SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Pelamala Neela Kantam – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2009
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rama Krishna A.

Prosecution must substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt; intentional murder requires proof of intent, while culpable homicide may be established through knowledge of likely fatality.

Headnote:(A) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 302 and Section 304 (Part-II) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(2) - Conviction of accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Evidence supported by witnesses leading to conviction - Prior charge under Section 302 IPC found unsubstantiated - Sentence of 10 years reduced to 7 years given the absence of intent to kill - Rigorous imprisonment replaced with simple imprisonment for default sentence. (Paras 2, 10, 38)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Scope of appellate review is to ascertain whether the trial court's conclusions are founded on sound reasoning and evidence - Merely because some witnesses turn hostile does not invalidate the prosecution's case if core evidence remains corroborated. (Paras 12, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC after being accused of attacking the deceased, leading to his death due to injuries sustained during a confrontation over money for alcohol. Initial charge under Section 302 IPC was not substantiated. (Paras 2, 10, 35)

Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution proved that the accused attacked the deceased, resulting in death, affirming the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge while modifying the sentence to 7 years. (Paras 34, 35, 38)

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the charge under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and if the sentence was justified in light of the circumstances. (Paras 1, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a charge under Section 302 IPC was not proved; however, the act carried sufficient culpability to warrant conviction under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC, reflecting knowledge of the likelihood of death - a lesser intent. (Paras 35, 36)

Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, modifying the sentence to 7 years and adjusting the default imprisonment condition. (Paras 38)

Table of Content
1. criminal proceedings initiated after commission of a crime (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. judgment challenged in criminal appeal. (Para 3)
3. summary of trial and charges established (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. arguments by defense and prosecution (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. evidence provided by witnesses supporting prosecution's case (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. consistency and credibility of witness testimonies (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32)
7. legal conclusions drawn by the court regarding intent and culpability (Para 29 , 34 , 36)
8. judgment modified based on age and justice. (Para 33)
9. determination of offence under section 304 ipc. (Para 35)
10. final judgment and orders issued (Para 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.

1. The judgment, dated 30.06.2009, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VII Additional 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 is the unsuccessful accused.

2. The appellant herein (accused) faced charge under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) pertaining to Crime No. 25 of 2008 of Dumbriguda Police Station, Visakhapatnam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC, as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC, convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month.

3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. Sessions Case No. 31 of 2009 arose out of the committal order in Preliminary Registration Case (PRC) No. 4 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku Valley Chinthapalli (for short ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No. 25 of 2008 of Dumbriguda Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet, as above, is that on 11.07.2008 morning Pujari Bassu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), son of Jalandar (late), went to Araku Santha (weekly shandy) along with LW-1 - Pujari Lavakusa, his son, for purchasing essential commodities. After completion of their work, LW-1 and LW-5 - Chattu Appala Raju along with the deceased stood at an auto stand, nearby Araku approach mud road at Girijan Co-operative Corporation (GCC) godown. At 12:00 noon, accused came to the deceased and asked him to give money for consumption of alcohol. The deceased refused to give money for his consumption of alcohol. Due to which, the accused grew wild, took a long stick, broken it and beat the deceased indiscriminately on his right neck, head, throat and mouth with an intention to kill him on account of which, the deceased collapsed with bleeding injuries. On seeing the incident, LW-1 raised cries. On hearing the cries of LW-1, LWs. 5 to LW-10 viz. Chattu Appala Raju, Poli Raju, Shavukari Trinadh Rao, Kotiyada Sanyasamma, Rapaka Pothayya and Poddu Bota Dev rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. LWs. 1 to LW-5 viz. Pujari Lavakusa, Pujari Gummanna, Pujari Damodar, Pujari Manaka and Chattu Appala Raju shifted the deceased to Community Health Center (CHC), Araku Valley and on the way, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

On 11.07.2008 at 07:00 p.m., on the basis of the report given by LW-1, LW-20 - M. Eliea Babu, Inspector of Police registered the FIR in Crime No. 25 of 2008 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation. During further investigation, he visited the scene of offence on 12.07.2008 at 06:00 a.m., examined the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and seized the stick and soil with blood stains and co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top