IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Mannuru Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP, Rep PP - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No : 1323/2016
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 326 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding murder and grievous hurt, concluding that the accused's actions did not demonstrate intent to kill, leading to a conviction under Section 326 instead of Section 302.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murder after allegedly attacking the deceased with an iron rod during a dispute. The deceased died days later from injuries sustained. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, but many witnesses were hostile or provided hearsay evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence primarily pointed to the accused delivering a single blow, lacking intent to kill. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused caused the fatal injuries, leading to a conviction for grievous hurt instead of murder.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for murder beyond a reasonable doubt and if the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of clear evidence of intent to kill and given the benefit of doubt to co-accused, the conviction for murder was not justified, leading to a conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Result: The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside; the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.334 of 2011 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa (for brevity ‘learned Additional Sessions Judge’), is the sole appellant.
2. Charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307, 302, 307 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). Pending trial, accused Nos.3 and 6 died and case against them was abated.
3. Vide Judgment, dated 24.10.2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and shall also pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A1 was found not guilty of the other charges and accordingly he was acquitted of the other charges. The other accused were found not guilty of the charges levelled against them and accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges.
4. The substance of the charges as against accused is that, on 30.03.2011 at about 7.20 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 8, at the cycle shop of P.W.1, formed into members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and with common object, beat one Thanneeru Raghu Ramaiah (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) with iron rods indiscriminately and caused the death of the deceased.
5. Brief facts of the case of prosecution, are as follows:
The material prosecution witnesses and the accused are all residents of M.J.Kunta village. All the prosecution witnesses and the accused are related to each other. P.W.1 is nephew of the deceased. P.W.2 is the younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.8 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.7. P.W.9 is the brother of the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 8 are husband and wife. Accused Nos.1 and 7 are children of accused Nos.2 and 8. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are brothers-in-law of accused No.1. Accused No.6 is the close associate of accused No.2. Accused No.2 is the son of the deceased elder sister.
On 30.03.2011 at about 7.00 a.m. P.W.1 went to the cycle shop situated at M.J.Kunta village and opened the shop. He was keeping articles in the shop outside for his business purpose. At about 7.10 a.m. the deceased went to P.W.1’s shop; P.W.1 gave him paper and the deceased sat on the chair at P.W.1’s shop and was reading newspaper. At about 7.20 a.m. accused No.1 came there and beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head. P.W.1 raised cries and on that, P.Ws.2 and 3 went there. They all took the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. They were asked to shift the deceased to Tirupathi Hospital and from there, they were asked to shift the deceased to Apollo Hospital, Chennai.
The deceased was taken to Tirupathi Hospital by his daughter, son-in-law and other relatives. After shifting to Apollo Hospital, Chennai, P.W.1 went and saw the deceased. The deceased was treated in Apollo Hospital, Chennai for three days and thereafter, he was asked to take back to Kadapa. Then, the deceased was brought back to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. Later, the deceased died at RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. As per P.W.1, there were disputes between accused and the deceased with regard to house site.
On 30.03.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.19/Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa received Ex.P17- Hospital Intimation from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa along with Ex.P1- statement of P.W.1. Basing on the same, P.W.19 registered a case in Crime No.60 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 147, 148 and 307 read with 149 IPC and issued Ex.P18-FIR to all the concerned.
P.W.19 went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa at about 11.30 a.m. and found the deceased was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi. P.W.19 visited the scene of occurrence situated at ‘Y’
The court established that a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under IPC Section 302, warranting a conviction for grievous hurt instead.
Instigation alone does not establish culpability for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act of violence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
Instigation alone does not establish guilt for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act leading to death.
The judgment underscores the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimonies in criminal ca....
Peritonitis as defined in medical dictionary is as under: “inflammation of the peritoneum, typically caused by bacterial infection either via the blood or after rupture of an abdominal organ”.
It is the quality and not the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence. Evidence has to be weighed not counted.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
In cases where a single blow is inflicted with a blunt object, without an intention to cause death, the offense may be scaled down from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting....
Prosecution must substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt; intentional murder requires proof of intent, while culpable homicide may be established through knowledge of likely fatality.
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.