Back
P. SAM KOSHY, N. TUKARAMJI
Dasarath Gadava, R. R. Dist. – Appellant
Versus
P. P. , Hyd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P. Sam Koshy, J.)
The instant is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C filed by the appellant – accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2016 in Sessions Case No.9 of 2014 passed by the Judge, XVI Additional District and Session Judge, Malkajgiri.
2. Heard Mr. M.K.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and upon convicting the appellant, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, is that on 08.09.2013 at 9:00 hours PW.3 (Harichandra Nayak) who is the brother of the Vijay Kumar Nayak (hereinafter, the ‘deceased’) lodged a complaint at Kushaiguda Police Station, Cyberabad, stating that the deceased and the appellant (Dasharath Gadava), who is the father-in-law of the deceased, both hail from same village i.e. Bommel Village, Koraput District of Odisha. At about four years ago the appellant allegedly killed the father of the deceas
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence despite minor discrepancies.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on strong circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' doctrine, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish each link in the chain beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, and the failure to do so results in the acquittal of the accused.
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
Accused's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent and premeditation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness statements undermined the conviction, leading to its reversal.
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
