Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
A.Kuppaiah - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1481 of 2010
Decided On : 30-11-2023
Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 304 Part-II - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The deceased sustained injuries during an altercation at a music orchestra event and subsequently died after being admitted to the hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the death of the deceased. The court highlighted the inconsistencies between the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was improbable and unbelievable. As a result, the court acquitted the accused of the charged offense.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of a causal link between the accused's actions and the death of the deceased, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimony, and the interpretation of medical evidence in relation to the alleged offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of corroborating medical evidence for the prosecution's claims, the unexplained delay in lodging the initial report, and the inconsistencies between the oral testimony and medical evidence. The court emphasized the principle that unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence should have primacy.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused. The accused was acquitted of the offense under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, and the bail bonds and any paid fines were to be refunded to the accused.
JUDGMENT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - The judgment in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2008, on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati ('Additional Sessions Judge' for short), delivered on 10.11.2010, is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the unsuccessful accused, who faced charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short), but was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No. 67 of 2008 as above arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Putturu, pertaining to Crime No. 65 of 2005 of Karveti Nagar Police Station.
4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Karveti Nagar Circle, in the aforesaid crime number, filed a charge sheet alleging the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet is as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Padirikuppam Dalithawada, Karveti Nagar Mandal. One Thoti Jayaram (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') also belonged to the said village. On 06.09.2007 night, a music orchestra was arranged in Padirikuppam Harijanawada in connection with Kumbhabhisekham of Lord Sri Krishna temple. During that night, at about 11-00 p.m., the deceased, who was one among the spectators, was found often going to the stage. On noticing the same, the accused bore grudge against the deceased for his often going to the stage where music orchestra was being played. The accused forcibly pushed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell in between reaper and chair and as a result, he fell in between the seats arranged at the above place and his head was struck. The accused also beat the deceased on the back side of his head with a wooden stool causing severe injuries. Later, he was taken to L.W.14-Dr. K. Somasekhar Naidu for treatment. After providing necessary first aid, L.W.14 advised that the deceased to be taken to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati. Firstly, the deceased was admitted in SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati. Later, he was shifted to SVIMS, Tirupati.
After having treatment for some days at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, he was discharged and brought back to his house at Padirikuppam Dalithawada. Ultimately, the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 24.09.2007 at 8-30 a.m.
(ii) On 11.09.2007 a hospital intimation was sent to the concerned police by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati with history that the patient sustained injury due to fall at stage erected for orchestra at 11-00 p.m. on 06.09.2007 and that he was admitted in hospital. On the same day, at 12-30 p.m., the S.I. of Police, Karveti Nagar Police Station received a phone message from OP PS, SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, regarding admission of the deceased. The S.I. of Police deputed P.C.1950 (L.W.17) to visit SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and to record the statement of the deceased. Accordingly, the said Police Constable visited SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and recorded the statement of deceased, aged 48 years and produced the statement before the concerned S.I. of Police. L.W.17-Police Constable obtained a certificate from the deceased that the contents of the above statement are correct and obtained the signature of the injured. On the basis of the same, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No. 65 of 2005 under Section 324 of I.P.C. of Karveti Nagar Police Station on 11.09.2007 at 6-00 p.m. and submitted FIR to all concerned. L.W.18-S.I. of Police visited SVIMS, Tirupati and examined the deceased who was then alive and also his wife as L.W.2 and recorded their statements. On 12.09.2007 he visited the scene, inspected the same and drafted rough sketch. He also examined L.W.2-Poluru Gangadharam, L.W.3-Pathapalem Ramaiah and L.W.4-Chelampalem T
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the primacy of medical evidence and the requirement for a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the alleged offense, emphasizing the n....
Evidence - In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
Peritonitis as defined in medical dictionary is as under: “inflammation of the peritoneum, typically caused by bacterial infection either via the blood or after rupture of an abdominal organ”.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
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
