Back
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
State of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Dudekula Siddaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURESH REDDY, J:
1. By judgment dated 25.01.2023 in SC No.78 of 2021 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Prakasam District at Ongole (for short, 'the Trial Court'), the sole accused was found guilty of the offences under Sections 201 , 342, 366, 376-AB and 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, 'IPC') and Section 6 read with Section 5 (l)(m)(r) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 2012 Act').
2. The sole accused was tried by the Trial Court under the following charges :
II charge was under Section 342 IPC;
III charge was under Section 376-AB IPC;
IV charge was under Section 302 IPC,
V charge was under Section 201 IPC;
VI charge was under Section 6 of 2012 Act; and
Last charge was under Section 5 (I)(m)(r) of 2012 Act.
3. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 201 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to
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 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 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 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.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
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
