Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Pathigulla Chandrasekhar, S/o. Gumpaswamy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2016
Decided On : 21-06-2024
Criminal - Homicide - IPC Sections 302, 304 - The court interpreted the intent behind the act of the accused, concluding that the evidence did not support a charge of murder but rather a lesser charge of culpable homicide.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murder after allegedly killing the deceased with a stone. The prosecution claimed a motive related to personal disputes, but evidence was insufficient to establish intent to kill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's actions did not demonstrate intent to kill, as he only inflicted one blow and did not attempt further harm. The evidence suggested a conviction under a lesser charge.
Issues: Whether the accused had the intent to kill the deceased, warranting a conviction under Section 302 IPC, or if the circumstances justified a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the nature of the attack and the lack of multiple injuries indicated that the accused did not possess the requisite intent for murder, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide instead.
Result: The appeal was allowed in part, convicting the accused under Section 304 Part-I IPC and reducing the sentence to time already served.
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He along with Accused Nos.2 to 5 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under four charges i.e., first charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1, second charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.1, third charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 5 and fourth charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 5.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.10.2014 at about 2.00 P.M Accused No.1 with the common intention of Accused Nos.2 to 5 went to the house of one Korada Ramanamma (hereinafter referred as the deceased), situated at Jannivalasa Village and beat her with a stone on her face and head, causing her death and washed the blood stains with water, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with 34 IPC and Sections 201, 201 read with 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under charge No.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.1 and other accused under charges 2 to 4.
3. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sons of Accused No.2, Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the wife and son of Accused No.3 respectively. All the accused are residents of Jannivalasa Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased also residing in the same Village. PWs-1 and 10 are the sons, PW-2 is the husband and PW-3 is the father of the deceased respectively. All the accused are residing in the same locality. There are differences between the family of the accused and the deceased as Accused Nos.2 to 4 suspected that Accused No.5 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. Subsequently, Accused No.5 left the house for a few days and returned back after ten (10) days. Since then, Accused Nos.1 to 4 bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 19.10.2014 at about 11.00 A.M, father of the deceased-PW-3 came to her house and found the deceased went to attend agricultural work. PW-1-son of the deceased went to the fields and informed about the arrival of PW-3. Immediately, the deceased returned home and started cooking food for her father and children. At about 2.00 P.M, PW-1 was in front of the house and PW-10 was inside the house. At that juncture, Accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the deceased, caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and pulled her to backyard, which is adjacent to the kitchen. Immediately, Accused No.1 picked up a stone, hit on the head of the deceased and ran away. Having witnessed the incident, PW-1, 3 and 10 rushed to the backyard and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Immediately, PW-4, who is the younger brother of PW-2 came there and tied a bandage. PW-4 and others took the injured to the Community Health Centre, Salur.
4. PW-15-Civl Assistant Surgeon gave First Aid and advised them to take her to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. He gave an intimation to Salur Police Station. Ex.P-7 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P-6 is the extract of accident register. Ex.P-8 is the referral letter. Immediately, the injured was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram where the doctor declared her brought dead. Having received the information, Sub-Inspector of Police-PW-17 went to the Village and found blood stains on the back side of the house of the deceased. Having come to know that the injured was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Salur, he went there and came to know that the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. On
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 court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
The necessity of strong and corroborative evidence in murder cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence, was emphasized, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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 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.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was upheld based on strong eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence.
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; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
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
