Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Vemula Kiran Kumar and another – Appellants
Versus
The State of AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Section 302 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 IPC regarding murder, emphasizing the necessity of direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused due to lack of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a husband and wife, were convicted for the murder of the wife's mother, allegedly committed by suffocation. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, but key witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence was deemed insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence linking the accused to the crime, as crucial witnesses did not support the case, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of direct evidence and with key witnesses turning hostile, the circumstantial evidence was inadequate to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence against the accused are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Both the accused in Sessions Case No.398 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The appellants/accused were tried and convicted by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
3. The substance of the charge is that, on 10.02.2011, at about 11.30 AM, both the accused caused the death of the deceased namely Vemula Glori Jayanthi by pressing her face with a pillow, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows.
ii) While so, on 15.02.2011, at about 1.20 PM, PW.1 gave a report to the police expressing his suspicion against the accused over the death of the deceased. PW.11 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Urban Police Station, received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2011, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P12. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report - Ex.P19. He also prepared a rough sketch - Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He also recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and others on the same day. He seized MO.1 at the scene of offence in the presence of PWs.7 and 9. On 17.02.2011, PW.12 the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. On 18.02.2011, on the requisition made by PW.12, the body was exhumated by PW.10 – the Tahsildar. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. On the same day, on the requisition made by PW.12, the Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, who is examined as PW.13, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate Ex.P15. After receipt of chemical analysis report from RFSL, Guntur, PW.13 gave final opinion which is marked as Ex.P16. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, due to suffocation as a result of pressure over chest and face. After receipt of final opinion, PW.12 altered the FIR from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The altered FIR was marked as Ex.P14. Further investigation was taken over by PW.15 - the Inspector of Police, CCS, Guntur Urban. On 18.02.2011, he recorded the statements of PWs.5 and 6 and prepared observation report at the grave of the
The necessity of strong and corroborative evidence in murder cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence, was emphasized, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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 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 prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.
The judgment establishes that child witness testimony, if credible and corroborated, can be sufficient for conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
The court established that credible child witness testimony, when corroborated, can support a conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra judicial confessions.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot support a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
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.
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
