IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Suresh Reddy, K. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Vennapusa Yougandhar Reddy A1 Kadapa Dt And Otrs., - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep PP. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2016
Decided On : 09-08-2024
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 120-B, 212 - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts and the significance of timely reporting of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were charged with murdering the deceased using axes and a boulder due to a financial dispute. Accused No. 5 was charged with providing shelter to the attackers. The trial court convicted the first four accused under Section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence credible, particularly the eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, dismissing claims of delay in reporting as justified under the circumstances.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused for murder despite claims of delayed reporting and lack of eyewitness credibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consistency of eyewitness testimony and corroborating forensic evidence outweighed the arguments regarding the delay in reporting the crime.
Result: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short, 'the trial Court'), are the appellants in the present criminal appeal before this Court. Originally, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following three charges:
II charge was under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against accused No. 5; and
III charge was under Section 212 IPC against accused No. 5.
2. Substance of the charges is that on 24-12-2009 at about 10.45 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 attacked one Garudaiahgari Peddireddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') with axes and a boulder in Akulolla Subrahmanyam Orange Garden at Korrapadu Village, Muddanur Mandal, causing his instantaneous death and in the said process, accused No. 5 gave shelter to accused Nos. 1 to 4 being aware of the fact that accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed murder of the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 120-B and 212 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 5 of both the charges.
4. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses is thus:
All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Korrapadu Village whereas accused Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of Gangadevipalli Village and accused No. 5 is resident of Kodigandlapalli Village. P.W.1 is close relative and P.W.2 is wife of the deceased. The deceased was affiliated to Congress Party and he was President of Single Window Society and also Director of APCOB. His wife was President of Korrapadu and Gangadevipalli Panchyat. The deceased was running a stone crusher plant and the accused demanded money towards their commission, for which the former refused stating that his wife was Sarpanch of the Village. This incident took place about 10 days prior to the date of incident. The deceased was awarded with a contract of laying new railway track and road. The accused demanded the deceased to take metal from their quarries, for which the deceased refused. Keeping in mind, the accused were waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased as he became obstacle to their political career. While so, on 24-12-2009, the deceased along with P.W.1 proceeded to the plant belonging to the deceased which is located at Gangadevipalli Village. Both of them went to the plant situated near Malakonda on a motorcycle belonging to P.W.4. They remained at the plant for some time and thereafter, at about 10.45 a.m. while the deceased and P.W.1 were returning to their village Korrapadu and when they reached near garden of the accused, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came across the motorcycle and obstructed them. Accused No. 1 demanded money from the deceased and threatened him with an axe. Saying so, accused No. 1 hacked on the head of the deceased with the axe. Accused No. 2 pushed down the deceased from the motorcycle and accused Nos. 1 to 4 chased the deceased to the garden of Akulolla Subrahmanyam. When the deceased was trying to escape through the said garden, accused Nos. 1 to 4 chased him and attacked him with axes. Accused Nos.1 to 4 hacked on head and other parts of the deceased. When P.W.1 intervened, they threatened him to kill. When the deceased fell down on ground, accused No. 4 hit the deceased with a big boulder-M.O.5 on his head. In the meanwhile, P.W.3 and Vennapusa Chenna Reddy (L.W.5) came to the scene of offence and on seeing them, accused Nos. 1 to 4 ran away towards Obulapuram Village.
Immediately, P.W.1, P.W.3 and L.W.5 went to the house of the deceased and informed P.W.
The court established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness consistency and timely reporting in establishing guilt in murder cases, despite claims of procedural delays.
The conviction under conspiracy and murder was overturned due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, highlighting the need for beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction for murder and trespass, affirming the credibility of child witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.