Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PROJECT REPORT
ON
P.EKNATH vs. Y.AMARANATHA REDDY @BABU & ANR
I have made this project with full dedication and zeal. A lot of people helped
me in the completion of this project. I am really thankful to my friends and
peers whose faith in me kept me going. I am also thankful to the authorities
of the library of the department for the access to the invaluable books. Most
of all, I am thankful to my subject teacher, Dr Pushpinder, who has always
been the guiding light and a source of inspiration, for giving me an
opportunity to work on this project.
So, with the concrete efforts and utmost intentions, I hereby present this
project.
-AMAN BAJAJ
1|Page
INDEX
S. NO. Particulars Page no.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
3 CHARGES FRAMED 6
4 ARGUMENTS OF THE 7
PARTIES
5 JUDGEMENTS 8
6 CRITICAL APPRAISAL 12
7 LATEST JUDGEMENT 13
8 CRIME RATE 17
STATISTICS
2|Page
INTRODUCTION
This case pertains to double murder of the deceased Pasupuleti Lohita, aged
12 years and the deceased Pasupuleti Venkatramana, aged 50 years and
double life attempts on Pasupuleti Chandrakala and Pasupuleti Eknath, all
residents of Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle, and theft in the dwelling house
by the sole accused Yerraballi Amaranatha Reddy @ Babu Reddy-
Respondent No.1 herein.
The trial court had convicted P Yerraballi but, the high court set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and acquitted him.
The bench also observed that the high court had not set aside the finding of
the trial court together with its reasoning based on evidence that the offence
under Section 307 was made out, and yet set aside the conviction based on
Section 307.
1
AIR 2017 SC 1160
3|Page
FACTS OF THE CASE
The relevant facts of the case are that on 18.09.2005, at about 10.00
p.m., the accused went to the house of P. Venkatramana (the deceased
No.2) along with a sickle. While the deceased No.2 and the accused
were talking and when the others had retired for the night, at about
1.30 a.m., the accused took out the sickle and attacked the deceased
No.2 and hacked him indiscriminately. When P.W. 2 wife of
deceased No.2 tried to intervene, he attacked her too and caused
severe bleeding injuries.
"On 18.9.2005 night 10.00 hours, we came out after meals and babu
locking the gate (my babu name Ekanth). At that time Babu Reddy,
Yerracherlopalli came. At that time preparing meals and asked him to
4|Page
take meals prepared chapathi and given him. My husband and himself
sat by discussion. I went and slept. After about 1.00 hours, I woke up
on hearing sounds and saw Babu Reddy hacking my husband
P.Venkatramana with sickle. I went to rescue and he hacked me. I
lost my conscious. Again hacked my husband as having life. On
hearing sounds, my children Ekanth, Lohita and sister son Manoj
woke up. Hacked my daughter Lohitha. My son Ekanth bolted the
door. Babu Reddy having money dealings with my husband. Babu
Reddy due amount. I caught the legs but not left me. Though I am
having conscious and acted as unconscious. He left me as I died. My
son Ekanth phoned to Sreedhar and Sreedhar came after phone call."
Doctor (P.W. 13), who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased No.1, opined that the deceased died due to injury to
skull bones, cervical vertebrae leading to internal and external
haemorrhage, shock and death. P.W. 14, the doctor who conducted
the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No. 2, opined that the
deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage
due to multiple injuries to the vital organs by a sharp object. Police
sent the material objects to Forensic science laboratory (FSL) for
examination and on receipt of the report from the FSL and on
completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the
accused.
5|Page
CHARGES FRAMED
The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 302, 307 and
380, IPC against the accused.
307. Attempt to murder. — Whoever does any act with such intention
or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.
The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 23. The trial Court, after taking into
consideration the evidence adduced, held that the prosecution has been able
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted
the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to also to pay a fine
of Rs. 5,000 with default stipulation.
6|Page
Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court and
the said Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
7|Page
JUDGEMENT
In this present case two judgements were given by the Hon’ble Supreme
court of India. First judgement was written by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
while Justice RF Nariman wrote a concurring judgement.
It further appears that the reason behind this is that some loan
was taken by the accused and was not returned to the deceased
No.2 victim as a result whereof these ghastly murders have taken
place. The evidence which has been put forward by doctor P.W.14
who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased
No.2, as well as the other doctor P.W.13 who further conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 clearly shows
that all injuries were of a sharp edged weapon. In our considered
opinion, there is no discrepancy with regard to the ocular
evidence or the evidence of the doctors who deposed before the
Court. The weapon (sickle) which was used by the accused was
recovered at the instance of the accused himself. The said sickle
also contained human blood in terms of the FSL Report which
was produced before the Court at the time of hearing of the
matter in question.
