Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Parimi Venkata Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2015
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, highlighting the unreliability of the sole eyewitness and the lack of corroborative evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the father of the deceased against the acquittal of two accused charged with murder under IPC Section 302. The deceased had a love affair with the daughter of one of the accused, leading to a fatal altercation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, primarily relying on the testimony of a single eyewitness, which was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for murder under IPC Section 302 beyond reasonable doubt and if there were grounds to interfere with the acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that an acquittal carries a presumption of innocence and that appeals against acquittals require compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's findings, especially when relying on a solitary eyewitness.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the accused.
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 Sessions Case No. 136 of 2013 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, whereby respondents 2 and 3 herein, who are A.1 and A.2, were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly acquitted of the said charge.
3. The substance of the charge framed against the respondents 2 and 3/A.1 and A.2 is that on 13.09.2012, they committed murder by intentionally causing death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
4. The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of A. Kondapuram village, Putlur mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW-2 is mother of the deceased. PW-6, the appellant herein, is father of the deceased. PW-1 is son-in-law of PWs. 2 and 6. The deceased was doing iron ore business in Bellary. The deceased was having love affair with one Radhika, who is daughter of A.1. They used to move closely. Due to the love affair, there arose some disputes between A.1 and the deceased. On 13.09.2012, PW-1 went to see his wife and children at the house of the deceased. On the same day at about 1.00 P.M., PW-1 and the deceased left to Tadipatri by motorcycle of his friend to bring fertilizers. They stayed at Tadipatri till 5.30 PM. At the request of the deceased, both of them went to Teranannapalli to the house of PW-5. The deceased informed PW-5 that he is in friendship with Radhika, daughter of A.1, for the last six years and he gave his total earnings to her during the last six years and asked PW-5 to negotiate with the accused for return of the amount so given by him to said Radhika. Thereafter, PW-5 called A.2 and he was discussing about money matters. In the meanwhile, there was a wordy altercation between the deceased and A.2. PWs. 1 and 5 pacified the matter and disbursed A.2 from that place. At about 6.30 PM, PW-1 and the deceased started by the motorcycle to go to Kondapuram. The deceased was riding the motor cycle and PW-1 was the pillion rider. At about 6.45 PM, when they reached the place where the route was diverted to Ravi Venkatampalli about three furlongs, they found the accused coming behind them and they over took motorcycle of the deceased, obstructed the deceased and PW-1. A.2 was armed with an axe and A.1 was armed with a stick. A.1 stated that inspite of several reminders, the deceased was not stopping following his daughter Radhika and how dare he was to come to their village. Saying so, A.1 hit the deceased with the stick in his hand on right shoulder of the deceased. Due to fear, PW-1 escaped and hid behind bush towards north of the road at a distance of 15 feet. When the deceased tried to escape, A.1 again beat the deceased
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) Murder – Truthful and voluntary dying declaration can by itself form sole basis of conviction without necessity of corroboration.(2) Number of witnesses – It is quality and not quantity of eviden....
(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....
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
