LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/velthepu-srinivas-and-others-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-now-state-of-telangana-and-anr-20240206/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Velthepu Srinivas and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
6 February 2024
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 2852 of 2023
Result
Disposed
Bench
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Citation
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 87
Acts & Sections
IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 87
Issue for consideration
The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim.
Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, s. 304 Part II – Murder with common intention – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Political animosity between two groups led to the murder of the deceased – Prosecution witnesses corroborating incident of accused A 1 stopping an auto, dragging the deceased to the house of A-4, and the other accused-A2, A4 joined A-1 and assaulted the deceased with various weapons, whereas, A-3 used a stone to assault the deceased – Conviction u/ss. 302/34 and sentence for life imposed by the courts below – Correctness:

Held: As regards A1, A2 and A4, the decision of the trial court and the High Court is concurred with – Their analyses and conclusions are based on correct appreciation of evidence and law – However, as regards, the culpability of A-3 for murder, testimonies of four eye-witnesses state that the A-3 had used a stone to hit the deceased’s head, he never took axe in his hands – Perusal of the evidence would reveal that it is not the case of the prosecution that A-3 was along with the other accused while the deceased was dragged to the house – After the other accused assaulted the deceased with sword, A-3 came thereafter and assaulted the deceased with stone lying there – Evidence insufficient to deduce a conclusion that A-3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased – In fact, both the courts mechanically drew an inference against A3 u/s. 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused – Even though, A-3 might not have had the common intention to commit the murder, nevertheless, his participation in the assault and the wielding of the stone certainly makes him culpable for the offence that he has committed – A-3 should have had the knowledge that the use of a stone to hit the head of the deceased is likely to cause death – Thus, he is held guilty of the offence u/s. 304 Part II – Conviction and sentence of A-1, A-2 and A-4 u/s. 302/34 is upheld, however, the conviction of A-3 is modified to s. 304 Part II and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. [Paras 17, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32]

Keywords: Murder · Common intention · Witnesses · Corroboration · Sentence for life · Evidence · Eye-witnesses · Appreciation of evidence and law · Testimonies · Oral and documentary evidence · Scene of offence · Post-mortem report · Likely to cause death

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. This criminal appeal by appellants (accused 1 to 4) is against the concurrent conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentence for life imposed by the Trial as well as the Telangana High Court. For the reasons to follow, while we confirm the judgment and sentence with respect to A-1, A-2 and A-4, the conviction and sentence of A-3 is however modified to Section 304 Part II and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The details of the crime, trial, decisions of the Courts, followed by our analyses and conclusions are as follows. 2. The
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →