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
| 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
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 prosecution must prove culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt, distinguishing between intent to kill and knowledge of likely fatal outcomes.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
Peritonitis as defined in medical dictionary is as under: “inflammation of the peritoneum, typically caused by bacterial infection either via the blood or after rupture of an abdominal organ”.
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 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.
It is the quality and not the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence. Evidence has to be weighed not counted.
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.