him. PW1 again went to PW2’s house. Subsequently, on the same day, she received an information about the quarrel between the deceased with the accused near the residence of the deceased and when they reached, A1 and A2 assaulted the deceased by using bamboo sticks – M.Os.1 & 2, Cement Concrete- M.O.3, threatened the public by throwing stones and thereafter, fled away from the scene of occurrence. Public informed “108” ambulance and sent the deceased to Stanley Government Hospital for treatment. In the meanwhile, PW1 proceeded to the police station and lodged a complaint Ex.P1 before PW14.

2.2. PW2 – Tmt.Kamatchi is the sister of PW1 and she deposed similar to the evidence of PW1. PW3- Tr.Kannan deposed that on 03.09.2017 at night 11.30 p.m., he heard the shouting of women while he was in his house. He saw the deceased was lying on the floor with injuries on his head and nearby to the injured, he saw bamboo stick and stone. He informed “108” ambulance and the injured was taken to the hospital.

2.3. PW4 – Tr.Hajari Ram deposed that he is running a shop and on03.09.2017, he saw that there was blood stains found near to his shop. PW5 – Tr.Karan deposed that on 04.09.2017, while he was walking along with elder brother Tr.Arun- PW6 near Mullai Nagar burial ground, police arrested two persons and requested them to be witnesses. The arrested persons gave confession statements and the same has been recorded by police. PW5 signed in the confession statements given by them. PW5’s signature found in the confession statement is Ex.P2 and his signature found in the Mahazar is Ex.P3. Similarly PW6 deposed the save version stated by PW5 and his signature found in the confession statement is Ex.P4 and the signature found in the Mahazar is Ex.P5.

2.4. PW9- Tr.Jayaraman, Grade I Police Constable deposed that on 05.09.2017, the Inspector of Police has given requisition to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased. He handed over the requisition to the autopsy doctor in the Stanley Government Hospital and after conducting autopsy, he handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased.

2.5. PW11 – Tr.Madhan deposed that on 06.09.2017 at 7.00 a.m., when he was travelling along with his friend Sekar, he saw that police had enquired A2 – Raj and requested them to be witnesses for the arrest of A2. A2 has given confession statement. In the confession statement of A2, they have signed as witnesses. Based on the confession statement, A2 took them to his house at Annai Sathya Nagar and also identified Blue Colour Pant and Blood Stained Full Sleeve Shirt under Mahazar and handed over the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top