IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C.Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, JJ.
Chekuri Raja Rao (A2), S/o (late) Yagappa – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Crl.Appeal Nos.136 & 274 of 2015
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34, 457, 397, 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 207, 313, 209 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65(B)(4) - Punishment for murder - Appeals from convictions -Robber or Dacoity, with attempt - Mandatory to produce electronic evidence -Several persons in furtherance of common intention - Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night - Deals with supply of copies of police reports and other documents to the accused - Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it -Whether accused were in P.S. I identified MOs.1 & 2 by informing identification particulars of my gold ornaments –Held, Court have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has proved guilt of accused and for offences punishable u/s 457, 397 and 302 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt - A3 is no more, and he died pending trial of case -In that view of matter, Court do not find any merit in appeal filed by accused No.2 and consequently appeal fails, and conviction and sentence imposed by learned Sessions Judge for above-mentioned offences shall be sustained - In result, Court allow appeal filed by accused and therefore, conviction and sentence imposed against him by learned Sessions Judge by judgment the file of X Addl. Sessions Court, for offences punishable u/s 457, 397 and 302 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., is set aside and therefore, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, and fine amount, if any, paid by accused No.1 shall be refunded to him, after expiry of appeal time – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, J.
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2015 is Accused No.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2015 is Accused No.2. The appellants along with Accused No.3 (died pending trial) were tried in Sessions Case No.280 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
2. Originally, A2 and A3 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 397 and 302 I.P.C., and A1 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 397 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., for causing the death of Pitchuka Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) by trespassing into his house at the time of committing robbery on the night of 03.02.2008 at 9.30 p.m.,
3. Vide judgment dated 19.01.2015, the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam convicted accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 397 and 302 I.P.C., and convicted Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 397 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced Accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 457 IPC, he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 397 IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 302 IPC. Accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 457 IPC, he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 397 IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, the accused 1 and 2 preferred these two separate Criminal Appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.,
4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under :
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, who was a retired Ayurvedic Medical Officer and after retirement he was practicing at their house at Nidumolu. They both were residing in their own house opposite to Check-post, Nidumolu. Their two daughters and one son were in London.
On 03.02.2008 at 9.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was watching T.V., the deceased went outside to close the door of the compound wall and to lock the mesh of the verandah, which was being used as waiting room of patients and a room to the north of verandah was being used as consultation room/examination room by the deceased.
P.W.1 heard sounds from the consultation room and her husband was shouting as ‘dongalu dongalu’. Then she rushed to the consultation room and found two culprits pressing the neck of her husband with a towel and among them Accused No.3 was sitting on the stomach by laying her husband on the examination table and Accused No.2 was showing a knife to her and her husband and threatened them not to raise alarm, otherwise they will kill them. Accused No.2 caught hold of her ‘Mangala Sutram’ chain, dragged her up to verandah and she received injury on back of her neck. A2 attempted to remove her gold bangles forcibly, so she removed her four bangles and handed over to him. A2 attempted to remove her gold ring, then she herself removed the same and handed over to him. A2 demande
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others
Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of H.P.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The prosecution must establish a complete and cogent chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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....
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.