Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.

 

Similar News