IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Hari @ Harikrishnan - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
CRL A Nos. 679 & 699 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2026
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 juvenile accused; that at about 7.15 p.m., A1 pretended to have a heated conversation with the deceased; that she signalled to the other accused; that A2 and the juvenile accused stabbed the deceased with the knife on the neck and chest indiscriminately; and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the mother [PW1] of the deceased, an FIR [Ex.P20] in Cr.No.2322 of 2014 was registered by PW24, the Inspector of Police, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC on the same date at about 9.30 p.m. In the meanwhile, according to the investigating officer [PW24], he received information at about 7.15p.m. that a person aged about 28 years was found dead with injuries on his body. PW24 went to the place of occurrence and found a NOKIA mobile phone near the dead body and found that the deceased had last received a call from A1; that when PW24 attempted to call the said number, the phone was switched off; that thereafter, he called a person by the name Raja, whose name was stored in the mobile phone; and that the said Raja happened to be the brother of the deceased, who was staying in Trichy, who in turn furnished the address and phone numbers of the parents of the deceased.
(iii) PW24, thereafter summoned a constable [PW16], to the occurrence place and directed him to inform the parents. The parents of the deceased [PW1 & PW2] came to the place of occurrence at 9.15 p.m., identified the body of the deceased and thereafter, PW1 lodged the complaint as stated above.
(iv) After registration of the complaint, PW24 had examined Bakkiyam [PW1] and Dhanabal [PW2], the parents of the deceased and examined PW3, PW4, Mani and Durai, who, according to him, were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. At about 10.30 p.m., he prepared the rough sketch [Ex.P21] and observation mahazar [Ex.P22]. He seized the NOKIA mobile phone [M.O.5], bloodstained earth [M.O.10], earth which was not bloodstained [M.O.11], and a pair of slippers [M.O.12] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P23].
(v) On 01.10.2014 between 7.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., he conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P26]. Thereafter, PW24 made a request for conducting a postmortem. After the postmortem was conducted, he seized the dress materials of the deceased [M.O.1 to M.O.3] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P27]. On 04.10.2014, at about 12.30 p.m., PW24 arrested A1 and seized her mobile phone [M.O.13], besides a love letter, said to have been written by A2 to her, under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P29]. He thereafter arrested A2 on 04.10.2014 at about 2.30 p.m. and on his confession, seized a scooter bearing Regn.No.TN02 AQ 5554, a bloodstained knife, blue-coloured jeans pant [M.O.7] and a shirt [M.O.8] under the seizure mahazar [Ex.P31]. He examined the witnesses and after obtaini

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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.