Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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