Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
C. Praveen Kumar, B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Bathula Balaji, Guntur Dt. - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. PP Thrmangalagiri - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2014
Decided On : 05-08-2021
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - RELIABILITY - STREET LIGHTS - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - BLOOD GROUP MATCHING - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - TIMING OF INCIDENT - CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE - DOUBT BENEFIT OF ACCUSED - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with two others, attacked the deceased with a cement stone, causing his death. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable, there were no street lights at the scene of the incident, the recovery of the weapon was doubtful, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the absence of street lights at the scene of the incident. The court also found that the recovery of the weapon was doubtful and that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the murder charge.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable. 2. Whether the recovery of the weapon was valid. 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to the following reasons: * Contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses * Absence of street lights at the scene of the incident The court also held that the recovery of the weapon was doubtful because there were varying versions of how it was recovered. Finally, the court held that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's case because the post-mortem report did not indicate the presence of any liquid in the stomach of the deceased, which would have been expected if he had consumed a cool drink shortly before the incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him of the murder charge.
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
Heard Sri. Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.
1. Accused No. 1 to 4 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘I.P.C.’] for causing the death of one Marri Veeranarayana [‘Deceased’] on 08.06.2011 at about 12.30 a.m. By its Judgment, dated 21.03.2014, in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2012, the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, while acquitting Accused No. 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., convicted Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. The case against Accused No. 2 was abated as he died on 18.06.2013.
2. The facts disclose as under:
b) On 08.06.2011 at about 10.00 P.M., PW1 and PW2 came to know that a quarrel was going on between A1, A2 and the deceased at a wine shop. At about 11.30 P.M., PW1 and PW2 came on to the main road in search of their son and waited near the Arch for half-an-hour. It is said that at 12.30 midnight, the deceased went to the cool drink shop of PW7, consumed cool drink and left on his motorbike. At that time, PW7 claims to have noticed an auto standing by the side of his shop in which A1, A2 and A4 were present. The said auto followed the deceased.
c) The deceased came on his motorcycle from the petrol bunk side and after moving ahead near the crossing of NH5, an auto came from Vijayawada side and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased was going to his village.
As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down on the road. Thereafter, A1, A2 and another person came out of the auto. A1 beat the deceased with a cement stone, while A2 and another person held the hands and legs of the deceased. A3 also got down from the auto along with A1 and A2. It is said that PW1 and PW2 went to the rescue of their son, but the three accused threatened them. At that time, one Thiruveedhula Naga Bhuyshanam [NE] and Kuraganti Rambabu [PW6] came to the scene. Two more persons, who are coming from Vijayawada side also came there on hearing cries of PW1 and PW2. On seeing them, A1 to A3 ran away by taking cement stone, leaving the auto at the scene. PW1 and PW2 rushed towards their son, who was lying on the road and within five minutes he died.
Thereafter, the relatives of PW1 and PW2 came there and PW1 along with them went to the police station and lodged a report with PW16 -Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 76 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW17, who on receipt of the F.I.R. at 3.00 A.M., visited Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, obtained a copy of the First Information Report and took up investigation.
d) PW17 along with PW16 proceeded to the scene of offence, which is in-front of Raj Kamal Agro Model Farm at Chinakakani Village. He noticed the dead body lying on the divider. A motorcycle and an auto were present near the dead body. PW17 exami
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
