IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Jagarapu Chinnodua & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep PP. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2016
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 452 and 324 read with 34 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 161 - Offence of Murder - Trespass - Testimony of Witness - Held, Though Special Assistant Public Prosecutor tried to contend that these are all minor contradictions which do not go to root of matter but when entire case rests on solitary witness of feel that to test veracity of a witness corroboration from medical evidence is required to be taken and when tested with that evidence - Court noticed the above infirmities which doubt presence of P.W.1 at scene - Having regard to above in of case feel that it may not be safe to base a conviction relying on evidence alone - Court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable Sections 449, 302 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C and as judgment of trial Court impugned herein is liable to be set aside - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Accused No.1 to 10 in Sessions Case No.135 of 2008 (wrongly mentioned as Sessions Case No.138 of 2008) on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam are the appellants herein. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. Vide judgment, dated 13.01.2016, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 449 I.P.C.; A-1 to A-10 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C.; and A-7 and A-8 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The substantive sentences imposed on A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-8 were directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 07.11.2007, at about 22.00 hours, at Nainammapalem Village, A-1 and A-2 committed trespass into the house of one Karu Sreeramulu (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) to commit murder; that all the accused, with a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, beat the deceased with sticks and stones indiscriminately resulting in his death on the spot and that A-7 and A-8 beat Karu Satyavathi, who is the wife of the deceased, with sticks, as she obstructed the accused from killing her husband.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased while P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.4 is the Village Thalayari. Few days prior to the incident, the son of A-1 fell sick. The accused suspected that the deceased might have done witchcraft. Hence, about 15 days prior to the incident, all the accused i.e., A-1 to A-10 came to the house of P.W.1 and the deceased and threatened the deceased stating that they would remove his teeth and kill him suspecting that he is doing witchcraft on the son of A-1. They also pelted lemons on their house. A week thereafter, the accused again came to the house of the deceased and P.W.1 and threatened the deceased in the same manner. It is said that on the fateful day i.e., on 07.11.2007, at about 10.00 p.m., while P.W.1 and her daughter slept on one cot, the deceased and his son slept on another cot on the verandah. At that time, the lights in their house were on and even there was lighting from outside the house. P.W.1 claims to have noticed A-1 and A-2 dragging the deceased from the verandah forcibly and A-3 sprinkling chilly powder on the face including eyes. At that point of time, A-9 beat the deceased on his head with a stone while A-10 beat the deceased on his nose with ‘Dadikarra’, which is a stick used for fencing. It is also said that A-1 beat the deceased on his hands and stomach with stick. A-3 to A-5 beat the deceased with stones. On seeing the same, P.W.1 and her children intervened to save the deceased from the hands of the accused. Then, A-7 and A-8 pulled them and beat P.W.1 with sticks. After killing the deceased, all the accused ran away. It is said that after the incident, P.W.1 fell unconscious and gained consciousness on the next day morning and informed about the incident to their Village Thalayari, who was examined as P.W.4. The Village Thalayari approached the Village Revenue Officer and narrated the incident. On 08.11.2007, at about 3.30 p.m., P.W.8 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Yelamanchili Rural Police Station, who is In charge of Atchutapuram Police Station, received information from P.W.4 about the incident. He informed the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Circle and left the police station. At the scene of offence, he noticed th
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on a solitary witness's testimony requires it to be unimpeachable and corroborated.
The judgment underscores the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimonies in criminal ca....
Eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction if credible and corroborated by medical evidence, emphasizing the need for reliability in such cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
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.