IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
Yerraballi Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
(K. Suresh Reddy, J.)
1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 18-09-2012 in the afternoon, the accused beat one Kodamala Nayomi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on her head with an iron rod near Gangamadugu Vagu in between Rallapalli-Vedullacheruvu Villages causing her death, thereby committed the ‹offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased was a resident of Punugodu Village and her marriage was performed with one Daniel about six years .pr r to her date of death. Due to some disputes between the deceased and her husband, the former left the company of the latter and started living with her mother-P.W.2. P.Ws.3 and 4 are brother and sister of the deceased respectively. The deceased used to work as a Cook in Alpha Public School, Kanigiri. At that juncture, the deceased said to have developed illegal intimacy with the accused. While so, on 19-09-2012 at about 8 a.m., the Village Servant, Rallapalli Village-P.W.10 found a female dead body at the scene of offence and immediately he informed the same to the in-charge Village Revenue Officer, Rallapalli Village-P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the scene of offence and found dead body of a female person, aged about 30 years. Immediately, P.W.1 went to Veligandla Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police.
On the basis of Ex.P1-report, P.W.17-the then in-charge Sub- Inspector of Police, Veligandla Police Station, registered a case in crime No. 22 of 2012 of Veligandla Police Station under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P22 is original FIR. Having received a copy of FIR from P.W.17, P.W.22-the then Inspector of Police, Kanigiri, proceeded to the scene of offence and recorded a statement from P.W.1. P.W.22 prepared Ex.P12-Scene Observation Report in the presence of P.W.1 and one K.Prabhudas (L.W.19). P.W.22 also prepared Ex.P26-Rough Sketch at the scene of offence. P.W.22 seized M.0s.1 to 5 at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. P.W.22 also got the scene photographed and the photographs were marked as Exs.P2 to P11. P.W.22 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 10, L.W.19 and one T.Rajarathnam (L.W.20). P.W.22 recorded statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 9 and others at the inquest. In the inquest, it was opined that the deceased might have been killed by someone. Ex.P13 is inquest report. After completion of inquest, P.W.22 sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Kanigiri, through P.W.16 for conducting post modem examination. P.W.15-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kanigiri, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.15 found three injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.15 opined the cause of death was due to shock due to haemorrhage as a result of heady injury. P.W.15 issued post mortem certificate-Ex.P21. Subsequently, P.W.22 visited Alpha Public School, Kanigiri, and recorded statements of P.Ws.6, 7 and others. P.W.22 also recorded a statement from P.W.8. P.W.22 also collected call detail records pertaining to the mobile numbers of the accused and the deceased and they were marked as Exs.P28 and P33 respectively. On 29-09-2012, P.W.1 produced the accused stating that the accused made extra judicial confession before him and the same was marked as Ex.P14. P.W.1 presented a report-Ex. P15 to P.W.22. Then, P.W.22 secured the presence of P,.W.13 and another and recorded confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P18. On the confession mad
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of his wife.
The judgment establishes that child witness testimony, if credible and corroborated, can be sufficient for conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
The court established that credible child witness testimony, when corroborated, can support a conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra judicial confessions.
The necessity of strong and corroborative evidence in murder cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence, was emphasized, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The court established that intent to kill, evidenced by eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
A conviction based on the sole testimony of a witness requires that testimony to be credible and corroborated; inconsistencies and lack of reliability render such convictions unsustainable.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Instigation alone does not establish culpability for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act of violence.
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.