Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SURESH REDDY, K.SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
V.Dileep Kumar @ Dileep & another – Appellant\
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1280 of 2016, 1295 OF 2016 & 1312 OF 2016
Decided on : 05-08-2024
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 304, 324 - The court analyzed the applicability of Sections 302 and 304 IPC, emphasizing the need for premeditation and common intention in murder cases, ultimately convicting one accused under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased, stemming from a quarrel where A.2 stabbed the deceased while A.1 instigated the attack. The incident occurred after a history of teasing and altercations between the deceased and A.1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while A.2 was guilty of causing the death of the deceased, the other appellants lacked sufficient evidence of common intention or premeditation to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants for murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the common intention and premeditation required under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of common intention and premeditation, which was not established for A.1, A.3, and A.4, leading to their acquittal.
Result: The appeals were allowed; A.1, A.3, and A.4 were acquitted, while A.2 was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.
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 punishable under Section 324 IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of charge against the accused is that on 30.12.2010 at about 5.30 PM near Axis Bank ATM, B.S.N.L. Office, Leela Mahal Road, Nellore, all the accused caused death of one Ummadisetty Sai Kumar (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’); A.2 stabbed the deceased with a knife; A.1, A.3 and A.4 had common intention to kill the deceased whereas A.1 instigated A.2 to kill the deceased while A.3 and A.4 caught hold of the deceased.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nellore. The deceased is son of P.W.2. P.W.2 is maternal uncle of P.W.1. P.Ws.8 and 9 were students of Krishna Chaitanya Degree College, Nellore. The deceased and A.1 were studying in the same college. About one month prior to the incident, the deceased, P.W.8, P.W.9, A.1 and others went to Mypadu beach, where they saw A.1 and one Aparna (L.W.13) moving closely in the beach. P.Ws.8 and 9 informed the same to the deceased. Then the deceased started teasing A.1 stating ‘Mypadu Mypadu’. Thereupon, the deceased and A.1 quarrelled with each other. A.1 went and complained to P.W.10, who was working as a Lecturer in Krishna Chaitanya Degree College, Nellore, stating that his friends were commenting them. Then, P.W.10 summoned the deceased and his friend P.W.9 and told not to comment them and also chastised them. P.W.9, the deceased and others came out of the college and were standing. Then, A.1 brought A.2 to A.4 along with him and warned P.Ws.8 and 9 and left the place. On the next day, according to P.W.8, after completion of classes, P.W.8, P.W.9 and the deceased came out of the class room. Then, it is alleged that the accused came and picked up a quarrel with the deceased. P.Ws.8 and 9 chastised them and left. P.W.1, a relative of the deceased, was also present. P.W.1 also chastised A.1 and other students present there. After the incident, the deceased and P.W.1 went to purchase clothes. P.W.1 questioned the deceased about the attitude of A.1. The deceased informed P.W.9 and others that P.W.9 and others, including him, were teasing A.1 as ‘Mypadu-Mypadu’ and therefore, A.1 bore grudge against him. P.W.1 admonished the deceased not to have such quarrels. When P.W.1 and the deceased reached A.T.M. Centre, near BSNL Office, Nellore, it is alleged that A.1 to A.4 came there and pushed P.W.1 and the deceased towards ATM centre on the road. A.1 stated ‘Ekkadiki ra naa kodakallara veluthunnaru’. Thereafter, A.1 beat the deceased with hands on his face. A.2 to A.4 instigated A.1 to beat the deceased. When A.1 again went towards the deceased, P.W.1 intervened and pushed A.1 questioning as to why he was beating the deceased. T
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
