Back
K SURESH REDDY, K SREENIVASA REDDY
Kolaka Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
State of AP Rep by PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.178 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. The learned Sessions Judge tried the sole accused and convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.
2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 06.07.2011 at about 1.30 PM at Tar road situated opposite to Police Station, Kotturu, he caused the death of one Ragolu Tulasi, W/o.Sekhar (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’).
3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. A few months prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased informed P.W.1 that the accused, resident of Relliveedhi, was troubling her by talking vulgarly even through phone calls. On 05.07.2011 at about 8.30 PM, P.W.1 went to the hou
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 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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and hearsay evidence is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and hearsay evidence is insufficient for conviction.
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.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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
