Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
India Sai Prasanth – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.)
These appeals are preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of learned Sessions Court, Mahila Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, dated 26.09.2017.The appellants herein are A-1 and A-2 respectively.
2. Since the impugned judgment in both the appeals is one and the same, this Court is inclined to pass a common judgment.
3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the appellant/A1, Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the appellant/A2, Mr.Dr.Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel represented on behalf of PW.1-De facto complainant claimed property under M.Os.1 to 4 and assisted Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
4. It is a peculiar case where the deceased Pedamallu Venkata Lakshmamma died on 03.08.2014, at her residence. P.Ws.1 to 3, who are her son, daughter-in-law and grandson, respectively and P.W.4 is who performed the funeral ceremony and P.Ws.5 to 7 are the neighbours of the vicinity, all were under the impression that the death of the deceased is due to natural causes. While so, the police unearthed the s
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any missing link benefits the accused.
where the Test Identification of properties for the reason that in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as Clause 474 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it is clearly mentioned that th....
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as per established legal principles.
The insufficiency of circumstantial evidence is crucial for acquittal in criminal cases.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses....
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
