Legalcops – Legal Blog – Business Registrations & Tax Compliances

Hi there,

Innocent until proven guilty

Judgment Name: John Anthonisamy @ John V/S State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Judgment Date: January 19, 2023
Bench: Justice Mr. Shah and Justice C.T.Ravikumar


Brief facts of this case:

According to the prosecution’s case, PW-1 hired the deceased to operate a cab that belonged to him. The deceased departed his home on June 26, 2006, at 6:00 a.m., after telling his wife. He left after that and didn’t come back. On May 23, 2006, it was stated that all of the defendants plotted to take the deceased’s car and other personal property by engaging the vehicle he was driving, transporting him to a remote location, and killing him there. According to the prosecution’s case, on May 26, 2006, at the Pollachi Thermutti Bus Stop, A-2 to A-5 met A-1 in accordance with the aforementioned plot. A-1 then spoke to the deceased and ordered him to take the deceased’s cab to Udumalpet. As a result, the dead arrived to Thermutti Bus Stop in a taxi. The five defendants then all entered the taxi. The cab continued on its way to Udumalpet. When the deceased stopped the automobile, A-2 suddenly appeared and strangled the deceased by the neck. The deceased’s wrists and legs were rope-tied by A-3, A-4, and A-5, respectively. The deceased was then placed in the middle of the car’s front and rear seats. The dead was checked to make sure he wasn’t crying as A-3 to A-5 sat in the back seat of the automobile. A-1 operated the vehicle. He passed away. The deceased’s lifeless corpse was placed into a trench and buried by all five accused. After then, the automobile and the five suspects fled the crime site together. On the basis of A-1’s disclosure statement, PW-30 retrieved the automobile without an engine and the gear box from PW-16 throughout the course of the inquiry. The car’s engine and gearbox were also found, according to A-1’s disclosure statement. The deceased corpse was exhumed from the location designated by A-1, as seen above. The deceased’s post mortem was done. Numerous wounds were discovered. After the investigation was over, PW-30 submitted the charge sheet against each and every defendant. The Sessions Court was assigned to hear the matter. All of the defendants were brought to trial for the offence under Section 302 and additional IPC offences since they all entered a plea of not guilty.

Contentions of the Appellants :

The Appellant contended that in this case, the body was shown by A-1, who vehemently claimed it had been exhumed at the identified location. It is therefore argued that the following courts did not err in convicting defendants of offences punishable under section 302 and other offences of the IPC. In view of the foregoing, they requested that this appeal be dismissed.


Contentions of the Respondents :

The Respondent contended that if the prosecution is based solely on the above circumstantial evidence, each of which is manifestly implausible and insufficient to support material charges against the defendant, the prosecution must be held to a reasonable suspicion of guilt. Beyond substantiating and/or some relationship must be established in order to maintain evidence. A conviction in which the prosecution failed.


Finding and Observations of the Court :
The Bench has reviewed the findings recorded by the Court of Justice and the High Court and have found that the complainant – Defendant 1 – is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.

Name of the Writer : Divyanjali B Rathore
College: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law , Punjab

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *