TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Life Sentences Affirmed for Accused in 1980 Merli Family Murder; Appeal Dismissed, Conviction Upheld</h1> The HC concluded that the prosecution had convincingly demonstrated that the accused conspired and executed the murder of Merli and her children on ... - Issues Involved:1. Motive of A-1 to exterminate Tomy and his family.2. Illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2.3. Attempts to administer insecticide to Merli and her children.4. Procurement and testing of cyanide by A-4.5. Movements and presence of the accused near the crime scene.6. Medical evidence and injuries on A-3 and A-4.7. Recovery of incriminating items.8. Confession of A-4.9. Admissibility of evidence and its evaluation by the trial court and High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Motive of A-1 to Exterminate Tomy and His Family:The High Court accepted the evidence of Tomy (PW-2) and his elder brother Paul (PW-15) and held that A-1 was on inimical terms with Tomy and his wife and had sufficient motive to finish Tomy and his family members. The trial court had also accepted that A-1 had strong ill-feeling against PW-2 and his wife, Merli.2. Illicit Intimacy Between A-1 and A-2:The High Court confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court relying upon the evidence of PWs 41, 43, 44, and M.Os. 27, 28, 29, 40, and 41, that A-1 and A-2 had resorted to black magic and witchcraft for ruining Tomy and his family.3. Attempts to Administer Insecticide to Merli and Her Children:The High Court believed the evidence of PWs 15 and 16, from whose shops A-3 had purchased insecticide 'Dalf' on 16.5.1980. The trial court had rejected their evidence on grounds that were not considered proper by the High Court. The High Court also accepted the evidence of PW-38, who saw A-1 and A-3 at Tomy's house on 29.5.1980, rejecting the trial court's reasons for disbelief.4. Procurement and Testing of Cyanide by A-4:The High Court found that A-4 had procured cyanide from Chinnappan (PW-27) and tested its effectiveness on a cat. The trial court had disbelieved PW-27's evidence on insufficient grounds, which the High Court found improper.5. Movements and Presence of the Accused Near the Crime Scene:The High Court accepted the evidence of various witnesses (PWs 3, 4, 11, 47, 8, 13) who testified about the movements of A-1, A-3, and A-4 near Tomy's house on the evening of the incident. The High Court criticized the trial court for rejecting this evidence on flimsy grounds.6. Medical Evidence and Injuries on A-3 and A-4:The High Court accepted the medical evidence provided by Dr. Abraham (PW-60) and Dr. Vasant Kumari (PW-64) regarding injuries on A-3 and A-4, which corroborated their involvement in the crime. The trial court's reasons for rejecting this evidence were found improper by the High Court.7. Recovery of Incriminating Items:The High Court found the recovery of the gold chain (MO-8) and the bottle containing a mixture of parataph and eccalex (MO-44) at the instance of A-2 to be credible. The trial court's reasons for rejecting this evidence were deemed improper by the High Court.8. Confession of A-4:The High Court held that the trial court had looked at the confession with suspicion and committed an illegality by comparing it with the case diary. The High Court found the confession to be voluntary and true and held that it could be used against other accused under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.9. Admissibility of Evidence and Its Evaluation by the Trial Court and High Court:The High Court found that most of the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the prosecution evidence were grossly unreasonable and some were almost perverse. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and came to a different conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused.Conclusion:The High Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had conspired to murder Merli and her children and did murder them between 7.00 p.m. and 7.45 p.m. on 23.6.1980. It set aside the acquittal of the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, finding no good reason to differ from the High Court's view, dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
