Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, P.B.Balaji, JJ
Duraipandi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution established the case through eyewitness testimony and forensic recovery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. defense challenged the reliability of the sole eyewitness and non-examination of other witnesses. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. single eyewitness reliable testimony is sufficient for conviction under s. 134 evidence act. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The sole accused has assailed the judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, made in SC No.118 of 2017 dated 07.12.2021 convicting him for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW2 was married to the deceased and were residing at Madurai and they had two children out of the wedlock. PW2 developed illicit relationship with the accused and started living with him at Tiruppur. Later, PW2 returned back to the matrimonial home and started living with the deceased and her children. The accused person was forcing
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
