The Supreme Court on August 10, 2026, declined to restore the conviction of four respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence prevented such a course.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had earlier altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and reduced the sentence to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from an incident during the intervening night of March 8 and 9, 2006. According to the prosecution, the victim had gone to his agricultural fields for watering crops when he was attacked with sickles and iron pipes.
The Sessions Court had convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The High Court, however, found discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. It altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed six years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 each.
The State approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the original conviction.
Supreme Court Examines Evidence
The Supreme Court closely examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found inconsistencies concerning the place of occurrence and the manner in which the injured victim was taken for treatment.
PW1, projected as an eyewitness, had turned hostile. His version indicated that the victim was first taken from the field to a graveyard and later to his residence. Other witnesses gave materially different accounts, including a claim that the victim was taken directly from the graveyard to the hospital in a jeep.
The Court also examined the statement allegedly recorded from the injured victim before his death. The medical evidence showed that the victim had sustained 22 injuries, including injuries caused by sharp-edged and blunt weapons.The Bench noted that the detailed nature of the statement, coupled with the serious injuries suffered by the victim, raised doubt about its reliability. There were also discrepancies concerning the timing of the medical intimation and corrections in the relevant document.
Court Criticises High Court’s Surmises
While the Supreme Court declined to restore the Section 302 conviction, it also disapproved of certain reasoning adopted by the High Court.
The Bench observed that the High Court had itself acknowledged that no witness had supported its theory regarding what might have happened during the incident.
“The aforesaid observations are based purely on surmises and conjectures,” the Supreme Court remarked, while explaining that such reasoning could not form the basis for altering the conviction.
At the same time, the Supreme Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to restore the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Decision
The Court further noted that the respondents had already undergone the six-year sentence imposed by the High Court and had not challenged the modified conviction.
Finding no sufficient ground to interfere, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s criminal appeal and allowed the matter to attain finality.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy and Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2120 of 2017
Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: August 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
