Man sentenced to death for killing six family members in Andhra in 2021
A local court on Friday sentenced a 50-year-old man to death for the brutal murder of six family members in Visakhapatnam district on April 15, 2021. Terming it a case of "extreme brutality", the court noted that six lives, including two children, were taken in cold blood.
Battina Appalaraju entered the house of Bommidi Ramana in Juthada village of Pendurthi mandal and hacked six of his family members to death over a longstanding land dispute between the two families.
The victims included Bommidi Ramana (63), Usharani (35), Alluri Ramadevi (53), Nakkella Aruna (37), a six-month-old infant, and a two-year-old child.
After committing the murders, Appalaraju surrendered at the local police station.
Terming it a case of "extreme brutality", the court noted that six lives, including two children, were taken in cold blood.
Following the trial, the court awarded Appalaraju the death penalty. It also sentenced him to up to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under various IPC sections and imposed fines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
ED opposes M3M director's plea to quash graft FIR: ‘Don't need sanction to prosecute private person'
The Enforcement Directorate Tuesday opposed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court a plea moved by M3M Director Roop Bansal seeking to quash a corruption case registered against him for allegedly conspiring to bribe a trial court judge. In the case, Bansal is booked under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) along with Section 120-B of the IPC. Bansal's lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery. The counsel argued that a person could not be prosecuted solely under Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy unless tried alongside the public servant accused, and that without sanction against the judge, the entire case stood vitiated. Countering this, senior panel counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing with Lokesh Narang for the ED, contended that the plea of want of sanction was not available to Bansal as he was a private individual, not a public servant. The ED further submitted that even if proceedings against a public servant were barred for lack of sanction, it would not automatically nullify the prosecution of private individuals accused of aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit offences under the PCA or under Section 120-B of the IPC. After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu had recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal's plea was listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing virtually for the petitioner, sought an adjournment due to network issues. Considering the request, the bench adjourned the matter to July 30 for final arguments. The corruption FIR quashing plea in Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana has seen unusual twists and turns. It was first listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case in January this year. The matter was then listed before Justice Kaul, before whom it was dismissed as withdrawn. It then went to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who heard the matter and reserved for judgment on May 2, with pronouncement due on May 12, when the Chief Justice, citing 'the interest of the institution' and the need to 'preserve and protect the reputation and dignity' of Justice Sindhu, reassigned it to himself on May 10. This case was assigned to Justice Kaul after Chief Justice Nagu recused himself from hearing it on July 3, citing the need to uphold the principle that justice must not only be done but 'should also appear to have been done.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ICICI-Videocon loan probe: PMLA appellate body upholds ED's property seizure in case against Chanda Kochhar
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has allowed the seizure of properties in a case involving former ICICI Bank chief executive Chanda Kochhar , her husband Deepak Kochhar and Videocon Group promoter Venugopal Dhoot , overturning a ruling of the Adjudicating Authority to release its order on an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate that had attached the properties, the tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority "ignored crucial evidence" and based its ruling on "irrelevant considerations", particularly on the role of Deepak Kochhar in managing NuPower Renewables (NRPL) and a Rs 64 crore loan that the company received from Videocon-linked to the investigating agencies - ED and the CBI - this ₹ 64 crore was a quid pro quid for helping the Videocon Group get a loan from ICICI Bank where Deepak Kochhar's wife was a top executive. The Kochhars and Dhoot have denied the tribunal said the Adjudicating Authority placed undue emphasis on the shareholding structure of NRPL while overlooking material facts, including the control exercised by Deepak Kochhar as its managing director. On paper, the transfer of funds to NRPL may have been shown as from one Videocon Group company to another, "but if the veil is lifted, the affairs were under control of Deepak Kochhar", the tribunal said in its order pronounced tribunal ruled that the property transactions, including the transfer of a flat at CCI Chambers in South Mumbai were "nothing but proceeds of crime ". It noted that the flat purchased by a Videocon-linked entity for ₹3.25 crore was transferred to a family trust associated with Deepak Kochhar for just ₹11 rejected the defence's claim that the sanctioning of the loan to the Videocon Group was a collective decision at ICICI Bank, saying that Chanda Kochhar's active role, lack of disclosure and urgency in approving the loan raised serious concerns. It said as per rules, Chanda Kochhar should not have attended the meeting of a committee that cleared the loan, but she not only participated but also sanctioned the loan under the urgent category."This is taken to be nothing but commission of crime which includes even the offence under Section 420 IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)," the order upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision declining to confirm the attachment of ₹ 10.5 lakh seized during a raid on a Kochhar-linked company but confirmed the provisional attachment of all other that it did not find any illegality in the attachment, the tribunal said it "rather find perverse finding in the hands of the Adjudicating Authority on all the issues relevant to the case".
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
No evidence of negligence: HC quashes rash driving case against student
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has quashed a criminal case against a man who drove his car allegedly in a rash and negligent manner during the Covid-19 lockdown along Marine Drive. "The alleged incident occurred during the pandemic on a Sunday morning at around 7.15 am. Due to the pandemic, very few vehicles and people were on the road. Therefore, in our view, the allegations against the petitioner about rash and negligent driving to cause hurt is unlikely to happen, and there is no evidence on record to that effect," said Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil on July 18. Churchgate resident, 24-year-old Raaid Khan, a student, was booked by Marine Drive police under IPC Section 279 (rash driving on a public way). The FIR, lodged on the complaint of a police constable, stated that on June 14, 2020, five cars were being driven recklessly and negligently from Mafatlal Bath Junction at Chowpatty to NCPA and from there towards Churchgate junction by taking "crazy turns," thus endangering the lives of the drivers as well as others. Khan was arrested and released on bail. Since after filing of the chargesheet four years ago nothing happend, Khan moved HC to quash the case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The At-Home Belly Shrinker: Just 1 Teaspoon, Empty Stomach purefitnow Learn More Undo You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Senior advocate Manjula Rao, for Khan, argued that the roads were completely empty and it was no one's case that a life was endangered or injury was caused to a person or property. The judges said it is an admitted fact that the alleged incident occurred during the pandemic period around 7.15 am. "There is no doubt that there is no loss to life or to any other property due to the alleged driving of the petitioner and the other co-accused," Justice Patil dictated the order for the bench. The judges noted that witness statements did not disclose Khan was seen driving rashly and negligently. Except for a "bald statement" that he was driving negligently, "there was no evidence to substantiate the charge" under Section 279. Referring to Section 184 (driving dangerously) of the Motor Vehicles Act, they said it was not the prosecution's case that Khan was driving at a very high speed. "The only allegation is that the car was being driven in a 'zig-zag' manner," they added. The judges said "no case of commission of offence alleged is made out" and "it would be an abuse of process of law to continue the present proceedings" against Khan. They directed him to pay Rs 2 lakh cost to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center within two weeks.
