Back
K SURESH REDDY, K SREENIVASA REDDY
Maturi Venkata Manikyala Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP, Rep PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.328 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 17.11.2014 at about 1.30 P.M, the accused hacked his wife by name Maturi Sunitha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) with M.O-3-Kinfe in Ravi Infotech Computer Centre belonging to Pw-8, causing her instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Pamarru Village. The deceased was also a resident of the same Village. The accused is a resident of Kunduru Village. Pw-1 is the younger brother of the deceased, Pw-3 is the mother of the deceased and Pws-4 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased respectively. The marriage of the deceased w
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was upheld based on strong eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence.
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.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.
The court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
The court upheld the conviction for murder and trespass, affirming the credibility of child witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
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
