Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K SURESH REDDY, SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Balagam Govindaraju – Appellant
Versus
State Of A P, Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
The sole accused in Sessions Case No.302 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum – X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charge under Section 302 IPC.
2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 23.01.2014 at about 12.30 p.m. near the house of Gudivada Srinivasa Rao, on the public road, the accused hacked Balagam Papa (hereinafter referred to as deceased), with a knife in the middle of the head and neck and caused multiple diffused bleeding injuries, resulting in the death of deceased on the spot.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
4. Case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence available on record, is:
(i) The accused is the husband of the deceased. All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Rajahmundry. The deceased had 3 elder brothers, P.Ws.1, 5 and
Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and failure to explain incriminating circumstances, can establish guilt in murder cases.
The judgment establishes that child witness testimony, if credible and corroborated, can be sufficient for conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
The court established that credible child witness testimony, when corroborated, can support a conviction, alongside the admissibility of extra judicial confessions.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Prosecution must substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt; intentional murder requires proof of intent, while culpable homicide may be established through knowledge of likely fatality.
A conviction based on the sole testimony of a witness requires that testimony to be credible and corroborated; inconsistencies and lack of reliability render such convictions unsustainable.
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.
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
