Back
V R K KRUPA SAGAR
John Velanganamma W/o N. Sreenivasulu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
V R K Krupa Sagar, J.
1. These two criminal revision cases are filed under sections 397(1) and 401 of CrPC by the accused challenging the orders of the learned trial court in not discharging them from the offence under section 307 IPC.
2. Respondent in both the revisions is the state.
3. FIR.No.18 of 2017 was registered by Kadapa II Town police station on 07.12.2017 for the offences under sections 324, 506 read with 34 IPC. After due investigation, the Sub Inspector of police filed charge sheet stating that in the crime incident three accused are involved. A1 is Smt.John Velanganamma and A2 is Sri Mallela Fransis Kumar. The third person who allegedly participated in this crime incident is stated to be Mr.Praneeth who is the son of A1. It is stated that Mr.Praneet is a juvenile in conflict with law and the necessary case would be filed before Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa. Thus, the charge sheet filed before learned Magistrate was only against A1 and A2. The investigative conclusion of the police indicates that they are required to be prosecuted for the offences under sections 324, 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC. It seems the learned Magistrate committed the case since section
A charge under section 307 IPC requires sufficient evidence beyond mere confessions to police, which are inadmissible for such purposes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in altering or adding charges and committing the case to the Court of Session, as well as the limitations o....
The court retains discretion to alter charges as needed regardless of complainant's requests, emphasizing the independence of judicial decision-making.
Framing charges under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent or knowledge to kill, which was lacking, thereby limiting the charges to less serious offences.
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
The discretionary nature of Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C and the absence of a mandatory requirement for the Sessions Court to frame charges before transferring the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
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
