K.Babu v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for murder. Upholding the trial court, it held that oral and extra-judicial evidence was sufficient and no substantial contradictions existed to interfere with the finding of guilt.
What did the court decide?
The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were confirmed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 17-11-2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. KALAIYARASAN
Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.7244 of 2016 K. Babu ... Appellant/Accused Vs. State by Inspector of Police Poonamallee Police Station Chennai Crime No.1079 of 2013 ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the conviction and sentence dated 30-092015 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur /Poonamallee and to set aside the same.
For appellant :: Mr. Ganesh Rajan For respondent :: Mr. E. Raja, Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated 30-09-2015 passed in Sessions Case No.47 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.
- The case of the prosecution is that the accused by name Babu is the husband of the deceased viz., Suseela. The accused has very often in sozzle mood used to make wranglings with the deceased. On 13-05-2013, at about 10:30p.m., while the deceased has been in the house, the accused after taking liquor has quarrelled with the deceased. The accused has attacked the deceased by using a cudgel and due to his overt acts, she has passed away. After occurrence, the daughter of both the accused and deceased viz., Vijaya on 15-03-2013 has given a complaint
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC should be set aside on grounds of discrepancies in prosecution evidence.
Whether the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts to the accused to explain the occurrence in the domestic premises.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects the prosecution case.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
K. Babu
- respondent
State by Inspector of Police Poonamallee
Coram
A. SELVAM
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court