Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, N.TUKARAMJI
Talari Ashok A1 R.R.DT – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana Rep PP. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. Tukaramji, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2016 in Sessions Case No.91 of 2011 passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2. We have heard Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3, Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 and Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel on record for appellant No.5/accused No.5 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. In the impugned judgment the appellants/convicts/accused Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter ‘accused’) were convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months and also convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and
The court found insufficient evidence of intent to kill, modifying the conviction from murder to grievous hurt and simple hurt under IPC.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of prearranged plans, leading to the first accused's conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 while ac....
Evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony can support a conviction even if the witness is related to the victim, provided the testimony is credible and corroborated by additional evidence.
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming the credibility of eyewitness testimony and scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime.
The conviction of accused based on the reliable testimony of injured witnesses is valid, even without weapon recovery, as their evidence is corroborated by medical records.
The absence of the weapon does not preclude conviction if sufficient evidence supports the prosecution's case, and the sentence imposed was appropriate for the nature of the offences.
Absence of common intention to kill limits murder convictions under S.302 IPC, shifting liability to lesser charges under S.325 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
