IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, T.C.D.SEKHAR
Keesari Srinivasa Reddy @ Srinu, Prakasam Dt., S/o. Velugondaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP., Rep PP., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
K.Suresh Reddy, J.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 14-12-2016 in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur (for short, 'the trial Court'), the accused therein filed the present criminal appeal before this Court. The appellant-accused was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges:
I charge was under Section 452 IPC; and
II charge was under Section 302 IPC.
2. Substance of the charges is that on 06-06-2013 at about 7 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of one Sirimella Lakshmeswari (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), caught hold of her tuft and dragged her onto road from the house and slashed her throat with a knife causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant- accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court also convicted the appellant
The court upheld the conviction for murder and trespass, affirming the credibility of child witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
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 established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
Dying declaration - Corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor.
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.
The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness consistency and timely reporting in establishing guilt in murder cases, despite claims of procedural delays.
Instigation alone does not establish culpability for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act of violence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The court established that intent to kill, evidenced by eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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.