IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.Durga Prasad Rao, Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ.
Upputholl Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1840 of 2018
Decided On : 22-01-2024
The deceased, a close relation of the accused, went to their house and raised a dispute regarding the maintenance of his daughters. The accused, in response, attacked the deceased with sticks and fist blows, causing his death. The trial court found the evidence of the eye witnesses to be consistent and credible, leading to the conviction of the accused under Sec. 302 IPC. However, the Supreme Court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the accused did not have the intention to kill the deceased, but only the knowledge that their actions could likely cause his death. Therefore, the conviction under Sec. 302 IPC was altered to Sec. 304 Part II IPC, and the accused were sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. - Challenging the judgment dtd. 4/6/2018 in S.C.No.381/2015 passed by the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Gurajala convicting the A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00 each, A1 to A5 filed the instant criminal appeal.
2. The matrix of the case, which led to the conviction and sentence of accused can be pithily stated thus:
(a) The prosecution case is that A1 to A5 are interrelated i.e., A1 and A3 are sons of A2; A4 is maternal uncle of A1; A5 is the son of A4 and they are all residents of Brahmananda Reddy colony, Pidugurall within the local limits of Piduguralla P.S.
(b) The deceased Peda Anjaneyulu and PW2 K.Anjamma are the parents in law of A1 Guravamma as he married their daughter U.Durgamma. A1 and Guravamma got four daughters viz., Anuradha (PW3), Renuka (PW4) Kusuma and Harika. During fifth delivery Guravamma died and thereafter, A1 left his daughters with grandparents i.e., deceased and PW2 and married another lady and staying at Hyderabad by doing masonry works and occasionally he was visiting Piduguralla to see his parents. The deceased and PW2 requested A1 several times to take responsibility of his children as they attained age of marriage. However he paid a deaf ear and so the deceased, PW2 and their son PW1 performed the marriages of PW3- Anuradha and PW4-Renuka with their money. The marriages of Kusuma and Harika are to be performed.
(c) While so, on 9/2/2014 A1 came from Hyderabad to Piduguralla and on knowing this fact, the deceased and PW2 along with the four daughters of A1 went to the house of A1 at Brahmananda Reddy Colony in the night after 07:00 PM and there the deceased explained his poor financial condition and requested A1 to take responsibility of his two unmarried daughters Kusuma and Harika. However, A1 bluntly refused and thereby a gallata occurred and A2 to A5 joined A1 and all of them beat the deceased with sticks on his head. When he fell down they fisted on his chest knowing well the fact that the deceased underwent bypass surgery some time back. As a result, the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. The accused fled away. PW 2 contacted PW1 on phone and PW1 rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying in unconscious state. Immediately PW1 and LW5- Shaik Saida shifted the deceased in an auto to Vijaya Sai Specialty Hospital at Piduguralla where the Doctor on examination declared that the deceased was brought dead to the Hospital. Thus all the accused were responsible for the death of deceased.
(d) On the night of 9/2/2014 at about 11:00 PM PW1 went to Piduguralla PS and presented Ex.P1- written report to PW13-Inspector of Police, Piduguralla PS and he registered a case in Crime No.244/2014 U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P5 - express FIR and conducted investigation. He proceeded to Vijaya Sai Speciality Hospital, Piduguralla and shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Gurajala. On 10/12/2014 he secured the presence of PW9 and LW11 and observed the scene of offence and recorded the Ex.P2 - scene of observation report and seized MO.1- sticks (3 Nos). He prepared Ex.P6- rough sketch of scene of offence. Thereafter, he held inquest on the dead body at Government Hospital, Gurajala in the presence of PW10, LW13 - Shaik Subhani and LW14- G. Ramesh and prepared Ex.P3 - inquest report. Then he recorded the statements of PWs1 to 4 and LW5- S. K Saida. He got photographs of the dead body under Ex.P7 (Photos). On his requisition PW12 conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and later issued Ex.P4-postmortem certificate wherein he mentioned that he found (1) contusion over middle of forehead and (2) multiple contusions over the middle of the chest. He also noticed fracture of fronto parietal bone. So far as cause of death is concerned, he mentioned that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury.
(e) Further investigati
Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
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....
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 court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Court ruled that actions during a sudden quarrel did not constitute murder but qualified for lesser offences under relevant IPC sections, reflecting the principles of culpable homicide exceptions.
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.