IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad Abdul Sammad Munna and Others – Respondents
R.T. No. 3 of 2021, Crl. Appeal Nos. 158, 159, 162, 166, 184, 194, 214, 252, 260, 354 of 2021
Decided On : 10-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal case and the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. outlining the prosecution's case and the timeline of events. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of arrests, confessions, and recoveries. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. examination of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and established elements of conspiracy. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. discussion on the nature of the crime and culpability. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in sentencing. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. judgment on the appropriateness of the death penalty. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. the preservation of human life versus societal safety is a key judicial consideration. (Para 18) |
| 10. final rulings on appeals and confirmation of sentences. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
(I) The Referred Trials 2, 3 & 4/2021 wherein judgments are pronounced today, present chilling facts of diabolical and grotesque manner of killing the trailer drivers and cleaners by the ruthless gang of dacoits while they were transporting iron load on the highway between Ongole-Nellore Districts in Andhra Pradesh.
In S.C. No. 91/2010, learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole in his judgment dated 18.05.2021 convicted A1 to A15 for different offences and sentenced them with different punishments as narrated in the following table. Since among them, A1 to A9 are awarded death punishment for the offences under Section 396 IPC under two counts, learned Judge submitted the entire case proceedings along with his judgment to this High Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence and the Registry has registered the said referred proceedings as a Referred Trial No. 3/2021 and listed before us. That apart, challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused have also preferred different Criminal Appeals as mentioned in the table below and those criminal appeals are also listed before us.
TABLE
| Accused No. | Name of Accused/Resident of | Charges Framed by the Trial Court | Convicted and punished for the offences | Referred Trial (RT No. 3) | Criminal Appeal filed by accused |
| A1 | Mohammad Abdul Sammad @ Munna Ongole | (i) 396 r/w 120B of IPC | (i) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 396 r/w 120B IPC | RT-3/2021 | Crl. Appeal No. 166/21 |
| (ii) 396 IPC | (ii) DEATH Punishment for the offence U/s 396 IPC UNDER TWO COUNTS | ||||
| (iii) 400 IPC | (iii) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 400 IPC | ||||
| (iv) 201 IPC | (iv) RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI 3 months for the offence U/s 201 IPC | ||||
| A2 | Bathala Salmon Inamanamellur Village
| (i) 396 r/w 120B of IPC | (i) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 396 r/w 120B IPC | -do-
| Crl. Appeal No. 162/21 |
| (ii) 396 IPC | (ii) DEATH Punishment for the offence U/s 396 IPC UNDER TWO COUNTS | ||||
| (iii) 400 IPC | (iii) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 400 IPC | ||||
| (iv) 201 IPC | (iv) RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI 3 months for the offence U/s 201 IPC | ||||
| A3
| Yepuri Chinna Veeraswamy Reddypalem Village | (i) 396 r/w 120B of IPC | (i) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 396 r/w 120B IPC | -do- | Crl. Appeal No. 184/21 |
| (ii) 396 IPC | (ii) DEATH Punishment for the offence U/s 396 IPC UNDER TWO COUNTS | ||||
| (iii) 400 IPC | (iii) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 400 IPC | ||||
| (iv) 201 IPC | (iv) RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI 3 months for the offence U/s 201 IPC | ||||
| A4 | Mohammad Jamaluddin @ Jamal Bengalore | (i) 396 r/w 120B of IPC | (i) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 396 r/w 120B IPC | -do- | Crl. Appeal No. 184/21 |
| (ii) 396 IPC | (ii) DEATH Punishment for the offence U/s 396 IPC UNDER TWO COUNTS | ||||
| (iii) 400 IPC | (iii) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 400 IPC | ||||
| (iv) 201 IPC | (iv) RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- IDSI 3 months for the offence U/s 201 IPC | ||||
| (v) 412 IPC | (v) Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 412 IPC | ||||
| (vi) 402 IPC | (vi) RI for 7 years | ||||
Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration)
Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal
Baliya v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0838/2012 : (2012) 9 SCC 696
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh
E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala
In Re: Kodur Thimma Reddi and Others
Laxman Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Others v. State of Maharashtra
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State through Superintendent of Police, SBI/SIT v. Nalini and Others
Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Susheel Murmu v. State of Jarkhand
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka
Union of India v. V.Sriharan @ Murugan and Others
In cases involving murder during robbery, the court established criminal conspiracy and affirmed death sentences for the heinousness of the offences while highlighting the importance of both aggravat....
The court confirmed death sentences for organized dacoity and murder, emphasizing the collective impact and aggravating factors while allowing commutation for specific accused based on mitigating cir....
The court confirmed death sentences for multiple accused involved in a brutal highway dacoity resulting in murder, emphasizing the need for severe punishment in heinous crimes.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the conviction if the overall evidence is credible.
(1) Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused.(2) Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does....
The court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence despite non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding electronic records.
The judgment emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence and the inadmissibility of unreliable witness testimony and confession in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circums....
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
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.