Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SURESH REDDY, V.SUJATHA
Bommidi Seshagiri Rao S/o. Peda Basavaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.367 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Krishna District at Machilipatnam is the appellant herein. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges :-
1st charge was under Section 302 IPC and the 2nd charge was under Section 498-A IPC.
2. Substance of the charge as against the accused is that the accused harassed his wife-P.W.5 both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and also by suspecting her fidelity and on 15.01.2010 at about 11.00 a.m., he caused the death of his son and daughter by name Keshav aged 7 years and Swathi aged 4 years (herein after referred to as 'D.1 and D.2'), in his house, bearing door No.25-2/450 situated at Daaravari Veedhi, Kojjillipet, Machilipatnam, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections. 498-A and 302 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused under Section 498-A IPC, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five
The court affirmed that the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of his children's deaths, coupled with strong evidence of motive and eyewitness accounts, justified the conviction for murde....
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 court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in dying declarations led to acquittal for murder while confirming conviction for cruelty.
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the nature of injuries and intent, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part-II IP....
The court established that actions leading to death can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the circumstances and intent.
The absence of evidence demonstrating harassment for dowry demands precludes conviction under Section 304B IPC, and vague statements do not satisfy the requirements for Section 201 IPC.
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court established that a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under Section 302 IPC, allowing for a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
