Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER MOHAN
Hari @ Harikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Judgment :
Sunder Mohan J.
These Criminal Appeals have been filed by A1 and A2, challenging the judgment dated 26.08.2019 in S.C.No.171 of 2015, on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2 (i) Crl.A.No.699 of 2019, has been filed by A1, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (no fine amount was imposed).
(ii) Crl.A.No.679 of 2019, has been filed by A2 who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced as follows:
3(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that A1-Jeyabharathi @ Bharathi @ Jeba [appellant in Crl.A.No.699 of 2019] was the wife of the deceased Karthik; that she had an illicit relationship with A2-Hari @ Harikrishnan [appellant in Crl.A.No.679 of 2019]; that since the deceased objected to the said relationship, A1 and A2 decided to do away with the deceased with the help of two other accused who were juveniles at the time of the occurrence; that on 30.09.2014, A1 called the deceased to the Marina Beach opposite to Vivekanandar Illam; that she had also called A2, who in turn called his friends, the juveni
Conviction requires not just evidence of guilt but also an established motive and reliable eyewitness accounts; procedural inaccuracies can compromise the prosecution's case.
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to 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 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.
Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
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 court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable eyewitness testimony and proper identification procedures to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
