HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K SURESH REDDY, K SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kunchala Sasi Krishna, S/o. Guravaih – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.)
The appellant herein is the accused in Sessions Case No.85/S/2021 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge- cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Judge’).
2. The appellant/accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (2) (va) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act, 2015’). Vide the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2022 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of the aforesaid charges, accordingly convicted him and sentenced -to death penalty by way of hanging by neck till he is dead and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, subject to confirmation by this Court under Section 366 CrPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, for the offence punishable under S
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
The court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court affirmed multiple convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the nature of the crimes and the relationship between the accused as central to the ruling.
The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
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.