Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Neeladri Venkateshwar Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2015
Decided On : 16-06-2023
Cr.P.C - Criminal Appeal - Section 374(2) - Offences under Section 307 IPC and 365 IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: Section 307 IPC, Section 365 IPC, Section 209 CrPC, Section 428 CrPC, Chapter 18 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - The court discussed the evidence on record and the discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of motive and intention on the part of the accused, and the mismatch between medical and ocular evidence. The court found the appellant not guilty for the charges under Sections 307 and 365 IPC and acquitted him.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was allegedly attacked and abducted by the accused, leading to severe injuries. The trial court found the appellant guilty for the charges under Sections 307 and 365 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence on record to be discrepant and insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted the lack of motive and intention on the part of the accused, discrepancies in the medical and ocular evidence, and the absence of evidence against the other accused. The court concluded that the appellant was not guilty and acquitted him.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discrepancies in the evidence, lack of motive and intention, mismatch between medical and ocular evidence, and absence of evidence against the other accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credible evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including the absence of motive and intention, discrepancies in the evidence, and the mismatch between medical and ocular evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found not guilty for the charges under Sections 307 and 365 IPC. The judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
The convict filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C questioning the correctness of judgment dated 29.10.2015 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri in S.C.No.295 of 2014. By the impugned judgment, the sole appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 307 IPC and 365 IPC. Towards punishment for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Towards punishment and under Section 365 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 months. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently without mentioning the remand period he underwent, a direction for setting off the period of detention was ordered in terms of Section 428 CrPC.
2. State is the respondent and on its prosecution, the appellant was tried and was convicted and was punished.
3. Learned counsel for appellant Sri. Dr. Majji Suri Babu submitted oral arguments and also submitted a brief note of arguments. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the state submitted oral arguments.
4. Point that falls for consideration is :
POINT:-
Cr.No.170 of 2013 was investigated into and resulted in filing of a charge sheet by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tadikonda Police Station. The charge sheet was filed as against five accused who were arrayed as A1 to A5. The charge sheet was laid before learned Magistrate where it was registered as PRC.No.60 of 2013. On securing the presence of accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, learned Magistrate, acting in terms of Section 209 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of sessions. The case was numbered as S.C.No.295 of 2014 and was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri (Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri).
5. After hearing both sides, learned Assistant Sessions Judge adopted the procedure prescribed under Chapter 18 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/procedure for trial before a Court of Session. After hearing both sides, relevant charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The first charge is under Section 307 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5 and the second charge is under Section 365 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1to8 and got marked Exs.P1toP12 and MOs.1to4. Defence cross-examined all the witnesses. Incriminating evidence was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C seeking their explanations and they denied the truth of the entire evidence. On being invited to enter the defence evidence, all the accused reported no evidence on their behalf. After hearing arguments on both sides and after scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found A2 to A5 not guilty for all the charges and accordingly it acquitted them of all the charges. It found A1 guilty for both the charges. After affording an opportunity of hearing on the quantum and nature of sentence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced A1 as indicated earlier. It is that judgment which is assailed here in this appeal.
7. The grounds urged in this appeal :
- According to prosecution version Sri Alla Hanumantha Rao is a crucial witness for several material facts but the prosecution never examined him as a witness.
- The medical evidence did not match with the ocular ev
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the evidence can raise doubts about the case.
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The judgment emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence and the inadmissibility of unreliable witness testimony and confession in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circums....
Point of law: There may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has ....
The reliability of prosecution witnesses' evidence and the consideration of minor contradictions in the evidence as immaterial in accepting the case of the prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
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
