Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Maturi Venkata Manikyala Rao, E.g.dt., - Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. Rep Pp – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1320 of 2016
Decided on : 06-08-2024
Murder - Conviction - IPC Section 302 - The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the evidence of motive, eyewitness accounts, and medical reports that established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for murdering his wife by hacking her with a knife in a computer center, following a history of domestic abuse and threats.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the combination of eyewitness accounts, motive, and medical evidence established a clear case of murder, justifying the conviction.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.328 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (02) years.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 17.11.2014 at about 1.30 P.M, the accused hacked his wife by name Maturi Sunitha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) with M.O-3-Kinfe in Ravi Infotech Computer Centre belonging to Pw-8, causing her instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Pamarru Village. The deceased was also a resident of the same Village. The accused is a resident of Kunduru Village. PW-1 is the younger brother of the deceased, Pw-3 is the mother of the deceased and Pws-4 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased respectively. The marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused in the year-2009. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the accused apart from six (06) sovereigns of gold. The accused was working as a Hindi pandit at that time and both the accused and the deceased set up their family at Hyderabad. After six (06) months, the deceased conceived and she was brought from Hyderabad to Pamarru. Thereafter, she gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, the accused left his job and came down to Kunduru Village to his parents’ house. The deceased was sent to the accused to Kunduru Village to lead matrimonial life after providing “sare”. The accused used to ill-treat the deceased, demanding additional dowry and also used to suspect her fidelity. Thereafter, the deceased left the matrimonial home and she started living with her parents’ i.e., Pws-1 and 3. Unable to bare the harassment, the deceased gave a report to the police and a case in Cr.No.63 of 2014 was registered against the accused under Section 498-A IPC at Pamarru Police Station. In connection with the above crime, the accused was arrested. Thereafter, the accused filed O.P.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram seeking restitution of conjugal rites. As the said case was coming up for filing counter on 10.11.2014, Pw-5- an Advocate filed vakalat on behalf of the deceased. On 16.11.2014, the accused telephoned to Pw-5 and threatened him in an uncouth language and asked him to advice the deceased to join with him otherwise he would kill the deceased and also Pw-5. Then, Pw-5 advised the deceased, Pws-1 and 3 to be more careful. The deceased was learning computer course in Ravi Infotech centre at Ramachandrapuram, which is owned by Pw-8. Pw-2 is working as a faculty in the said computer centre. Pw-1 used to accompany the deceased to the computer centre due to fear of the accused. The accused also joined in the said computer centre for learning computer course.
4. On 17.11.2014 at about 1.30 P.M, Pw-1 took the deceased to the computer centre and dropped her there. Then, he went to the medical shop in Stalin Hospital and purchased medicines and returned back. When he came to the computer centre, which is situated in the first floor, he found the accused hacking the deceased. When Pw-1 tried to intervene, the accused pushed him aside and fled away along with knife. Due to the said attack, the deceased died on the spot in a pool of blood. Immediately, Pw-1 went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P-1 to the police.
5. Pw-12-Sub- Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station received Ex.P-1 at about 3.00 P.M from Pw-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.184 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-10 is the copy
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was upheld based on strong eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence.
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 a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under Section 302 IPC, allowing for a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.
The court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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