8|Page
After taking into consideration and summing it up together, it
appears to us that the High Court did not take into account all
these facts which were brought before us had been placed before
the High Court at the time of hearing of the appeal.
In our opinion, the High Court has failed to appreciate such
evidence which was brought before the Court and further the facts
which ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of
the matter to be decided by the High Court and without giving any
reasons, set aside the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court.
Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is perverse and not
sustainable in the eyes of law and we set aside the order passed
by it affirming the order passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. We direct the concerned
Police Authorities to take custody of the respondent forthwith to
serve out the remainder of sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
9|Page
autopsy over the dead body of deceased no.1, who was the
murdered daughter in the present case. PW-14, on the other hand,
conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased no. 2, who
was the father and the head of the family.
After setting out the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14, the High
Court examined only the evidence of PW-14, and stated that
despite the fact that the doctor opined that the deceased would
have appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to
multiple injuries caused to the vital organs, and despite stating
the above injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like
a sickle, in his cross-examination he admitted that the injuries are
"lacerated" injuries.
The trial court has correctly appreciated this evidence, and stated
that what was really meant was that the injuries were caused by a
sharp object. However, the High Court came to the conclusion,
based on Medical Jurisprudence on Toxicology by Dr. K.S.
Reddy, that "lacerated" injuries could only be caused with a blunt
object. The High Court then went on to state that in his re-
examination the doctor stated that "lacerated" injuries could be
caused if the reverse side of a sickle is used, which is blunt.
But this does not end the matter. What is seriously wrong with the
judgment under appeal is that it conveniently forgets the entire
10 | P a g e
testimony of PW-13. In so far as PW-13's testimony is concerned,
there is no doubt whatsoever that all 9 injuries caused on
deceased no. 1, who was the daughter, were incised injuries and
that they were all caused with a sharp edged weapon being a
sickle. The High Court judgment conveniently forgets about PW-
13, and then lumps PW-13 and PW-14 together to arrive at the
astounding conclusion that the injuries sustained by deceased
nos.1 and 2 are not possible with a sickle and that further, more
than one weapon might have been used
Also, with regard to the amount of light that was there in the
house in order that the injured eye-witnesses could be said to
have successfully identified the accused, the High Court refers
only to the evidence of PW-22, S.I. of the Police, to state that "a
zero watt bulb was burning in the bedroom". From this it
concludes that "only a zero watt bulb was burning in the house"
whereas both the eye-witnesses stated that there was power
supply and illumination of lights. Here again, the High Court falls
into grievous error in completely ignoring the consistent
testimony of PWs-20, 21, and 23, all of whom state that there was
more than sufficient light in the house at the time of the incident.
Further, it is clear that both deceased no.2 and the accused were
sitting and talking till the incident occurred, and this they
obviously did with the lights on in the house.
11 | P a g e
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
After going through to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the present case it can be found out that Hon’ble High Court was totally
wrong on their part in acquitting the accused. They ignored the judgment of
the trial court which convicted the accused under charges of Section 302 of
IPC.The crime committed by the accused was no doubt a heinous crime as it
included double murder including a murder of girl of tender age. All the
evidences were in the favour of the prosecution and the prosecution beyond
the doubt proved the commission of crime by the accused in the trial court
but when an appeal was filed by the accused in high court, the Hon’ble court
ignored the important prosecution evidences and acquitted the accused.
At last an appeal in form of SLP was filled by the prosecution party in the
Hon’ble apex court and apex court at last upheld the judgement of the trial
and again convicted the accused. Both the judges of the Supreme Court took
in consideration the ignorance committed by the High court and stated the
judgement as ‘perverse’.
12 | P a g e
LATEST JUDGMENTS
Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P. 2
This case is concerned with the murder of a 22 year old girl by name Diana
Routley a New Zealander, for which the trial Court awarded death sentence
to the Appellant, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Diana came to India as a visitor in the year 1997. After visiting Agra, she
reached Varanasi on 7.8.1997. on 10.8.1997 at about 7.00 a.m. for
Darjeeling by train from Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station. Later, she was
found missing and her father Allan Jack Routley, having got no information
about his daughter, informed the authorities about the missing of Diana.
Raghvendra Singh, SHO, Police Station, Laksa, along with a team of police
officials, made inquiries, but she could not be traced. It was found out later
that she has been murdered by a local tourist guide Dharam Deo Yadav with
help of other people.
