Yuvaraj v. State

Yuvaraj v. State(2023) 2 MWN (Cri) 161In the Excessive Courtroom of MadrasCrl.A. (MD) 228/2022Before Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N.A. VenkateshDecided on June 02, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Can an accused object to the non-submission of Part 65B certificates on the appellate stage?

Statutes and Provisions Concerned

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Part 120B, 302)
The Indian Proof Act, 1862 (Part 65B)
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Part 3)

Related Details of the Case

The deceased was seen along with his collegemate on the Arthanareeswarar temple at Tiruchengode. Later, he was discovered lifeless on the railway observe in Tamil Nadu’s Namakkal district.
The police initially thought-about it to be a suicide case; nevertheless, the postmortem report claimed it to be a murder case.
The investigation revealed that it was a case of honour killing. The police discovered that the petitioner, a frontrunner of the native dominant caste group, had killed the deceased.
The Particular Classes Courtroom in Madurai sentenced the primary accused and 10 different accused to life imprisonment.
In December 2022, the Excessive Courtroom took sou motu cognizance of the case, as one of many witnesses, the deceased’s collegemate, refused to establish herself within the CCTV footage introduced as proof.

Distinguished Arguments by the Advocates

The prosecution’s major competition was that the case was primarily based on caste hatred. The prime accused fashioned an affiliation in 2014. There, he had given a speech that the ladies belonging to his neighborhood mustn’t fall in love and marry in different communities. The prosecution argued that there was sufficient circumstantial proof, i.e., CCTV footage, cell data and witnesses, and the accused’s confession (the admissible portion).
The appellant’s (first accused’s) counsel argued that a lot of the digital proof relied on by the prosecution was inadmissible. The CCTV footage relied on the last-seen idea, which was inadmissible because the prosecution had not hooked up Part 65B. Additional, the prosecution couldn’t set up the motive of the accused because the prosecution’s major witness turned hostile.

Opinion of the Bench

The CCTV footage and pictures had been admissible, because the accused introduced up no objections concerning the Part 65B certificates through the unique trial section. That is too late to file such objections within the appellate stage.
Additional, the prosecution had marked the tv interview and the decision data with a bit 65B certificates within the unique trial section. The defendant couldn’t convey up such arguments concerning the insufficiency of the certificates within the appellate stage if it was not introduced up within the unique trial.
Contemplating the above proof to be admissible, the prosecution proved the last-seen idea. Additional, the prosecution was capable of set up the motive for the homicide by the tv interview. There isn’t any insufficiency within the unique judgment.

Closing Choice

The bench dismissed the attraction.

Adyasha Sahoo, an undergraduate scholar on the Institute of Legislation, Nirma College Ahmedabad, and Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate scholar at Rajiv Gandhi Nationwide College of Legislation, Punjab, ready this case abstract throughout their internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.