Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Muthukumar – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Thaadikombu Police Station, Dindigul. Crime No. 264 of 2012 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
These criminal appeals have been filed in the following manner:
2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, made in S.C. No. 83 of 2018 dated 09.10.2023, wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
The above sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband of A5 and brother of PW1. A2 is the son and A6 and A7 are the daughters of PW1. A3 is A1’s sister’s son and A4 is the relative and uncle of the deceased Periyasamy (D2). The deceased Kannan (D1), who is the son of PW1 and PW2, was married to A7 and one of those days, when he went to the house of A1, he saw A1 and A7 in a compromising position. Hence, he quarrelled with A1 and A7. Hence, a panchayat was held and it is stated that a customary divorce was effected between D1 and A7. In this panchayat, D2 is said to have supported D1 and his parents and therefore, the accused persons developed enmity against both D1 and D2. After the customary divorce, A7 was married
A conviction for a grave offense cannot be sustained on the basis of inconsistent eyewitness accounts and an uncorroborated dying declaration, especially when the investigation is characterized by si....
Dying declarations can be upheld as credible evidence without corroboration if found true and voluntary, emphasizing careful scrutiny for any signs of tutoring.
A conviction based on inconsistent dying declarations is unsafe without corroborative evidence; discrepancies create reasonable doubt undermining the prosecution's case.
In cases of multiple dying declarations, inconsistencies necessitate corroboration for conviction; the earliest declaration indicating self-immolation was preferred, creating reasonable doubt about t....
The reliance on credible dying declarations supported by corroborative evidence confirms conviction for murder despite initial contradictory statements.
The court determined that inconsistent dying declarations and lack of corroborating evidence preclude conviction, emphasizing the burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The conviction of the accused for the murders was upheld, as the prosecution provided credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
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
