//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

Our basic concept of Jurisprudence that the 100 culprits may let go free but no innocent should be punished.

Sampath kumar -Vs- Inspector of police, krishnagiri which was

Circumstantial Evidence (1945 film)

Image via Wikipedia

decided by their Lordships of Apex court Justice T.S.Thakur.

It is a very interesting case based on love story like the name of the village Krishnagiri.

The accused are 3 . one of the accused sister was said to be in love with the deceased who was said to be murder by the accused.

It is the case that the accused has been opposing their love affair.

The deceased is also a best friend of the accused.

one of the accused was also one side lover of the deceased love.

any how it was decided to perform the marriage of deceased with the sister of one of the accused.

Two days after it  on 28-07-2002  the murder of the deceased was taken place. while sleeping , the head of the deceased was crushed by a stone. The material witness who  was said to be slept along with the deceased was ran away.

The dead body was fell down behind the plantation.

No direct eye witness.

even the person who is said to be slept with deceased also not disclosed anything to the police at the time of investigation. A letter produced said to be written by appellant accused at the time of arguments accusing  Velu one of the co- accused.

The prosecution strongly proved the love story. but failed to prove the incident while recording evidence during the police ENQUIRY strongly as did in love story.

Phalani material witness after 5 years, for the first time in court developed a story of eye wintess . He deposed before the court that he saw all the accused who killed the Santhil Kumar lover of Usha.

Lower courts including High court convicted and sentenced the accused to the life imprison.

Appellant one of the one sided lover – Shanmugam.

Brother of the love – Velu

friend of both – Sampath Kumar.

First the case stands on Circumstantial evidence.

Second the case depends on Improvements in Evidence .

What is circumstantial evidence:

The word Circumstances  and another word Evidence.

In the Indian Evidence Act , there is no any direct section defining the word Circumstantial Evidence.

Hence the Circumstantial Evidence is a concept developed on all the principles and all the sections of the Indian Evidence act. It is like a Garland made with strong steel chain links. missing of any one of the link does not make the Garland for rounding the neck of the suspect in order to tie him tightly without escaping from liability.

1. love story = is an essential chain of the crime.

2. Velu Opposed= is another chain of the crime.[ This chain was some what broken due to fixation of marriage].

3.Murder =  the last and essential and heart linking chain …..Evidence of Palani.The total evidence of Palani  was of material improvements before the court for the first time as if he is the eye witness of entire murder episode . His explanation as to why he has not disclosed the same before the police not satisfactory.The word FEAR/THREAT used by palani not satisfactory. 

Fear/Threat = When it occupies the mind of the witness and when it seizes from the mind of the witness means the duration of the fear / threat is a crucial one.The Phalani took 5 years to come out of the fear suddenly for the reasons best known to him.

Improvements/ Contradiction – Material one / non-Material one. Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act deals with this aspect.

If Phalani stated one and the same thing before the police and before the court in respect of material aspect of involvement of accused in murdering the deceased, his evidence can be considered as unimpeachable even though he may add little masala while giving evidence before the court.But while giving evidence in the court , he became as  an eye witness to the incident.How the circumstantial evidence case could be converted in to eye witness case. Not possible. The very basic concept of the case was uprooted.

This type of Evidence can not be considered . Imposing life imprisonment on this type of evidence is nothing but pushing the innocent.

Our basic concept of Jurisprudence that let the 100 culprits may  go free but no innocent should be punished.

Referring link

http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/murder-case-mere-strong-motive-does-not-prove-the-case-in-the-absence-of-direct-evidence-one-could-even-say-that-the-presence-of-motive-in-the-facts-and-circumstances-of-the-case-creates/

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: