Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY, SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR, JJ
Jetti Suneel Kumar Reddy, S/o. Rajagopalreddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 06-07-2017 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the trial Court'), accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 794 and 1114 of 2017 respectively before this Court.
2. Since both these criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges:
I charge was under Section 363 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;
II charge was under Section 364 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;
III charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;
IV charge was under Section 201 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; and
V charge was under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, '1989 Act'), against accused No. 1.
4. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the
A conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of a child witness when there are serious doubts regarding its reliability and the absence of corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence in criminal cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence without eyewitness testimony.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Instigation alone does not establish culpability for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act of violence.
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
