Andhra Pradesh High Court Confirms Life Sentence For Man Who Brutally Murdered Lover Over Unfounded Suspicions Of Fidelity

Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a judgment dated August 11, 2026, dismissed a criminal appeal and upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of brutally murdering his lover after developing deep-seated suspicions regarding her character.

A division bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Sumathi Jagadam held that the consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence regarding motive established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the unshakeable evidence of the eyewitnesses who saw the accused launching a fatal assault near a bridge completely nailed the prosecution case.

The appellant, Kambampati Suresh Babu, was tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Madanapalle in Sessions Case No. 279 of 2016 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court on December 3, 2018, found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000. Challenging his conviction, the accused approached the High Court through criminal appeal proceedings under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing major discrepancies in the witness identification and urging acquittal.

The primary questions before the court were whether the prosecution successfully established a premeditated motive stemming from suspicion of fidelity and whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses were cogent enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine if minor discrepancies regarding the name of the first informant or witness in police papers vitiated the core substratum of the prosecution case.

Motive Established Through Family Testimony

The record established that the accused and the deceased victim were in a relationship for three years, and both families had agreed to solemnize their marriage after the completion of their education. However, tensions arose when the accused began doubting the fidelity of the deceased, complaining to her mother about her interactions with others. On the fateful day of April 4, 2016, the deceased left home for her final examinations but never returned, prompting her family to launch a frantic search that ended in the grim discovery of her body in a pool of blood.

"The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 establish the motive for the offence. They stated that the accused developed deep suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased. This suspicion establishes the clear intention and pre-meditated motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased."

Eyewitness Account Inspires Confidence

The prosecution relied heavily on direct ocular testimony from P.W.4, who spotted the couple parking their TVS moped near a bridge and walking underneath it before hearing distress screams. Upon rushing to the spot, P.W.4 witnessed the accused beating the victim with a boulder and tying a chunni around her neck, while two other witnesses, P.W.5 and P.W.6, saw the accused fleeing the scene. The bench noted that the medical evidence corroborating death by hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries completely dovetailed with the horrific manner of assault described by the eyewitnesses.

Minor Discrepancies Cannot Impeach Credible Testimony

Addressing the appellant's contention regarding a mismatch in names between the initial report and the inquest report concerning a village official who witnessed the aftermath, the bench dismissed the argument as inconsequential. The court observed that such peripheral discrepancies, which were never tested during the cross-examination of material witnesses, do not erode the foundational credibility of direct ocular accounts. The bench emphasized that the oral testimonies of the eyewitnesses remained unshaken through rigorous cross-examination.

"In the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.9, nothing adverse has been elicited in their evidence. The eyewitnesses have consistently deposed regarding the manner in which the accused attacked the deceased and thereafter fled away from the scene of offence."

Final Directions And Surrender Order

Finding no merit in the appeal, the division bench confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 302 IPC. Since the appellant was previously released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, the high court directed him to surrender forthwith before the II Additional Sessions Judge at Madanapalle to serve out the remainder of his sentence. The bench further mandated that failure to surrender must prompt the sessions judge to issue non-bailable warrants to commit him to prison, while granting him statutory set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention already undergone.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2026