DHANABAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DHANABAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

The second appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as there is no evidence of any overt act or instigation leading to the fatal injury; statements made in the committal court and under section 164 CrPC can be used for corroboration if procedures are followed; no flaw exists in using the substantive evidence of one witness to corroborate another under section 288 CrPC.

Parties
Appellant: Dhanabal; Appellant: Second Appellant (name not specified); Appellant: P. N. Ramalingam; Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 1 9 1975 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 823/74
Outcome
1st Appellant's appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence confirmed; 2nd Appellant's appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Legal Topics
Murder, Benefit of Doubt, Admissibility of Evidence, Hostile Witnesses, Corroboration, Sections 288 and 164 Cr PC, Section 157 Evidence Act
Criminal Law Murder Benefit of Doubt Admissibility of Evidence Hostile Witnesses Corroboration Sections 288 and 164 Cr PC Section 157 Evidence Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhanabal

Appellant

Second Appellant (name not specified)

Appellant

P. N. Ramalingam

Appellant

State of Tamil Nadu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 1 9 1975 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 823/74

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction based on retracted evidence of prosecution witnesses marked under section 288 CrPC is sustainable
  2. 2 Whether statements recorded under section 164 CrPC are tainted and inadmissible for corroboration
  3. 3 Whether the second appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The second appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as there is no evidence of any overt act or instigation leading to the fatal injury; statements made in the committal court and under section 164 CrPC can be used for corroboration if procedures are followed; no flaw exists in using the substantive evidence of one witness to corroborate another under section 288 CrPC.

Court Disposition

1st Appellant's appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence confirmed; 2nd Appellant's appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Orders

  • 2nd Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith.
  • 1st Appellant's conviction and sentence confirmed.