IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Kolaka Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP Rep by PP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 102/2017
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Homicide - IPC - Section 302 - The court interpreted Section 302 of the IPC, establishing that the accused intentionally caused the death of the deceased, supported by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, leading to the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with the murder of the deceased, who was stabbed in front of a police station. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including police personnel, who testified to the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution provided sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and medical reports, to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence from multiple eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical findings, was sufficient to conclude that the accused had the intention to kill, fulfilling the requirements of Section 302 IPC.
Result: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction of the accused.
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 house of the accused and questioned him about his behaviour towards his sister i.e. the deceased. Accused caught hold of P.W.1; so, P.W.1 too caught hold of the shirt of the accused and gave him a slap and an argument ensued between both of them. Later, P.W.1 left to his house. On that day, P.W.1 took the mobile phone of the deceased. At about 11.00 PM on the same day, P.W.1 received a phone call to his sister’s mobile; he heard the accused threatening the deceased, stating ‘you made your brother beat me’, and when P.W.1 questioned as to who he was, the accused disconnected the call.
On the next day, when P.W.1 went to work at about 11.30 AM, P.W.6 took the deceased to Dr. Atchannaidu Hospital; while they were returning from the hospital, reached in front of police station situated opposite to GMR Complex, accused stabbed the deceased with a knife. On that the deceased fell down and the accused also kicked her. P.W.3, Head Constable, Kothuru Police Station, on the date of incident, was discharging duties in the police station. On hearing cries, P.W.3 went outside the police station and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife. He ran there and caught hold of the accused, who was stabbing. P.W.4 was also present at that point of time. P.W.3 seized the knife from the accused.
P.W.20, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kotturu Police Station recorded Ex.P15-statement of the deceased. P.W.20 returned to police station and registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC under Ex.P16-FIR. P.W.20 seized M.Os.1 and 2 in the presence of P.W.17 and L.W.23/Thota Rajagopala Naidu, the mediators. P.W.20 also prepared Ex.P17-rough sketch of the scene of offence. At about 3.45 PM, PC No.628 viz. Rajasekhar informed P.W.20 about death of the deceased. The same was informed to P.W.26, Inspector of Police, Kothuru Circle.
On information, P.W.26 rushed to the Area Hospital, Palakonda along with his staff by securing Panchayathdars. On receipt of death intimation, the section of law was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. P.W.26 secured the presence of panchayathdars and blood relatives, who are available in the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 24 and L.W.20/Kuna Anandharao and recorded their statements. During inquest, all the panchayathdars opined that the accused stabbed the deceased to death.
P.W.22, Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P20 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. According to the Doctor, cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage and due to antemortem injury to the left lung and heart. P.W.26 took up further investigation and after collecting all the documents and after completi
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.
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.