Back
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Parimi Venkata Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
1. On 06.11.2023, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel, submitted that the appeal was preferred by the father of the deceased against the acquittal judgment dated 17.10.2014 in S.C. No. 136 of 2013 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Anantapur at Gooty and the learned counsel for appellant, Sri Maheshwar Rao Kuncheam, had given up the vakalat and therefore, notice has to be sent to the appellant. As name of the appellant was not printed in the cause list, the Registry was directed to send the notice through the concerned District Court to the appellant for his appearance. On 11.07.2024 and 25.07.2024, as the appellant did not choose to engage a counsel though notice was served on him, the matter was adjourned for two weeks on each occasion. On 08.08.2024 also, when the matter was taken up, the appellant did not engage any counsel to represent his case. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was requested to go through the record and assist the Court.
2. This Criminal Appeal by the father of the deceased Parimi Jagadeesh Babu @ Babu, is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed in
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness unless it is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of one witness unless that testimony is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with an order of acquittal, even if it believes that there is some evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.
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....
The judgment emphasizes the principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
(1) Reputation is a fact as defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act – Court of law cannot declare reputation of a person based upon its own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be ....
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by trial court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for appellate court, by recording good....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient to convict, especially where witness credibility is in question.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
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
