Back
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Rajana Appa Rao – Appellant
Versus
P. P. , Hyd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the Appellant herein. Originally, Accused No.1 to 3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] or alternatively for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
2. As seen from the record, a charge-sheet was filed against Accused No.2 and 3 vide P.R.C. No. 03 of 2002 in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2002. The case against Appellant/Accused No.1 was split as he was absconding for about 15 years. Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before the Court on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant. On 26.07.2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherein, it came to be numbered as S.C. No. 96 of 2015. Accused No. 1 faced trial as an “under trial prisoner”. It is also to be noted here that, the case against Accused No. 2 and 3 ended in acquittal, as there was no evidence to connect them with the crime, vide Judgment, dated 24.08.2007.
3. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
The prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. Cruelty is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 498A IPC and must be....
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the presence of the accused at the time of the incident in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of his wife.
The prosecution must establish the accused's presence at the time of the incident to sustain a conviction under circumstantial evidence.
The absence of evidence demonstrating harassment for dowry demands precludes conviction under Section 304B IPC, and vague statements do not satisfy the requirements for Section 201 IPC.
Instigation alone does not establish guilt for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act leading to death.
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
