IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Anakapalli Pothuraju, S/o. Kondayya – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1705 Of 2009
Decided On : 10-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case details including parties involved and nature of offence. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. analysis of evidence leading to conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. discussion on the defense arguments regarding mental health. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final ruling and confirmation of prior decisions. (Para 63) |
JUDGMENT :
(A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.)
The judgment, dated 18.11.2009, in Sessions Case No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, who was the unsuccessful accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Sessions Case No.296 of 2006 arose out of the committal order in Preliminary Registration Case (PRC) No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.3 of 2008 of Munagapaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Circle, filed charge sheet alleging the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution, briefly, according to the contents of the charge sheet, is as follows:
(i) Accused and Dokka Samudram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) are the residents of Ambedkar Colony, Munagapaka Village. They have been doing business in the animals and skins and they had grudges since long time. On 09.01.2008, at about 12:30 p.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with his wife and beat her black and blue and his wife complained the same to Yellabilli Gowresu (LW.4) and others. On seeing the misbehavior of the accused, the deceased and his wife Dokka Simha Laxmi (LW.2) intervened and tried to chastise the accused. Then, the accused revolted against the deceased and his wife and threatened them with dire consequences. The accused also caught hold of the tuft of LW.2, dragged her and banged her with hands. Then, her husband intervened and tried to rescue her. Then, the accused picked up a pen knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his stomach and also stabbed LW.2 and even made an attempt to kill her. Then, Dokka Bhogeswara Rao (LW.1), Yelaka Nookaraju (LW.3), LW.4, Dokka Krishna Veni (LW.5), Tambarica Samba Siva (LW.6), Dokka Modakondamma (LW.7), Vuppati Pydikonda (LW.8), Anakapalli Lakshmi (LW.9) witnessed the incident and immediately called 108 Ambulance and shifted both the injured to Area Hospital, Anakapalli and on their advice, they shifted them to King George Hospital (KGH), Visakhapatnam and on their way deceased died near Anakapalli.
(ii) LW.1, son of the deceased, lodged a complaint at Munagapaka Police Station on the same day at about 03:30 p.m. to the SI of Police, Munagapaka. The Head Constable of Munagapaka Police Station registered the report as a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, visited and examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and took the photos of the scene of offence.
(iii) The In-charge Circle Inspector of Anakapalli took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body on the next day in the presence of panchayatdars and examined the witnesses, sent the dead body to NTR Government Hospital, Anakapalli for autopsy. He examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the accused on 10.01.2008 at 06:00 p.m. at the bye-pass road junction and recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators and in pursuance of the confession statement, recovered the blood stained pen knife at 09:20 p.m. on 10.11.2008 under a cover of mediators report and sent the accu
Sannatamma v. State of Karnataka
The plea of insanity requires substantial proof to demonstrate that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or its wrongfulness at the time of the offence.
The burden of proof on the defense regarding the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC and the requirement for establishing legal insanity.
Prosecution must substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt; intentional murder requires proof of intent, while culpable homicide may be established through knowledge of likely fatality.
The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offense was committed. The accused failed to establish unsoundness of mind at that time, and the injur....
The prosecution must prove culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt, distinguishing between intent to kill and knowledge of likely fatal outcomes.
The burden of proof in cases of plea of insanity rests on the accused, and the crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offense was committed. The ....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC since the accused was found fit to stand trial, and the defense of unsoundness of mind was not substantiated.
The burden of proving insanity lies with the defense, and every minor mental aberration does not constitute legal insanity.
The crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind has to be proved is the time when the crime is actually committed.
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.