Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Muthupandi – Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police, Peraiyoor Police Station – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the de-facto complainant challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi in SC No.124 of 2015 dated 30.06.2022, wherein, the trial Court had acquitted the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 from all charges.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2015, when A1 and A2 were collecting wood in a property, which does not belong to them, PW1 and PW2 went to that place and questioned A1 and A2 as to how they can take the wood from the property. As a result, there was a wordy quarrel. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased and his children went to the house of the accused persons and questioned them as to how they can take the wood from the property, which is yet to be partitioned. At that point of time, A1, A2 and their son started pelting stones. A2 is said to have slapped the deceased and when he fell down, A1 is said to have attacked the deceased on his chest with stone. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and as a result, an FIR came to be registered based on the complaint given by PW1 in Crime No.22/2015 for offences under Sections 336 and 302 r/w34 IPC.
3. The r
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, based on the absence of premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel behavior by the accused.
The prosecution failed to prove the involvement of A.2, A.4, and A.5 in the crime, while sufficient evidence supported the conviction of A.1 for murder.
Unexplained injuries on accused in same incident doubt prosecution genesis; benefit of doubt mandates acquittal despite eyewitness testimony.
The testimonial weight of an injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence and consistent eyewitness accounts, warrants conviction, overriding the trial court's acquittal.
The court reclassified a murder charge to culpable homicide due to unresolved doubts regarding witness credibility and the actual circumstances of the incident.
The court ruled that specific acts of A1 and A2 resulted in grievous injury and death; acquittal of others was justified due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness reliabi....
Court ruled that actions during a sudden quarrel did not constitute murder but qualified for lesser offences under relevant IPC sections, reflecting the principles of culpable homicide exceptions.
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
