1. Appeals against conviction for murder and attempt to murder under IPC Sections 302/34 and 307/34 arising from a financial dispute and fatal attack. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. Suresh Reddy, Subba Reddy Satti, JJ
K.KOTESWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF AP – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2044/2018 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 389/2019 | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 396/2019
1. Appeals against conviction for murder and attempt to murder under IPC Sections 302/34 and 307/34 arising from a financial dispute and fatal attack. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
2. Appellants contended delay in report, improvements in testimony, and lack of motive. Respondent argued evidence reliable and corroborated. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Appeals allowed for two accused acquitted of murder. Third accused's murder conviction set aside, attempt murder conviction upheld with reduced sentence. (Para 20 , 21 )
Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, especially when the complainant reached the hospital early, raises suspicion and can affect credibility. (Para 15 , 16 )
No, if overt acts are attributed for the first time during trial and not in earlier statements, such testimony is unreliable for those accused. (Para 16 , 18 )
Yes, the prosecution must present a consistent motive; conflicting versions weaken the case. (Para 17 )
The evidence must be consistent from the stage of investigation; first-time attribution of specific overt acts during trial is insufficient to prove participation. (Para 18 )
Yes, if the evidence consistently shows the accused caused injuries with intent to kill, conviction under Section 307 is sustainable. (Para 18 , 19 )
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)
As all the three appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.423 of 2013 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, are the appellants.
3. Accused No.3 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2044 of 2018, accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.396 of 2019 and accused No.1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.389 of 2019.
4. The appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:
The first charge was under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3;
The second charge was under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3; and
The last charge was under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3.
5. Substance of the charge is that on 31.12.2012, at about 10:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 hacked and stabbed one Chennuboyina Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), with a hunting sickle and knife in the fields of Ratchamallapadu village, causing his death and in the same process they also attempted to kill P.W.3 and beat P.W.2 causing them injuries, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 326 r/w 34 I.P.C.
6. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted accused No.2 under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the substantive sentences imposed against accused No.2 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
7. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows:
(i) All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Ratchamallapadu village, Veldurthi Mandal. P.W.1 is the wife, and P.W.4 is brother of the deceased, respectively. P.W.5 is the relative of the deceased. About 3½ years prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and executed a promissory note in his favour. About 1 ½ years prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 again borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased under another promissory note. About one year prior to the incident, accused No.1 repaid an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the deceased and received promissory note in respect of the second debt. At that time, when the deceased asked the accused No.1 to clear the first debt of Rs.10,000/-, accused No.1 claimed that he had already repaid it, and in that regard, an altercation took place between the deceased and accused No.1.
(ii) L.Ws.13 and 14, Pinnaboina China Mala Kondaiah and Garlapati Venkata Ramaiah intervened and conveyed panchayat. They found fault with accused No.1 and directed him to repay Rs.10,000/- along with interest amount of Rs.7,000/-, totaling to Rs.17,000/- to the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 paid Rs.17,000/- to the deceased and took back his pro-note. Accused No.1 challenged the deceased for collecting the amount twice, and it led to a quarrel, during which accused No.1 received injuries in the hands of the deceased. While such was the position, at about 10:00 p.m. on 31.12.2012, the deceased, accused Nos.2 and 3 & P.Ws.2 and 3 met in the village and decided to consume arrack on the eve of New Year.
(iii) At about 9:00 p.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the house of deceased and took him to the fields of P.W.2, where they, along with accused Nos.2 & 3 consumed arrack till 12:15 in the midnight. At that time, a minor altercation took place between accused No.2 and the deceased. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 left the pl
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