Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Harijana R. Manjunath - Apellant
Versus
The State Of A P - Respodent
Criminal Appeal No: 154/2017
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 201 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 302 and 201, interpreting them in the context of evidence presented, particularly focusing on the reliability of a child witness and the admissibility of extra judicial confessions, leading to the conviction of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murdering his wife due to personal grievances and subsequently attempting to conceal the crime. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, including that of a child, and an extra judicial confession made by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the child witness credible and corroborated by other testimonies, establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The extra judicial confession was also deemed admissible and significant.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly through the evidence of a child witness and the admissibility of an extra judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the evidence of a child witness requires careful scrutiny, it can be relied upon if it is consistent and corroborated. The extra judicial confession was also a key piece of evidence supporting the conviction.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.305 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. Vide judgment dated 27.01.2016 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC was directed to run concurrently with the life imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. The substance of charges as against the accused is that on 31.12.2012 at about 5.00 PM, the accused, being husband of one Harijana Rathnamma (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), having bore grudge against her as she addicted to vices and indulging in prostitution activities, having intention to murder her, and while the accused and the deceased proceeded to Mopurugundu by walk near the fields of Golla Thammanna, the accused picked a quarrel with the deceased, beat her with hands and strangulated her with saree and caused her death intentionally and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and after committing her murder, the accused did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear, turned the saree of the deceased around her neck and legs, dragged and laid the dead body in bushes to screen evidence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Mopurugundu village, Gudibanda mandal, Anantapur district. The deceased was also residing in Mopurugundu village. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is niece of the deceased. Accused is husband of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed about 10 years prior to the incident. After the marriage, the couple led their marital life at Alukuru village. They were blessed with two male children. Thereafter, the accused started suspecting fidelity of the deceased and used to beat her. The same was informed by the deceased to P.W.1. Unable to bear the beating and harassment by the accused, she went to her parents’ house and was living there. Thereafter, the accused married another woman. The two male children were living along with the accused. The accused left second wife also, as he was habituated to drinking, liquor and playing cards. The accused slowly started coming to the deceased and tried to meet her. The accused was insisting the deceased to come along with him, for which the deceased denied stating that unless parents and brothers of the deceased consent for the same, she would not come with him. In connection with that, a dispute arose between the accused and the deceased.
On 31.12.2012 at about 5.00 PM, the accused went to house of the deceased and took her and P.W.3 to Jammalabanda for buying new clothes on the eve of new year 2013. The deceased and P.W.3 accompanied the accused to Jammalabanda. The accused purchased a new saree to the deceased and one pair of dress to P.W.3, and thereafter, they started coming back to their village. While they were coming back, the accused slapped on the cheek of the deceased, pushed down the deceased and tightened her neck with her saree and dragged. Mean while, P.W.4 and L.W.5-Nagesh switched on a torch light to see what was happening. The accused abused them in filthy langua
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 affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
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 court established that intent to kill, evidenced by eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment underscores the importance of witness credibility and the application of IPC provisions in cases of domestic violence and murder.
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a crime beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone 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.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
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
