IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Salapakshi Lokanatham, Spsr Nellore Distit – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.1538 of 2010
Decided on : 08-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304 II, 300 I –Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 228, 313, 162, 388 –Offence Murder – Offence Punishable - Right to silence -Framing of charge – Punishment for murder - Causing death by negligence -First Information Report - Statements to police not to be signed -Power to direct tender of pardon -Whether evidence on record before trial Court would prove offence under Section 304 II of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder –Held, Court is of considered view that finding given by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore Division that offence committed by accused would fall under category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is convincing - Court is of considered view that evidence adduced by prosecution before Court categorically proves offence under Section 304II of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt - It is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Court below rightly convicted and sentenced accused for said offence - Hence, Court see no merits, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant/accused in S.C.No.116 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, questioning the judgment, dated 08.10.2010 in the said Sessions Case, whereunder the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, as against the charge framed under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short), found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 II of I.P.C. and after questioning the him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. So, the appellant is the unsuccessful accused in Sessions Case No.116 of 2008 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.116 of 2008 arose out of P.R.C.No.1 of 2006, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in Crime No.87 of 2005 of Allur Police Station, which was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, by an order, dated 18.04.2007.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet filed by the police is as follows:
(ii) Ten days prior to 02.10.2005, the accused came out to a thatched house at S.T. Colony and are residing there. On 02.10.2005 night the accused consumed cheap liquor by mixing with spite cool drink. Both the accused and the deceased slept on two cots separately in front of the house. At 11-00 P.M. accused wakeup as his daughter wept and found the deceased was not on cot. On suspicion, he peeped into the house and noticed the deceased with her paramour Seenaiah on a mat in sexual intercourse. Then the accused bore much angry, called L.Ws.2 and 3, who are the neighbours, showed them the scene. He stood in the exit of the house by arming the “Surakathi” and called Seenaiah to come out. It was dark by then. But, the deceased came to the exit gate. Then the accused with an intention to kill her stabbed her with “Surakathi” powerfully below her left collar bone, due to which she fell down with cries. L.Ws.2 and 3 witnessed the occurrence and rushed to the house of L.W.1 and informed the same to him and others. Later, L.Ws.1, 4 to 6 rushed to the spot and found the deceased dead in the house. Accused ran away towards North-West.
(iii) L.W.1 got the written report with the assistance of L.W.7 and gave it to Allur Police Station on 03.10.2005 at 3-00 A.M. L.W.15 registered it as case in Crime No.87 of 2005 under Section 302 of I.P.C. and submitted express F.I.R. to all the concerned. L.W.16 took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars (L.Ws.9 to 11) and sent the dead body to Government Hospital for autopsy. On 04.10.2005 at 5-00
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of eyewitnesses, especially injured witnesses, and the nature of injuries carry great weight in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of absconding as incriminating evidence, and the application of legal provisions under Section 302 and Section 304 Part II of....
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The testimony of a sole eyewitness can sustain a murder conviction if credible, consistent with medical evidence, and unshaken by cross-examination.
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.