The trial Court acquitted Kali Charan Yadav, Sindhu Harijan and Ram
Karan Chauhan, but the appellant was found guilty for the commission of
the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 201 IPC, but was acquitted of the charges for the offences under
Sections 364 and 394 IPC. The trial Court also found that the case falls
under the category of rarest of rare case, since the accused had strangulated
a young girl of a foreign country who had visited India and awarded him
death sentence.
Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the State filed Government Appeal No.
against the order of acquittal passed against rest of the accused persons.
Both the appeals were heard along with Criminal Reference no. 21 of 2003.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the death
sentence awarded by the trial Court, holding that the case in question falls
under the rarest of rare category, against which this appeal has been
preferred, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted
that in a case which squarely rests on circumstantial evidence, the
2
(2014) 5 SCC 509
13 | P a g e
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that, within all human probability,
the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Circumstances
pointed out by the prosecution, in this case, according to the counsel, are
inconclusive and inconsistent and no reliance could be placed on those
circumstances so as to draw a conclusion that the accused had committed
the crime. Learned counsel also submitted that, in any view, this is not one
of the rarest of rare case warranting award of death sentence. Learned
counsel pointed out that the cases rested purely on circumstantial evidence
and, at the time of the commission of the offence, he was only 34 years of
age and he later married, having wife, children and father. Further, it was
also pointed out that he was originally a rickshaw puller, coming from very
poor circumstances and hence could be reformed and rehabilitated.
We may now consider whether the case falls under the category of
rarest of the rare case so as to award death sentence for which, as
already held, in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 5 SCC 546 this Court laid down three tests, namely, Crime
Test, Criminal Test and RR Test. So far as the present case is
concerned, both the Crime Test and Criminal Test have been satisfied
as against the accused. Learned counsel appearing for the accused,
however, submitted that he had no previous criminal records and that
apart from the circumstantial evidence, there is no eye-witness in the
above case, and hence, the manner in which the crime was committed
14 | P a g e
is not in evidence. Consequently, it was pointed out that it would not
be possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the crime was
committed in a barbaric manner and, hence the instant case would
not fall under the category of rarest of rare. We find some force in
that contention. Taking in consideration all aspects of the matter, we
are of the view that, due to lack of any evidence with regard to the
manner in which the crime was committed, the case will not fall under
the category of rarest of rare case. Consequently, we are inclined to
commute the death sentence to life and award 20 years of rigorous
imprisonment, over and above the period already undergone by the
accused, without any remission, which, in our view, would meet the
ends of justice.
A quarrel had broken out and prosecution witnesses gave evidence that
the accused had caused immense bodily harm to the victims. The
accused were charged under sections 302/34 and 323,324 read with
149 of the IPC. Based on the inconsistent evidence of prosecution
witnesses with that of medical evidence and other probable
circumstances, the trial court concluded that the prosecution could not
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them.
The high court, however, found the accused guilty, thus sentencing two
of them to life imprisonment, and three to imprisonment for one year,
along with a fine.
3
2017 (4) SCALE 42
15 | P a g e
The bench at the apex court, comprising Justice C Prafulla Pant and
Justice NV Ramana, observed that all the prosecution witnesses were
relatives and the prosecution failed to present evidence of independent
witnesses for the incident, which took place on a public road in broad
daylight.
Justice Ramana, speaking for the bench, was quoted as saying: “In the
facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with
discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions, which draws
us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses
cannot be a basis to convict the accused.”
Allowing the appeal of the accused and setting aside the judgment of
the high court, the bench held: “The Court should always make an
endeavour to find the truth. A criminal offence is not only an offence
against an individual but also against the society. There would be
failure of justice if innocent man is punished.”
16 | P a g e
CRIME RATE STATISTICS
6000
5000
4000 2012
2013
3000
2014
2000
2015
1000 2016
0
HARYANA UTTAR HIMACHAL BIHAR RAJASTHAN
PRADESH PRADESH
17 | P a g e
Comparison of data of cases of murder, (Section 302)
of 3 states for 3 years.
CHANDIGARH 24 20 14
1200
1000
800
2014
600
2015
2016
400
200
0
HARYANA PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
18 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=302%20ipc+doctype
s:judgments
http://www.livelaw.in/sc-acquits-five-accused-27-yr-old-murder-
case/
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=latest+judgement+on+302+ipc
&oq=latest+judgement+on&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j35i39j0l4.8837j0j
4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/in
dex.php?Title=Indian%20Penal%20Code,%201860
19 | P a g e