SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1581 ; 2024 Supreme(AP) 1581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.Durga Prasad Rao, Kiranmayee Mandava, JJ.
K. Yoga Narasimha Reddy @ Bujji - Apellant
Versus
State of A P Rep By P P Hyd –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 137 of 2015
Decided On : 19-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R Chandra Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

Credible eyewitness testimony can substantiate a murder conviction despite claims of bias and the absence of a clear motive, as direct evidence holds more weight than circumstantial arguments.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder conviction - Appellant convicted for brutally killing the deceased over past disputes tied to local elections, resulting in life imprisonment and a fine - Key evidence includes eyewitness testimonies from family members despite accusations of bias - Appeal rejected affirming trial court’s findings. (Paras 1, 12, 22)

(B) Evidence Evaluation - Compelling eyewitness accounts validated the conviction despite arguments regarding witness credibility and motive - Direct evidence superseded motive in significance according to legal precedents. (Paras 14, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The accused fatally attacked the deceased in Chittoor over political disputes stemming from local elections, with eyewitness accounts from relatives confirming the violent incident. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found the eyewitness testimonies credible, and established a direct correlation between the attack and the motive tied to previous disputes, concluding in affirmation of the lower court’s conviction. (Paras 22, 23)

Issues: Whether eyewitness accounts substantiate the conviction despite claims of witness bias and credibility discrepancies. (Paras 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that credible eyewitness testimony is paramount, overriding the lack of established motive and emphasizing the necessity of careful scrutiny of any purported biases in witness accounts. (Paras 14, 22)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed, conviction affirmed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's analysis of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. conclusion of the court. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

Challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2015 in S.C.No.289/2012 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor convicting the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC for brutally killing one Vinod Kumar of Velkur village, G.D.Nellore Mandal, at Chittoor and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- IDSI for six months, this Criminal Appeal is filed.

2. The factual matrix of the case succinctly is thus:

(a) The deceased Vinod Kumar was working as Field Assistant under NREG Scheme in Velkur panchayat. The accused works as a private bus driver and he is also the resident of Velkur village. During MPTC elections held in 2006, Jayasudha the wife of accused contested on TDP ticket and one Anitha, who is the daughter of elder brother of LW11-Babu Reddy also contested and lost to Jayasudha. In the said elections the deceased did not support the candidature of Jayasudha and thereby some disputes arose between accused and deceased’s family members. According to prosecution, about six months prior to the incident Rambabu Reddy, the elder brother of accused quarreled with deceased and threatened that he would do away with him. At that juncture, the elders of the village intervened and pacified both of them and settled the issue and saw that no complaint was given to police by either party. Eversince, it is alleged by prosecution, the accused and his brother were quarreling with the deceased and they were threatening him.

(b) The further case of prosecution is that, PW1 is the cousin brother of the deceased i.e., the deceased is the son of senior paternal uncle of PW1. PW1 works in Bangalore as a software employee. On 06.09.2011 at about 11:30 am when both of them were going on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP03AD6233 to G.D.Nellore police station in connection with obtaining passport for PW1 and on the way when they reached Neeva river bridge, the accused came on a motorcycle in the opposite direction at high speed and tried to hit their motorcycle but they escaped from the incident. The accused went away to his village. The deceased rang to the accused through his cell phone and questioned about his high handed act. The accused threatened him to do away with his life. Thereafter the deceased handed over the cell phone to his brother Ravindra Reddy.

(c) While so, on the same day at about 02:30 pm when PW1 and deceased were proceeding on their motorcycle to Chittoor to obtain passport photos of PW1 and when they reached Udipi Hotel near the compound wall of DFO’s bungalow, the accused stood there and gave a hand signal asking them to stop their motorcycle. They turned their motorcycle and went near the accused. At that time all of a sudden, the accused took out a bill hook and hacked on the left wrist of the deceased and thereby his left wrist was severed from his hand and both of them fell down along with motorcycle. Immediately, the accused hacked indiscriminately on the head and face of the deceased. Though PW1 got up and tried to intervene, the accused threatened to kill him also. PW1 yelled out for help and hearing him PWs 2 to 4 gathered there. PW5, who is a Homeguard and attending traffic duty nearby, reached the spot. On seeing them gathering at the spot, the accused fled away on his motorcycle. The deceased died on the spot due to multiple injuries. Later, PW1 presented Ex.P1-report to the SHO, Chittoor I Town PS against the accused. PW12 registered a case in Cr.No.119/2011 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. He commenced the investigation. During the course of investigation on coming to know that on 14.09.2011 the accused surrende

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top