Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, JJ
Marri Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by appellants/A1 to A4 questioning their conviction under Sections 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.126 of 2010 dated 20.08.2015 passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2007 around 1.00 p.m, A1 went near the house of the deceased and took both the deceased Susheela Devi (D1) and Manju Rani (D2) in a Tata Sumo vehicle. On the said date, P.W.9 was present when D1 and D2 were waiting for a person. The Tata sumo vehicle came there in which A1 was sitting in the vehicle on the left side. However, he could not identify the driver. Both the deceased sat in the vehicle and they left. Two days thereafter, P.W.9 came to know that both the deceased were killed. P.W.8 is the son of D1 and brother of D2. According to him, on 25.08.2007, he called his mother, who informed that she along with Manju Rani were going to Kandukur in a Tata Sumo and one Sudhakar was also present along with them. Thereafter, when he tried to make contact with them, there was no response. Accordingly, P.W.8 went to the police station and lodged c
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links must cohesively establish guilt; doubts in identification and admissibility of evidence impact conviction validity.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; failure to prove the last seen theory and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal.
where the Test Identification of properties for the reason that in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as Clause 474 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it is clearly mentioned that th....
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
