IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
Shaik Inthiyaz, S/o. Yasdani Basha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Sub-Division - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020 & R.T. No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 27-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of accused and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. describing the serious crimes committed by the appellant and initial charges before the court. (Para 3) |
| 3. detailed account of the incident (Para 5 , 6 , 14 , 19) |
| 4. narrative of the investigation process and witnesses' accounts. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. discrepancies in prosecution evidence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. arguments regarding evidence discrepancies and claims of innocence. (Para 11 , 33) |
| 7. judicial observations on evidence and assessment of contradictions. (Para 12) |
| 8. court's analysis of witness credibility (Para 28 , 38) |
| 9. decision on capital punishment vs. life imprisonment (Para 40 , 51) |
| 10. final sentencing and modification of original judgment (Para 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
The appellant herein is the accused in Sessions Case No.59 of 2014 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Woman, Nellore (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Judge’).
2. Originally, the appellant herein and two others viz. T. Vamsi Krishna (hereinafter referred to, as ‘J1’) and G. Murali Manohar (hereinafter referred to, as ‘J2’) are alleged to have involved in the aforesaid offences. Since the said persons were juveniles-in-conflict-with-law, they were tried in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The appellant/accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397, 307 and 449 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). Vide impugned Judgment, dated 06.02.2020, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397, 307 and 449 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life concurrently for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 307 IPC (under two counts) and the sentence of life imprisonment shall be full span of life without any remission. Further, the accused was ordered to hanged by the neck till he is dead for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (under two counts), as contemplated under Section 353 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) subject to confirmation by this Court under Section 366 CrPC.
4. The substance of charges as against the accused is that on 12.02.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., at Door No.16-11-325, 1st floor, 2nd street, Haranadhapuram, Nellore, the accused caused the death of one Asodhi Sakunthala and Asodhi Bhargavi (hereinafter referred to, as ‘D1’ and ‘D2’, respectively) using deadly weapons viz. button knife and iron pipe and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
In the course of same transaction, on the same date, time and place mentioned above, the accused did commit dacoity of one mobile phone and gold jewellery viz. gold bondu sarudu, gold chain, gold ear studs and anklets from the body of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.
In the course of same transaction, on the same date, time and place mentioned above, the accused stabbed P.Ws.1 and 2 with button knife and beat with iron pipe, with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act the accused had caused death of P.Ws.1 and 2, he would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
In the course of same transaction, on the same date, time and place mentioned above, the accused committed house trespass along with J1 and J2, by entering into the house of P.W.1, used as a human dwelling, in order to commit an offence punishable with death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 449 read with 34 IPC.
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
P.W.1 is husband of D1 and father of D2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are related t
Sonvir v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra
Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police
Santa Singh v State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
The court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
The court affirmed multiple convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the nature of the crimes and the relationship between the accused as central to the ruling.
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.