Back
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Vennapusa Yougandhar Reddy A1 Kadapa Dt – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short, 'the trial Court'), are the appellants in the present criminal appeal before this Court. Originally, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following three charges:
II charge was under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against accused No. 5; and
III charge was under Section 212 IPC against accused No.5.
2. Substance of the charges is that on 24-12-2009 at about 10.45 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 attacked one Garudaiahgari Peddireddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') with axes and a boulder in Akulolla Subrahmanyam Orange Garden at Korrapadu Village, Muddanur Mandal, causing his instantaneous death and in the said process, accused No. 5 gave shelter to accused Nos. 1 to 4 being aware of the fact that accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed murder of the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 120-B and 212 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Cou
The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness consistency and timely reporting in establishing guilt in murder cases, despite claims of procedural delays.
The court established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
The conviction under conspiracy and murder was overturned due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, highlighting the need for beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
