IPC Section 302 — Punishment for murder

Judgments citing IPC Section 302

1. Vandanam Chinna Balaiah vs The State of Telangana on 19 August, 2015

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Aug 2015

   Case Name: Vandanam Chinna Balaiah vs The State of Telangana on 19 August, 2015 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 July, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in Complaint – Land Dispute – Eyewitness Testimony – Acquittal Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction based solely on inconsistent eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence is unsustainable. 2. Significant delays in lodging a complaint, coupled with police insistence on directing suspicion, raise doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. 3. Failure to investigate a crucial aspect of the alleged motive (land dispute) constitutes a serious lapse in investigation, impacting the credibility of the prosecution. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a judgment dated 19.08.2015, convicting the Appellant/Accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his brother, based on allegations of a land dispute. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony (P.W.6), recovery of a weapon (axe), and circumstantial evidence. The Appellant c

2. Pottala Jayaraj vs State of A.P. on 13 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Pottala Jayaraj vs State of A.P. on 13 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice M.G. Priyadarshini Subject: Criminal Appeal – Dowry Death, Homicide, Section 304B IPC, Section 498A IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC Key Legal Propositions 1. For a conviction under Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death), the prosecution must establish cruelty or harassment *soon before* the death, connected with a demand for dowry, and rule out natural or accidental death. Proximity and a live link between the cruelty/harassment and the death are essential. 2. To establish an offence under Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty towards a woman), the prosecution must prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury, connected to an unlawful demand for property or failure to meet it. Mere demand for dowry without accompanying harassment is insufficient. 3. Section 300 IPC Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) is inapplicable when death results from an act *following* a provoked incident, such as smothering after a slap, as the loss of self-control must be contemporaneous w

3. N. Ashok Reddy vs The State of A-P on 27 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Apr 2023

   Case Name: N. Ashok Reddy vs The State of A-P on 27 April, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder, Theft, and Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. Circumstantial evidence, particularly the ‘last seen theory’, can be sufficient for conviction if the chain of circumstances is complete and points unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. 2. A short time gap between the last sighting of the accused and the deceased together and the discovery of the deceased’s body strengthens the ‘last seen theory’. 3. Corroborating evidence, such as recovery of the victim’s vehicle and the accused’s abscondance, can support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 17.01.2014, convicting the appellant, N. Ashok Reddy, for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stemming from the death of the deceased, with whom he had a financial dispute regarding a land sale. The prosecution’s case rested p

4. Tholem Sambaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others on 19 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana19 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Tholem Sambaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others on 19 January, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Revision – Acquittal – Murder – Evidence – Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 & 401 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 & 401 CrPC is limited to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of findings, not converting acquittal into conviction. 2. An acquittal cannot be interfered with unless there is a clear illegality in the lower court’s decision. 3. Hostility of key witnesses and insufficient evidence are valid grounds for acquittal, and the revisional court will not interfere with such a finding unless it is demonstrably erroneous. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Revision Case challenges the acquittal of respondents 2 to 55 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C. No. 545/05. The case involved allegations that the respondents attacked and caused the death of the deceased (D1 and D2), suspecting them of practicing sorcery. The petitioner (PW9), an injured witness, argued that

5. Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Bandari Mallaiah vs State Of Telangana on 27 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 January, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani and Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in FIR – Identification of Accused – Common Intention – Motive Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) can be examined to assess the genuineness of the prosecution case, but does not automatically invalidate it if adequately explained. 2. In homicide cases, the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and confession statements alone are insufficient without corroborating evidence. 3. The prosecution must prove the common intention between accused persons to commit the offence, and mere motive is insufficient to establish guilt. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arose from a judgment convicting the appellant/accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with Accused No.1, attacked and killed the deceased due to a di

6. Yamula Prasad Rao & Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 10 February, 2014

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Feb 2014

   Case Name: Yamula Prasad Rao & Anr. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 10 February, 2014 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 302 & 201 IPC – Murder & Evidence Tampering – Appreciation of Eyewitness Testimony – Standard of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. A conviction based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose presence at the scene is doubtful is unsustainable. 2. Identification of an accused must be based on specific features, and a Test Identification Parade conducted without such details is unreliable. 3. Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of articles and call records, must be examined in conjunction with direct evidence and cannot be relied upon in isolation to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, convicting the appellants (Accused Nos. 1 & 2) for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (tampering with evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was based primarily on the testim

7. Bandari Bucchaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 September, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana23 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Bandari Bucchaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 23 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Smt Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 374 Cr.P.C. – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Abetment of Suicide – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Indian Evidence Act Section 113-A Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage and evidence establishes cruelty by the husband, courts may presume abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof of a homicidal death, while Section 306 IPC applies to cases of abetment of suicide. Erroneous application of Section 302 when evidence suggests suicide is a legal irregularity. 3. Continuous harassment and cruelty inflicted upon a wife can establish abetment of suicide, leading to conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonm

