IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Shaik Basha @ Bashi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP Rep PP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 194/2017
Decided On : 21-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 323 - The court upheld the conviction for murder and assault, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts and the presence of incriminating evidence against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murdering his nephew and assaulting his mother during a property dispute. The incident occurred at night, and the prosecution presented eyewitnesses who testified to the events leading to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence credible, particularly the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, which were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The delay in filing the complaint was deemed insignificant.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of murder and assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eyewitness accounts, the relationship of the witnesses to the accused, and the physical evidence were sufficient to establish the accused's guilt.
Result: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.186 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. Vide judgment dated 09.01.2017 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of charges as against the accused is that on 26/27.09.2015 at about 1.30 AM at D.No.2-224, Velampeta, Seetanagaram mandal, the accused committed murder by intentionally causing death of his brother’s son Shaik Razi (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), by hacking him with an axe indiscriminately on his head, face and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and that on the same date, time and place mentioned above, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to his mother Shaik Haleema Beebi by fisting on her mouth, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the material prosecution witnesses and the accused are resident of Velampeta of Seethanagaram mandal. P.W.1 is nephew of the accused and brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is grandmother of the deceased and mother of the accused. Father of P.W.1 Shaik Baji died 16 years ago. The accused is junior paternal uncle of P.W.1. The deceased is natural brother of P.W.1. The accused has been residing in Rampachodavaram for the last 10 years. P.W.2 has a thatched house in Velampeta and the deceased used to live with P.W.1 as a helper. He used to look after her welfare. The accused used to conduct iron scrap business. P.W.2 gave her property documents to P.W.5 to raise money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. On coming to know about the same, the accused went to house of P.W.2 and quarrelled with her. He used to go to the house of P.W.2 and quarrel with her frequently. He used to ask her either to convey the property to him or to sell away the property and give him money. On 26.9.2015 at about 1.00 PM, the accused went to house of P.W.2 and raised a quarrel with regard to house property as property documents were given to P.W.5. The deceased intervened. On that the accused proclaimed that he would do away with life of the deceased and would teach a lesson to P.W.2. The deceased informed the same to P.W.1, and on the advice of his mother, P.W.1 slept in the house of P.W.2. P.Ws.1 and 2 slept in one room and the deceased slept on mat on the pial outside the house. The accused also slept on a cot along with them in the same room. At about 1.00 AM or 1.30 AM, P.W.1 heard a loud voice of the deceased from the pial and then, P.Ws.1 and 2 went outside and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with an axe. They intervened to prevent, and on that, the accused fisted P.W.2 on her month. She received a bleeding injury and blood oozed. The accused threatened them to kill if they intervene. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside and bolted the door. The accused left the axe there and fled away. P.Ws.1 and 2 alerted the neighbours and later informed P.W.10. On 27.09.2015 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, P.W.1 went to P.W.10 and requested him to draft a complaint stating that the deceased was murdered. Accordingly, P.W.10 prepared a report as per the information given by P.W.1.
On 27.09.2015 at about 8.00 AM, P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Sithanagaram police station received the complaint and basing on the same, a case in crime No.116 of 2015 was registered for the offenc
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
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.
The court established that intent to kill, evidenced by eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court affirmed that corroborative eyewitness testimony and medical evidence are critical in establishing guilt in murder cases under IPC Section 302.
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 reasonable doubt, and hearsay evidence is insufficient for conviction.
The court emphasized that consistent witness testimonies, even from a child, can substantiate charges of murder and domestic violence under IPC.
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.