Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
JOGI VENKATESWARAMMA - Petitioner
Vs.
THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.366, 376 and 404 of 2013
Decided On : 11-02-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 r/w. Section 34, 404, 201, 411, 120-B r/w.Section 302, 420 and 419 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 174, 207 , 209 and 313 - Offence of murder – Cheating and dishonesty – Examination of accused - A1 and A.2 are brothers. P.W.1 is the mother of deceased - P.Ws.2 and 3 are friends of the deceased; P.W.4 is the daughter of whose deceased was living as a tenant. P.W.7 is brother-in-law of deceased. P.W.8 is relative of the deceased and P.Ws.10 and 11 are brothers of deceased - Deceased was residing as a tenant in house at old Post Office road - Deceased was doing room spray and finance business - P.W.3 and others used to meet deceased regularly near Satyam hotel - On PM when P.W.3 and deceased met each other at Satyam Hotel, deceased informed P.W.3 that A.1 asked him to come to Enikepadu for repayment of amount due by A.3 - Deceased was doing Finance business and in course of said business, he advanced some amount as loan to a lady who is a resident of Enikepadu - Prosecution that since 1½ months prior to incident, A.1 was visiting the room of deceased and both of them developed acquaintance with each other
Finding of the Court:
Mortgage deed and evidence of P.W.19 would show that though name of A.4 signed on document No explanation is forthcoming as to why he has signed on said document his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination except denial, he did not answer under what circumstances he signed in document - It is nodoubt true that the accused can maintain silence during his Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, but, in given set of facts, he should have answered whether A.3 is his wife or not - Evidence of Handwriting Expert would establish that it was A.4, who signed on Ex.P19 - Conviction imposed against A.4 warrants no interference having regard to the fact that incident took place in as A.4 was in jail for some time.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2013 is filed by A.3; Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2013 is filed by A.4; while Criminal Appeal No.404 of 2013 is filed by A.1 and A.2. Since all the three appeals arise out of one judgment, the same are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These three appeals are filed against the judgment dated 12.04.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.159 of 2006, on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein A.1 and A.2 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w. Section 34, 404, 201 and 411 IPC; A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w.Section 302 IPC for conspiring to commit murder of one Balabommala Ashok and A.4 for the offence punishable under Section 419 r/w.120-B IPC for impersonation as husband of A.3.
(ii) A.3 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC; A.3 was further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
(iii) A.4 was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC. All the substantive sentences against A.1 to A.3 were directed to run concurrently.
3. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted here that there is no charge against A.3 for any of the offences with which she is punished. It appears that since the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC is a minor offence compared to offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 120-B IPC [charged], the learned Sessions Judge convicted A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 404 and 420 IPC. The net result is A.1 and A.2 were sentenced to Imprisonment for Life while A.3 and A.4 to one year and six months respectively.
4. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the prosecution witnesses, is as under:
(ii) On 17.10.2004 at about 9.00 or 9.30 PM when P.W.3 and the deceased met each other at Satyam Hotel, the deceased informed P.W.3 that A.1 asked him to come to Enikepadu for repayment of the amount due by A.3.
(iii) It is the case of the Prosecution that the deceased was doing Finance business and in the course of the said business, he advanced some amount as loan to a lady who is a resident of
where the Test Identification of properties for the reason that in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as Clause 474 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it is clearly mentioned that th....
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the conviction and sentence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code based on the consistent and convincing evidence of posses....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any missing link benefits the accused.
The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses....
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
