Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Kalva Maddaiah, & Anr. -Appellants
Versus
The State Of Ap Rep PP - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 1130/2016
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 148, 364, 302, 201, 176 - The court discussed the applicability of various IPC sections concerning unlawful assembly, kidnapping, murder, and evidence handling, ultimately determining that the prosecution failed to establish a connection between the accused and the crime.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Nos.1 and 7 were convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was kidnapped and killed by a group of ten accused. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of eyewitnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the motive or connection of the accused to the crime, particularly questioning the reliability of key witnesses.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence to support convictions, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and found the prosecution's case lacking.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence against Accused Nos.1 and 7 are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
Accused Nos.1 and 7 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. They along with Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos.8 to 10 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under six(06) charges i.e., first charge was under Section 148 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 10; second charge was under Section 364 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 8; third charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1; fourth charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 7; fifth charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the last charge was under Section 176 IPC against Accused Nos.9 and 10.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.05.2014 at about 7.45 A.M Accused Nos.1 to 10 formed into an unlawful assembly and kidnapped one V. Bangarureddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a Scorpio Vehicle, bearing No.AP-21-AK-4646, near old bus stand, Bethamcherla Village and attacked him at Leprosy Colony, Dhone Mandal, which led to causing his death and in the same process, to screen the evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 3 thrown the dead body near railway track, Shivalayam, Dhone Village, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 364, 302, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 and 176 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.1 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer to Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Accused No.7 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.7 under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years. All the substantive sentences imposed against Accused Nos.1 to 7 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos. 8 to 10 of the charges levelled against them.
5. As there are no eye witness to the incident, the case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet, is as follows:-
The deceased is a resident of Rudravaram Village and Accused No.1 is a resident of Dhone town. Pws-3 and 4 are none other than sons of the deceased. Pw-5 is younger brother of the deceased. Pw-6 is the son-in-law of the deceased. Pw-8 is the brother-in-law of Pw-3. Accused No.1 married the daughter of one Bala Thimmaiah-(Lw-7) in the year-2001, who is also a resident of Rudravaram Village. Accused No.1 purchased an extent of 3.00 Acers of land in Rudravaram Village and subsequently he wanted to dispose of the said land for which, there was a resistance from his father-in-law Bala Thimmaiah. The deceased used to support said Bala Thimmaiah. As such, Accused No.1 bore grudge against the deceased.
6. It is further alleged that the deceased questioned the Chairman of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 about the accounts pert
The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence without eyewitness testimony.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to their acquittal.
A conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of a child witness when there are serious doubts regarding its reliability and the absence of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.
Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and confessions, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases.
The conviction under conspiracy and murder was overturned due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, highlighting the need for beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.
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
