The Supreme Court modified an accused conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC after determining that there was inadequate proof to demonstrate that he shared the common intention with the other accused to murder the deceased. The court affirmed life imprisonment for other three accused/appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and dismissed their Criminal Appeal.
Earlier The Telangana High Court and a trial court convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life in imprisonment.
The Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha asserted that in the past, the Court has considered various factors such as lack of medical evidence, a single blow to the head with a hammer, and lack of eyewitness evidence of a common intention to commit murder to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.
The court also stated, “it is not the case of the prosecution that A-3 was along with the other accused while the deceased was dragged to the house. The deposition would reveal that after the other accused assaulted the deceased with sword, A-3 came thereafter and assaulted the deceased with stone lying there. We, therefore, find that the prosecution has not been in a position to establish that A-3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased.”
AOR D. Abhinav Rao represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Sirajudeen appeared on behalf of the defendants.
In this case the accused (1-4) and deceased were from the same village (Janda Venkatpur, Asifabad, Telangana). According to the allegations, the deceased’s sister and A-4’s wife were political candidates running in the Gram Panchayat elections. In the elections, the deceased’s sister won while A-4’s wife lost. This
resulted in animosity between the two groups, ultimately resulting to the deceased’s murder.
The Court explained that the prosecution, defense, and even the courts did not pay attention to the involvement of the third accused. There was no oral or documentary proof that the third accused intended to murder the dead. The Supreme Court stated that both the trial court and the High Court drew an
inference against the third accused based only on his presence near the site of the crime and his familial ties to the other accused.
The Court observed that the third accused had no intention of murdering the dead for two reasons. First of all, while the other accused took the axe and helped with the assault, the third accused never used it. Second, the third accused just held a stone in his hand. As a result, the Court concluded that the third accused did not share a common intention to murder the deceased.
CASE NAME : VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANR.
NAME :RIYA KRISHNA , COURSE : BBA LLB Hons , COLLEGE :MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments