Back
M. GANGA RAO, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Kaligithi Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP. , rep. PP. , Hyd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.)
1. The appellant herein is the accused in Sessions Case No.45 of 2011, who faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324 Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). By its Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324 IPC. The accused was found not guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC and acquitted. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of the payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 326 IPC for the injuries caused to PW.1 – Thote Chellayamma. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of the payment of the fine amount, he shall undergo simple im
The accused did not have the intention to kill the deceased, but only the knowledge that their actions could likely cause his death, leading to the alteration of their conviction from Sec. 302 IPC to....
Conviction altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the act was done in the heat of passion without premeditation during a sudden quarrel.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Part II of Section 304 of IPC comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to ....
If intention of accused was limited to infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and did not extend to intention of causing death, offence would be murder.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
The court affirmed that the 1st accused's act of stabbing the deceased constituted murder, rejecting the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC due to the absence of mutual combat.
Testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable due to the built-in guarantee of presence. The sudden fight exception applies to culpable homicide when committed without premeditation in the heat ....
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
