IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, V. SUJATHA, JJ.
Telugu Jambulaiah, S/o. Pedda Yellaiah & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High court of Judicature at Hyderabad - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2017
Decided On : 04-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence - Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 convicted for murder; appeal allowed due to lack of reliable evidence - Witnesses declared hostile and belated testimonies undermined prosecution's case. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Examination of accused - Accused denied incriminating evidence, no defense evidence presented. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with the murder of the deceased following a political rivalry and a dispute over property. The trial court convicted them based on witness testimonies, which later proved unreliable.
Findings of Court:
The court found no credible evidence supporting the conviction, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the belated and inconsistent testimonies of key witnesses could not sustain the conviction, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's decision was not supported by reliable evidence.
Result: The criminal appeal is allowed, and the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
K. Suresh Reddy, J.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 30-06-2017 in Sessions Case No. 531 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial Court'), accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 therein filed the present criminal appeal before this Court.
2. Originally, the police filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5. During the pendency of trial, accused No. 2 died and therefore case against him was dismissed as abated by order dated 16-09-2011 and one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu was added as accused No. 6 as per the orders in Criminal M.P.No. 441 of 2012 dated 22-04-2015. As such, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 faced trial. On 10-02-2025 when the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants informed this Court that the appellants-accused Nos. 5 and 6 died pending the criminal appeal which fact was not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 25-02-2025, has dismissed the appeal against the appellants-accused Nos. 5 and 6 as abated. Consequently, the present appeal is taken up and considered only against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
3. Initially, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges:
I. charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; and
II. charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 3 to 5.
Subsequently, after adding one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu as accused No. 6, the trial Court framed another charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against him on 14-09-2015.
4. Substance of the charges is that on 03-01-2007 at about 16.40 hours, near S.N.S.R. Degree College, Velgode, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, chased one Telugu Chinna Jambanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and accused No. 1 hacked on his head and accused No. 2 beat with a stick causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
5. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants- accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
6. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus:
All the accused are residents of Velgode Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.1 is wife, P.W.2 is nephew and P.W.5 is younger brother of the deceased respectively. On 03-01-2007, accused Nos. 1 to 6 chased the deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 5 hacked the deceased with an axe on his head while accused Nos. 2 to 4 caught hold of him. The motive attributed by the prosecution for attacking the deceased is that the deceased was reluctant to vacate the hut located at Telugu Ganga Reservoir Project. The further motive attributed by the prosecution for attacking the deceased is that due to political rivalry between the accused and the deceased, the former attacked the latter.
It is the prosecution case that during M.P.T.C. Elections held in the year 2006, accused No. 6 contested on behalf of Congress Party while the deceased and his family members supported Telugu Desam Party. In the elections, the candidate contesting on behalf of Telugu Desam party won the elections defeating accused No. 6, due to which the accused developed grudge against the deceased. Immediately after the attack, the injured was taken to Community Health Centre, Atmakur, and from there, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and while undergoing treatment, he died on 08-01-2007.
Having received information about the offence, P.W.13-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Velgode Police Station, rushed to Community Health Centre, Atmakur, and recorded a statement from P
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
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.
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 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 principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimonies in criminal ca....
The court established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.
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.
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.