Back
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Palleboina Sadaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.)
1. This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the sole accused in SC. No. 605 of 2010 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. This appeal has been filed under Section 74(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment and conviction recorded by the trial Court dated 10-07-2012 by the trial Court, where under, the appellant herein was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of Six months.
2. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant herein was tried before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal in SC. No. 605 of 2010 with an allegation that he has committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, after the trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, held that the evidence pla
The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when witness testimonies are inconsistent and unreliable, leading to a lack of credible evidence for conviction.
The court reiterated that in criminal trials, if two interpretations are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted, especially when prosecution evidence is found unreliable.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.
THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES IS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 ....
Eyewitness testimony holds credibility even when minor contradictions exist; motive for crime established through related witness accounts legitimizes conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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