8. Mohd. Gulam Rasool vs State of Telangana on 16 March, 2011

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana16 Mar 2011

   Case Name: Mohd. Gulam Rasool vs State of Telangana on 16 March, 2011 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 23 September, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 302 IPC – Murder – Dying Declaration – Culpable Homicide Key Legal Propositions 1. A dying declaration, while a crucial piece of evidence, must be assessed for reliability and consistency with other evidence on record. 2. Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof of intention to kill, and circumstantial evidence must establish this beyond reasonable doubt. 3. In cases of quarrel leading to homicide, the court must consider if the act was committed in the heat of passion or with premeditation, potentially leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Mohd. Gulam Rasool, was convicted by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 16.03.2011 in S.C.No. 505 of 2010. The prosecution’s case was that the

9. Yenagandula Shekar vs The State of Telangana on 13 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. An appellant cannot file two appeals challenging the same judgment. 2. A second appeal filed when a first appeal challenging the same judgment is already pending is liable to be dismissed. 3. Miscellaneous applications pending in a dismissed appeal are also closed. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant filed a second Criminal Appeal (No. 583 of 2019) challenging the same judgment dated 17.09.2018 in Sessions Case No. 342 of 2013, which was already being challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 2643 of 2018. Held: A. On Filing of Multiple Appeals: Majority View: The Court held that the appellant could not file two appeals challenging the same judgment. The present appeal was deemed an abuse of process and was liable to be dismissed. Dissenting View: None. B. On Pendency of First Appeal: Majority View: Since a first appeal was already pending, the second appeal was considered redundant and dismissed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pending Miscellaneous Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applications in the dismissed appeal were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. Decision: T

10. Indrakanti Shekar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 02 December, 2013

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana2 Dec 2013

    Case Name: Indrakanti Shekar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 02 December, 2013 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 June, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Smt. Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. – Dowry Harassment – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must be established, and any gaps or inconsistencies can be detrimental to the prosecution's case. 2. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any lingering doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. 3. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof, and the court must ensure that conjectures do not lead to a wrongful conviction. Judgment Summary Background: The Criminal Appeal stemmed from a judgment dated 02.12.2013, convicting the appellant/accused for offences under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, the accused’s wife, was subjected to dowry harassment and ultimately murdered by the accused, who attempted to s

11. Gollela Srinivas @ Sreena vs The State of A.P. on 21 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana21 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Gollela Srinivas @ Sreena vs The State of A.P. on 21 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 21 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman and Smt Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 302 IPC – Dying Declaration – Corroboration – Dowry Harassment Key Legal Propositions 1. A sole oral dying declaration requires corroboration, especially when inconsistencies exist regarding its communication to authorities and potential witnesses. 2. The absence of the accused at the scene of the crime, coupled with a lack of evidence establishing their presence, necessitates extending the benefit of doubt. 3. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent improvements in the narrative raise concerns regarding the reliability of the prosecution's case. Judgment Summary Background: The Criminal Appeal stemmed from a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the appellant/accused No. 1 was found guilty of causing the death of his wife by burning. The prosecution alleged dowry harassment as the motive. The trial court had acquitted co-accused A2 and A3 under Sections 498A IPC and

12. Shaik Haji vs State of A.P. on 08 December, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana8 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Shaik Haji vs State of A.P. on 08 December, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 08 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appreciation of Evidence – Sentence Modification Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof of intent or knowledge that an act is imminently dangerous and likely to cause death. 2. The presence of a sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation may mitigate a charge under Section 302 IPC, potentially reducing it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 3. The number of wounds inflicted is not the sole determinant of intent; the circumstances surrounding the act, including provocation and lack of undue advantage, are crucial. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Shaik Haji, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his mother, Zaithun Begum. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a dispute over money sent by his brother, attacked and killed his mother with an axe. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguin

13. The State of A.P. vs Jaluguri Chiranjeevr & Ors. on 27 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jan 2023

    Case Name: The State of A.P. vs Jaluguri Chiranjeevr & Ors. on 27 January, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 January, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Laxman and Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C. – Acquittal Appeal – Dowry Death Key Legal Propositions 1. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. 2. In an acquittal appeal, the appellate court can convict for an uncharged offence if the accused was aware of the essential ingredients and had a fair chance to defend, provided there is no failure of justice. 3. Mere evidence of dowry receipt and demand, without specific proof of involvement of each accused, is insufficient for conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents/accused by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment and death. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to harassment for additional dowry

