V. SRINIVAS
B. Narasimha Rao, Tuni – Appellant
Versus
G. S. Murthy, Kakinada – Respondent
ORDER :
V.Srinivas, J.
This Revision is filed by the petitioner/A1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.67 of 2009 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the appeal insofar as A5 and A6 are concerned by acquitting them and dismissed the appeal insofar as A1 is concerned by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, in the judgment dated 15.10.2009 in C.C.No.226 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 27.04.2007 at about 3.00 P.M, while conducting raids by the excise officials near Chinamerangi Village, they found that petitioner along with others were preparing illicit arrack in two vessels. When they tried to conduct raid, the said persons assaulted with sticks and knives by abusing in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. On the report of PW1, a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 of Jiyyammavalasa police station was registered. After completion of investigation, charge s
The principle of parity mandates that when evidence against co-accused is identical, the court cannot convict one while acquitting another, ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Test identification parade not mandatory if witnesses identify accused at scene and trial; circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction under IPC 435/34.
The court reaffirmed that consistent witness testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, can substantiate a conviction under IPC provisions.
The judgment reinforces that consistent witness testimony and absence of material contradictions are sufficient to uphold a conviction in criminal cases.
The appellate court must demonstrate clear error or perversity in a trial court's acquittal to overturn it, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
An accused cannot be convicted solely based on identification without clear evidence, especially when all co-accused are acquitted, leading to a benefit of doubt.
(1) It is very unsafe to record a conclusion based only on testimony of solitary witness that guilt of accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt when no identification parade was held.(2) Common obj....
Conviction upheld for primary accused due to strong corroborative evidence, while secondary accused acquitted for lack of direct evidence linking them to the crime.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroboration from witnesses in criminal cases and the right of the accused to present evidence in their defense.
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.