Back
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Aryapogu Raghavendra – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the first accused in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2011 on the file of Asst. Sessions Judge, Gadwal against his conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.).
2. As could be seen from the appeal grounds and other records available before this Court, the trial Court after conducting trial in SC. No. 24 of 2011 against three accused persons for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC, having found A2 and A3 not guilty for the offence and found the present appellant, who was shown as A1 guilty for the said offence, convicted him under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default sentence.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/A1 has filed this Criminal Appeal and challenged his conviction on the following grounds:
The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper way and on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, found him guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The trial
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delays and inconsistencies in testimony create reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
An injured witness's testimony, which is significant in establishing guilt, can confirm the prosecution's case, and delays in lodging FIR can be validly explained without undermining the case.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the evidence can raise doubts about the case.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimony and unexplained delays undermine prosecution's case, supporting acquittal.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Jurisdiction of Assistant Sessions Judge to try offences under Section 307 IPC upheld; testimony of injured witnesses sufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
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
