CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Distinguishes Between Murder and Culpable Homicide in Telangana Case, Alters Conviction of One Accused

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In the case of Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) and Anr., the Supreme Court of India has delivered a nuanced judgment distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide. The Court upheld the life imprisonment sentences of three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for murder, while modifying the conviction of the fourth appellant (A-3) to Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide, sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment.

The genesis of the case lies in a political rivalry in Janda Venkatpur, Telangana, leading to a fatal attack on the deceased by four accused belonging to a rival family. The incident, involving the use of an axe, sword, stone, and knife, was reported by the son of the deceased, who was an eyewitness.

In its detailed assessment, the Court scrutinized the eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence. A pivotal observation was the differing roles and intentions of the accused in the attack. While A-1, A-2, and A-4 were found to have actively participated in the murder using lethal weapons, A-3’s involvement was deemed less severe, as he only used a stone and lacked the intention to commit murder.

The judgment delineated the legal principles concerning Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, relating to murder and common intention, contrasting them with Section 304 Part II IPC, which covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court’s decision to modify A-3’s conviction was based on the absence of a shared intention to commit murder and his lesser degree of participation in the crime.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision upheld the life sentences for A-1, A-2, and A-4 for murder, while reducing A-3’s sentence to 10 years for culpable homicide. This judgment is significant for its detailed analysis of the individual roles and intentions of the accused in a murder case.

Date of Decision: February 06, 2024

Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) and Anr.

 

Latest Legal News