Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Yalamanchali Raju @ Pottodu Bobbili & others- Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its P.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 1267/2016
Decided On : 01-08-2024
Criminal - Homicide - IPC Sections 302, 323, 325 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding culpability in homicide, concluding that the accused's actions did not meet the threshold for murder but warranted conviction for a lesser offense.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with multiple offenses, including murder, after an incident where they allegedly pushed the deceased, leading to his death. The deceased was an elderly man who fell and sustained injuries after intervening in a quarrel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the accused pushed the deceased, there was no intention to kill, and thus the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC was not substantiated. The court upheld the conviction for a lesser offense under Section 325 IPC.
Issues: Whether the actions of the accused constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accused's act of pushing the deceased did not demonstrate the intent required for a murder conviction, aligning with the interpretations of Sections 302 and 325 IPC.
Result: The appeal was partly allowed; the murder conviction was set aside, and the appellants were convicted under Section 325 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
A1 to A3 in S.C.No.75/2014 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District, Parvathipuram, are the appellants herein. The appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge on the following four charges:
| 1st Charge | U/sec. 352 r/w 34 IPC against A-1 to A-3 – found not guilty – acquitted |
| 2nd Charge | U/sec. 323 r/w 34 IPC against A-1 to A-3 - found guilty - sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each |
| 3rd Charge | U/sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC – against A-1 to A.3 – Found guilty sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each i/d simple imprisonment for 3 months each, and |
| 4th Charge | U/Sec. 354 IPC – Against A-1 - Acquitted |
2. The sum and substance of the charges, as against the accused, is that on 05.02.2007 at about 10.30 P.M., at the house of the deceased, all the accused pushed the deceased with force, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the cement road and became unconscious. The deceased died on the way to the hospital.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(b) PW.1 is the grandson of the deceased, PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, and PW.3 is the sister of PW.1. PW.4 is the wife of deceased, PW.5 is son of the deceased and father of PW.1. PW.6 is another son of the deceased.
(c) Two to three months prior to the incident, A1 was roaming around PW.2 and he used to tease PW.2. But, said fact has not been informed by PW.2 to anybody. On the date of incident, i.e., 05.02.2007 at about 7.00 P.M., when PWs 2 and 3 were returning to the house of PW.1, A.1 way laid them on the road and questioned PW.2 for not responding to him and further he pulled the vail of her sari. On coming to know of the alleged incident, PW.1 went to the house of A.1 and enquired him about the incident. The quarrel ensued between PW.1 and A.1 in this regard. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 along with three others gathered and quarreled with PW.1. The neighbours of PW.1 advised him to lodge a report in the police station. When PWs.1 to 3 were going to police station to lodge a report, A.1 to A.3 along with three others went to the house of PW.1 and pelted stones on their house. Immediately, PWs. 1 to 3 returned and went to the house of the deceased. At that point of time, the deceased was taking food in his house. PW.5 and another were standing outside the house. When they were narrating the incident to PW.5 and another, A.1 to A.3 along with three others had threatened PW.1 and beat him. Then, the deceased had come out of the house and pacified A.1 to A.3 and three others, PW.1 & another. It is alleged that A.1 to A.3 and three other juveniles had pushed the deceased forcibly on the cement road. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. In the meanwhile, A.1 to A.3 and three other juveniles fled away from the scene of offence. Then, PW.1 was taking the injured to hospital in a rickshaw, he died on the way.
(d) On 06.02.2007, at about 11.00 A.M., PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili received a written report from PW.1. Basing on it, a case has been registered in Cr.No.10/2007 for the offence under Sections 354, 302 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P6 is the original F.I.R.
(e) On receiving express F.I.R. from Bobbili police station, PW.14 Inspector of Police, Bobbili, along with PW.13 rushed to the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators PWs 10 and 12, and examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. PW.14 prepared Ex.P7 - rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter, PW.14 examined PWs 1 to 7 and recorded their statements. On the same day, PW.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 01.00 P.M. to 03.00 P.M. under Ex.P3 - inquest report.
(f) PW.11, Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili, on requisition, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the dece
The court established that mere pushing resulting in death does not equate to murder without intent, affirming the need for clear intent in homicide cases.
The prosecution failed to prove the involvement of A.2, A.4, and A.5 in the crime, while sufficient evidence supported the conviction of A.1 for murder.
A conviction for culpable homicide requires establishing intent, which was lacking in this case, leading to a revised charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.
It is the quality and not the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence. Evidence has to be weighed not counted.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 355 of IPC in cases where the accused's act results in injury but without the intention to cause death.
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
