Back
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
V. Dileep Kumar @ Dileep – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1280 of 2016 are A.1 and A.4, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1295 of 2016 is A.3 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1312 of 2016 is A.2, in Sessions Case No.277 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. They preferred the respective appeals challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against them in the judgment dated 14.12.2016 in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found A.1, A.3 and A.4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and found A.2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, and accordingly convicted them of the said offences and sentenced A.1, A.3 and A.4 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and sentenced A.2 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, and absence of these elements can lead to a lesser charge.
The court clarified that common intention and premeditation are essential for a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, while a single impulsive act may lead to a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC....
The court established that culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
Common intention requires proof of a prior agreement to commit an offense, with liability under Section 34 based on shared intent and concerted action among accused.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
Point of law: Conviction – Modified - witnesses are vital in nature and so also they are the natural witnesses even though they have been stated that they are related to each other and interested wit....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
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
