SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.
Chinnam Kameswara Rao & Others
Versus
State of A.P. Rep. by Home Secretary
Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2011
Decided On : 01-10-2013
Acquittal Appeal - Section 302 IPC - [COMMON INTENTION] - [Section 302, Section 307, Section 324, Section 34 IPC] - The court discussed the powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the legal position regarding absence of a charge under Section 34 of the IPC, and the evidence of common intention on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. The court held that the High Court was justified in holding the appellants guilty based on the evidence of premeditated plan and common intention to kill the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the High Court, after the trial Court had acquitted them. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with another person, confronted the deceased and another person, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the other person.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them for the offences based on the evidence of premeditated plan and common intention to kill the deceased.
Issues: The issues included the powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the legal position regarding absence of a charge under Section 34 of the IPC, and the evidence of common intention on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellate Court has the power to comprehensively review the entire evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal, and absence of a charge under Section 34 of the IPC does not ipso facto lead to any inference of prejudice to the accused. The court also found that the evidence on record sufficiently proved the common intention of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants for the offences.
Judgment :-
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. This appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 assails a judgment and order dated 8th February, 2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the acquittal appeal filed by the State and while reversing the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life besides levying a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The appellants have been further convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 27th April, 2003, at around 7.00 p.m., the appellants along with one Papisetti Praveen who was arrayed as accused no.4 stopped the deceased-Bezawada Srinivasa Rao and PW.1-Alapati Seshadri while the latter were on their way home at Bethavolu Park Centre - the place of occurrence. An altercation between the accused persons on the one hand and the deceased and PW-1 on the other had according to the prosecution taken place on the previous day i.e. on 26th April, 2003, while the deceased and PW.1 were bringing some palmyrah nuts from the fields. PW-3-Sonti Koteswara Rao, a shopkeeper who runs a pan shop in the vicinity, claimed to be a witness to that incident and had intervened and pacified the parties which passed off without any physical harm to either side except that according to the prosecution appellant no.1-Chinnam Kameswara Rao had threatened the deceased with dire consequences. With the above incident in the background on 27th April, 2003, the accused persons allegedly confronted the deceased and PW-1-Alapati Seshadri, armed with stout casuarina sticks except accused no.4 who was unarmed. An altercation followed between the two sides as a sequel to the incident of the previous day in the course whereof appellant no.1-Chinnam Kameswara Rao is alleged to have struck a blow on the head of the deceased. When PW-1-Alapati Seshadri intervened, the remaining two appellants came down upon him and gave stick blows on his head also. The injured, as also Alapati Seshadri-PW-1 fell to the ground, whereupon A-4 is alleged to have kicked and given fist blows to the deceased while A-1 to A-3 continued to indiscriminately hit both of them with their sticks which caused bleeding injuries to both the injured. Taking both of them as dead, the appellants are alleged to have run away from the spot towards the house of appellant no.1. Sonti Srinivasa Rao S/o Nageswara Rao (PW-2), Sonti Koteswara Rao (PW-3), Sonti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Veeraiah (PW-4) and M.V. Gopala Krishna Murthy (PW-6) are alleged to have witnessed the incident. PW-2-Sonti Srinivasa Rao with the help of one P. Vasudeva Rao shifted both the injured to the Government Hospital, Gudivada for treatment who informed the Gudivada Town I Police Station about the arrival of the injured in the hospital whereupon PW-9-B. Jaya Raju, ASI, reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, marked Exhibit P-6. A case under Section 324 read with 34 IPC was on the basis of that statement registered and the injured shifted to the University General Hospital, Vijaywada for further treatment. Around 2.50 a.m. on 28th April, 2003, the deceased succumbed to his injuries in the hospital at Vijayawada whereupon the Investigating Officer altered the offence from Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation that included the arrest of the accused persons, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, seizure of the weap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.