Back
2003(7) Supreme 509
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of A.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2003
Decided on 15-10-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Promila, A.P. Jyothish, Ms. Deepthi and Ms. Tameen Hashmi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. T. Anamika and Guntur Prabhakar, Advocates.
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 34-Common intention-There has to be a pre-arranged plan between two or more person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting offence-Care has to be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention-Prosecution must lead evidence from which common intention of accused can be safely gathered.
Held : Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Under this Section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances of the situation. Though common intention may develop on the spot, it may, however, be anterior in point of time to the commission of offence showing a pre-arranged plan and prior concert. (See Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1963 SC 1413). In Amrit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1972 Crl.L.J. 465 (SC) it has been held that common intention pre-supposes prior concert. Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention with common intention; the partition which divides their bonds is often very thin, nevertheless the distinction is real and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice. To constitute common intention, it is necessary that intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. Undoubtedly, it is a difficult thing to prove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group of persons. But however difficult may be the task, the prosecution must lead evidence of facts, circumstances and conduct of the accused from which their common intention can be safely gathered. In Magsogdan and Ors. v. State of U.P. (AIR 1988 SC 126) it was observed that prosecution must lead evidence from which the common intention of the accused can be safely gathered. In most cases it has to be inferred from the act, conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case in hand. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit offence for which they can be convicted. The facts and circumstances of cases vary and each case has to be decided keeping in view of the facts involved. Whether an act is in furtherance of the common intention is an incident of fact and not of law. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Three persons including present appellants, who were accused Nos. 2 and 3 faced trial by learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam for allegedly having caused homicidal death of one Parasachinna Ramababu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ). All the accused persons and the deceased who were closely related were in hostile terms on account of property dispute. The prosecution claimed that the appellants snuffed at deceased s life.
2. Accusations while led to trial of the accused persons are as follows :
There was enmity between the accused and the deceased. Though elder members of the community tried to settle the dispute there was no permanent solution. On 16.8.1997 accused Parasa Satyanarayana (A-1) removed the stones at the boundary of the disputed land. Parasa Mohan Rao (PW-1) and his sons visited the place and chastised the accused and their father for their undesirable behaviour. This led to further animosity. On 19.8.1997, the fateful day, three accused persons along with their father came to the house of PW 1 and picked up quarrel. A-1 tried to hack PW 1 with a knife. But he warded off the stroke with the stick. Parasa Ghaneswara Rao and Parasa Venkateswara Rao and O Gitchaiah protested and questioned the accused persons about their behaviour. Accused persons left the place. Subsequently, at about 10.45 a.m. deceased was returning to his house. As he reached near a shopping complex, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention murdered the deceased. Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao-appellant No. 1 (A-2) caught his right hand and Parasa Raja Govind Rajulu-appellant No.2 (A-3) caught his left hand. The deceased was practically immobilized. Taking advantage of this, Parasa Satyanarayana (A-1) gave various blows on the neck, back and the abdomen with the knife in a gruesome manner and even separated his head from the body. After doing so, A-1 carried the severed head and threw it at some distance. The ghastly attack was witnessed by Parasa Mohana Rao (PW-1), Parasa Veeramma (PW-2), Parasa Yesoda Rao (PW-3) and Parasa Ganeswara Rao (PW-4). Information was lodged at the police station immediately. Investigation was undertaken and subsequently accused persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed. While A-1 was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short the IPC ) other accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC. 13 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed trial. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses the Trial Court found that A-1 was guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but found the present appellants to be not guilty by giving benefit of doubt. Matter was carried by the State in appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment found them guilty. The High Court held that they were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each one was to undergo life imprisonment. The appeal filed by A-1 was dismissed.
3. It is submitted that A-1 has not preferred any appeal, but present appellants have questioned the reversal of their acquittal to conviction by the High Court.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there are many significant improvements made by PWs 1 and 2. Before the police they did not say to be waiting outside their house, while in court they said so. It is highly improbable that four persons saw the attack but did not even try to protect or save the deceased. The High Court has failed to notice that the witnesses were highly interested. PWs 3 and 4 are not independent witnesses and PWs 1 to 2 were their supporters in their public life activities. It is improbable that present PW 1 would have alone gone to the police station, after havi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
