K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Kolakani Balaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURESH REDDY, J.
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2012 on the file of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant in the present criminal appeal. He alongwith Accused Nos.2 to 8 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges i.e., first charge was under Section 120(b) IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the second charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 8.
2. Substance of the charge is that accused Nos.1 and 2 having conspired together and all the accused attacked one Lingeri Koteswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") at weekly shandy of Maddigaruvu Village at about 2.00 p.m., on 01.07.2010 with an axe and knife and causing his death by hacking on the back side of his neck and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120(b) and 302 read with 34 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to s
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and unreliable witness testimony cannot sustain a conviction.
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 necessity of strong and corroborative evidence in murder cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence, was emphasized, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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; the conviction was upheld based on strong eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence.
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of credible evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
The conviction under conspiracy and murder was overturned due to insufficient and unreliable evidence, highlighting the need for beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt.
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.
The court affirmed that clear evidence of motive and eyewitness testimony can substantiate a conviction for murder under IPC Section 302.
The court reinforced the principle that when a death occurs in a domestic setting, the burden of explanation lies on the accused, particularly under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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.