Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Marimuthu, S/o. Ayyasamy – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments by defense against conviction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's reasoning and evaluation of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of conviction. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.14 of2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
2.1 PW1-Sudha, who is the wife of the deceased Saravanan, deposed that she knows the appellant/accused; on 01.08.2017, on the 16th day death ceremony of Durai took place on the next street of her village, where, one Kasinathan demanded money for nonvegetarian feast from her husband and the said Kasinathan and her husband had quarreled, during which, her husband fell on the roof of the hut of one Marimuthu (A1) and Gomathi (A2) opposite to the house of Durai; A2 scolded her husband in filthy language, in turn, her husband told A2 that he has no dispute with her and as to why she is speaking in unparliamentary words and pushed her down; at that time, she and her mother-in-law (PW2) convinced her husband and took him to their house; on the same day, around 6.00 p.m., PW1 along
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 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 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 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 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.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration through credible evidence; absence of supporting witnesses weakens prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
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.
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