14. K.Satyanarayana Singh, S/o K.Bhavani Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Oct 2023

    Case Name: K.Satyanarayana Singh vs The State Of A.P. on 06 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 October, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman & Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 302, 307, 324 IPC, Section 149 IPC, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on inconsistent evidence is improper. 2. Acquittal for a serious offence (Sections 302/307 IPC) does not automatically warrant acquittal for a lesser offence (Section 324 IPC) if sufficient evidence exists for the latter. 3. Corroboration of eyewitness testimony with independent evidence is crucial for establishing guilt. Judgment Summary Background: These appeals arise from a judgment convicting six accused under Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, after being acquitted of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The charges stemmed from an altercation resulting in injuries to the complainant and the deceased, Yellam, who later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. Held: A. On Sections 302/307 IPC (Appeal No. 805 of 2013 – filed by the complainant s

15. K. Narasimha vs The State of Telangana on 07 July, 2015

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana7 Jul 2015

    Case Name: Criminal Appeal No.747 of 2015 Court: The High Court of Telangana Date of Judgment: 05 January, 2023 (as indicated in the final order, though judgment was delivered earlier) Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon'ble Smt Justice K. Sujana Subject: Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appreciation of Evidence – Reduction of Charge to Section 304 Part II IPC. Key Legal Propositions 1. A single injury, even if caused by a dangerous weapon, may not establish an intention to cause death, potentially leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention or knowledge that their actions would likely cause death to secure a conviction under Section 302 IPC. 3. The testimony of a close relative, even against their own family member, can be considered reliable evidence if not discredited through cross-examination. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the death of his wife, caused by an axe injury. T

16. Sved Masood Razvi vs The State of Telangana on 28 July, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana28 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Sved Masood Razvi vs The State of Telangana on 28 July, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 28 July, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Law – Murder – Appreciation of Evidence – Child Witness Testimony Key Legal Propositions 1. The testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny, particularly when it forms the sole basis of conviction. 2. The competence of a child witness must be thoroughly assessed by the trial court, ensuring they understand the importance of truthfulness. 3. A conviction based solely on the testimony of a child witness is vulnerable if the witness's competence is not properly established and the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 20 September 2010, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the deceased’s 7-year-old daughter (P.W.4). The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the trial court relied solely on the potentially tutored testimo

17. Pepqllv Praveen Goud vs The State Of A.P. on 13 February, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana13 Feb 2023

    Case Name: Pepqllv Praveen Goud vs The State Of A.P. on 13 February, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 13 February, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha and Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Sections 302, 379, 201 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Theft Key Legal Propositions 1. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all circumstances firmly and satisfactorily, forming a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 2. Absence of explanation to incriminating circumstances can be considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstances establishing guilt. 3. In cases of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is relevant but not essential, and the insistence on proving motive is not required if the incident is otherwise proven. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 04.03.2014, convicting the Appellant/Accused No. 1 under Sections 302, 379, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Manchanpally Satyanarayana and theft of his belon

18. Marpally Pandu vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 27 January, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Marpally Pandu vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 27 January, 2023 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 January, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani and Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder and Robbery Key Legal Propositions 1. Circumstantial evidence, to establish guilt, requires fully established circumstances consistent only with the accused’s guilt, excluding all other hypotheses. 2. A recovery of evidence at the instance of an accused, even if the initial information is inadmissible as a confession, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act if it leads to the discovery of a fact. 3. Minor discrepancies in witness testimony are permissible, and the court must assess whether they relate to material facts or minor details. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant/accused was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, for offences under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Smt. B. Rajamma and theft of her gold chain. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. Held: A. On Proof of Off

19. Buiunuru Indra Reddy vs The State of A.P. on 05 July, 2023

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana5 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Buiunuru Indra Reddy vs The State of A.P. on 05 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 05 July, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Surender Subject: Criminal Appeal – Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC, Section 498-A IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires proof beyond mere allegation of dowry demand; circumstantial evidence must substantiate the connection between the harassment and the death. 2. Section 304-B IPC is not a lesser offence than Section 302 IPC, and the prosecution must establish the necessary ingredients for either offence. 3. Evidence of dowry harassment, even if not directly linked to the cause of death, can sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Judgment Summary Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 304-B IPC, Section 498-A IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, concerning the death of the deceased within seven years of marriage. The prosecution alleged dowry harassment leading to her death by throttling. The trial court acquitted the appellant No.1 under Section 302 IPC but convi

20. Mohammad Khan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 18 November, 2013

    High Court of High Court for State of Telangana18 Nov 2013

    Case Name: Mohammad Khan & Md. Hanreeda Bee vs The State of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana on 18 November, 2013 Court: The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman & Smt Justice Juwadi Sridevi Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder – Section 302 IPC & Abetment – Section 109 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Extra Judicial Confession Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires careful appreciation of all evidence and must exclude reasonable doubt. 2. Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and must be voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind; the circumstances surrounding the confession are crucial. 3. Reliance on hearsay evidence, such as statements made to third parties regarding motive, is improper and cannot be used to establish facts. Judgment Summary Background: The appeals arise from a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC (abetment of murder) by the Sessions Court of Nizamabad. Accused No.1 and No.2 were found guilty of murdering the deceased, allegedly due to an extra-marital affair. The prosecution relied on