SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 458

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sodum Anvesha.

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 potential for reformation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 397, 307, and 449 - The accused was convicted for murdering two individuals, attempted murder, dacoity, and house trespass, leading to a death sentence, later modified to life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences. (Paras 3, 52)

(B) Standard of Proof - The court held that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with credible evidence, despite discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Paras 11, 39)

(C) Capital Punishment - The death penalty must be reserved for the rarest of rare cases; mitigating and rehabilitative factors must be considered when determining an appropriate sentence. (Paras 40, 52)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in an altercation at the residence of the deceased, where he used deadly weapons, resulting in deaths and injuries to family members during an attempted robbery on 12.02.2013. The accused was acquainted with the victims. (Paras 2, 5, 28)

Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence established the accused's culpability; therefore, the death penalty was modified to imprisonment for 20 years. Other concurrent sentences were also imposed. (Paras 52)

Issues: The court sought to determine whether the prosecution could establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death penalty was appropriate in this case. (Paras 11, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized rehabilitation, considering the accused's background and prospects for reformation, thus modifying the death sentence as excessive given the context. (Paras 40, 52)

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and sentences modified.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top