Arumugham v. State Rep. by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the criminal revision, acquitted the petitioner of charges under sections 279 and 304A IPC, and set aside convictions where eye witnesses failed to positively identify the accused driver.
What did the court decide?
Judgment of lower courts setting convictions and sentences quashed. Petitioner acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Connected petitions closed.
What the court decided
BAIL SLIP
The Petitioner/Accused namely Arumughan, Aged 46 years, S/o.Samayan, is directed to be released on bail as per order of this Honourable Court dated 06.05.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2015 in Crl.R.C.No.444 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl.R.C.No.444 of 2015 and Crl.M.P.No.1845 of 2017 Arumugham ... Petitioner/Accused Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Chettipalayam Police Station Coimbatore District ... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.205 of 2012)
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge,(FAC), Coimbatore passed in C.A.No.172 of 2014 on 20.03.2015 confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.533 of 2012 on 27.10.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul, Additional Public Prosecutor
This revision arises against two concurrent findings of conviction for offence u/s. 279 and 304A IPC. The petitioner faced trial for such offences in C.C.No.533 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given the eye witnesses could not positively identify the accused driver.
Whether mere surrender by the accused shifts the burden of proof to him creating reasonable doubt regarding his conviction.
Whether the convictions under sections 279 and 304A IPC should be set aside due to lack of conclusive identification evidence.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Arumugham
- respondent
State represented by The Inspector of Police Chettipalayam
Coram
C.T. Selvam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court