TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores trial court acquittal, overturning conviction under Section 302 with Section 34 IPC.</h1> <h3>Harijana Thirupala and Ors. Versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's acquittal of the appellants who were convicted for the offence under ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies3. Motive for the Crime4. Identification Parade and Independent Witnesses5. Delay in Filing FIR6. Application of Section 34 IPCSummary:1. Conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC:The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment which overturned the trial court's acquittal and convicted them for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies:The trial court, after examining the evidence, found inconsistencies and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt. The High Court, however, disagreed with the trial court's findings and convicted the appellants based on the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, which it found credible.3. Motive for the Crime:The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, noting the absence of documentation for the site purchase and contradictions in witness testimonies. The High Court dismissed the need for motive, relying on the direct evidence from PWs 1 and 2.4. Identification Parade and Independent Witnesses:The trial court questioned the credibility of PWs 1 and 2 in identifying appellant No. 3 without an identification parade and noted the non-examination of independent witnesses. The High Court accepted the explanation that witnesses were afraid to testify, which the Supreme Court found unconvincing.5. Delay in Filing FIR:The trial court noted a four-hour delay in filing the FIR, suggesting the incident might have occurred later than claimed. The High Court did not adequately address this delay, which the Supreme Court found significant.6. Application of Section 34 IPC:The High Court applied Section 34 IPC to convict the appellants, despite the trial court only charging them u/s 302 IPC. The Supreme Court found no evidence of common intention among the appellants to commit murder, making the application of Section 34 IPC unsustainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's acquittal. The appellants were ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
