Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Alankarakumar @ Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2) |
| 2. defendant argues against reliability of eyewitnesses (Para 3) |
| 3. prosecution asserts strong evidence of guilt (Para 4) |
| 4. court reviews arguments and evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. discussion on reliability of injured witnesses (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. examination of delay in fir registration (Para 9) |
| 7. delay in fir forwarding not significant (Para 10) |
| 8. acquittal of co-accused does not affect case (Para 11) |
| 9. court confirms conviction under section 302 ipc (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)
The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.67 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2023.
2.Brief facts of the prosecution case:
According to the prosecution, the deceased, Senthil Kumar, and the first accused (appellant) were working as building contractors. Prosecution Witnesses (PW) 1, 2 (Velmurugan – second accused), and PW6 were masons working under them. These workers were engaged by the first accused for construction work at Mudukulathur, whe
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
