IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Adipi Daniel, Prakasam Dst. - Appellant
Versus
Racharla Galaiah Prakasam Dst.& Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2016
Decided on : 01-08-2024
Acquittal - Murder - IPC Section 302, CrPC Section 232 - The court discussed the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence and the significance of witness reliability in acquitting the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with murder under IPC Section 302. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies, which ultimately turned hostile, leading to the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence linking the accused to the crime, as key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and mere hearsay or hostile witness testimonies do not suffice to establish guilt.
Result: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
The de facto complainant in Sessions Case No.125 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Court’) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried and they were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and they were acquitted of the aforesaid charge in terms of Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’).
2. The substance of the charge as against the accused Nos.1 to 3 is that on 19.07.2011 at about 7.00 PM, near plantain garden of one Amudapu Pedda Venkata Reddy situated at the outskirts of Y.Kothapalli village of Yerragondapalem Mandal, accused No.1 hit one Adipi Pedda Galeiah (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) with a stick and wrapped a turkey towel around the neck of the deceased and further pierced his right eye with a small stick; accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased and threw him out of the compound wall, due to which, the deceased was suffocated to death and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the murder of deceased intentionally, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, the material prosecution witnesses and the accused Nos.1 to 3 are all residents of Y.Kothapalli village. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the grandson of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased. P.W.5 is another son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased.
4. On 19.07.2011 at about 4.00 PM, the deceased went to Y.Palem. At about 8.00 PM, P.W.6 informed P.W.3 that the deceased was beaten by accused No.1 and asked him to inform the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. Then, P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and others went in search of the deceased, but in vain; on that, they returned to their house. On the next day, at about 10.00/11.00 AM, P.W.3 and others proceeded to Y.Palem Police Station to give a report about missing of the deceased. While they were proceeding to police station and when they were amidst the fields of P.W.9, P.W.9 informed them that one unknown dead body was lying in his field. Then, they all went to the fields of P.W.9 and identified the dead body of the deceased. On the same day at about 1.00 PM they gave a report to police.
P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station received a report from P.W.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.47 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC of Y.Palem Police Station. Ex.P16 is the original FIR. On instructions of SDPO, Markapur, P.W.18 proceeded to the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 4 and also a piece of blood stained turkey towel/M.O.5 from the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of mediators. P.W.18 prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P17 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.
P.W.18 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.14 and others under Ex.P10- Inquest Report. Thereafter, P.W.18 sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer under Post-Mortem examination.
P.W.17, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Y.Palem, on requisition conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P15 Post-Mortem Certificate. According to P.W.17/Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia followed by neurogenic shock, respiratory and cardiac arrest.
P.W.19, Inspector of Police, Y.Palem Circle took up investigation, secured the presence of P.Ws.7 to 10 and recorded their statements. On 29.07.2011, on receiving credible information about the movements of accused, P.W.19 secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.Ws.15 and 16 and arrested accused No.1. Accused No.1 is alleged to have made conf
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 affirmed that corroborative eyewitness testimony and medical evidence are critical in establishing guilt in murder cases under IPC Section 302.
The court established that intent to kill, evidenced by eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Instigation alone does not establish guilt for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act leading to death.
Instigation alone does not establish culpability for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act of violence.
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 court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
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.
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.