Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Sadu Chinnarao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.315 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (for brevity "learned Additional Sessions Judge"), is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two (02) charges. First charge was under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC") and the second charge was under Section 302 IPC.
3. Substance of the charge is that the accused subjected his wife viz. Savaramma (hereinafter referred to, as "the deceased") to cruelty both physically and mentally by beating her and also by abusing her and on the intervening night of 14/15.02.2012 at about 12.30 a.m., he poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her in his house situated at Indiranagar, Yemmiganur Town, who died on 24.02.2012 at about 7.40 p.m., while undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital, Yemmiganur, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to
The court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the nature of injuries and intent, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IP....
The court affirmed that corroborated dying declarations are reliable for establishing guilt in homicide cases, especially when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 o....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of his wife.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court established that a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under Section 302 IPC, allowing for a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead.
The court established that insufficient evidence of intent to kill led to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC instead of murder under Section 302 ....
The court established that inconsistencies in witness testimonies and dying declarations can lead to reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
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
