SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 127

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7044 of 2007]
Decided On : 20-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Anything used for the offence is a weapon.
Nature of house is immaterial for attracting offence of house trespass u/s 452 IPC.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 r/w 34 – Accused persons Coming to victim with Thums up bottles and telephone wire – Tying telephone around neck of victim and pulling it from sides – Causing a ligature – Hitting victim with Thums up bottles – Bottle and wire normally are not weapons but used as such instantly – Intention to kill and result of the act proved – Offence fully covered by section 307 read with section 34. (Para 17, 18)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 452 – Accused persons entering office of victim – High Court setting aside conviction u/s 452 on the ground that incident took place in office and not private house – For attracting offence of trespass the house need not be a private house – Provision does not speak about nature of house – Law protects any house from trespass, vide Section 448 IPC – It further protects persons within the house from being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own house – Impugned judgment unsustainable. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case:

       The victim Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao was the President of Bhimavaram Taluk Lorry Workers Union.

       Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao and some other Lorry Workers collected Rs. 10,000/- as donations to perform the marriage of the daughter of a poor lorry worker.

       A-1 to A-4 being incensed over collection of money from their area assaulted the victim and tried to kill him.

       A-1 to A-4 were convicted and sentenced under Section 452 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

       The High Court acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court further modified the conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one -under Section 324 IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed

Judgment :-

S.A. Bobde, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, and acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]. The High Court further modified the conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one -under Section 324 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two months each and also to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused collectively as compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) – the victim. Earlier, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows:

A-1 to A-4 under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each.

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court, the present appeal is filed.

3. The prosecution case is that the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was the President of Bhimavaram Taluk Lorry Workers Union. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao @ Bandi Srinu and A-2 - Chintha Krishna @ Bandi are brothers. A-4 -Chintha Lakshmana Rao is their cousin. A-3 -Addla -Umamaheswara Rao is the close associate of A-1, A- 2 and A-4. They are all residents of Bhimavaram. About a fortnight prior to the date of incident – 20.04.1998, the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and some other Lorry Workers collected Rs. 10,000/- as donations to perform the marriage of the daughter of a poor lorry worker. That incensed the accused who believed that P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) ought not to have collected donations from their locality. On 20.04.1998 at about 8.00 pm when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office near Anakoderu Canal in Undi Road, Bhimavaram, the accused armed with deadly weapons entered the office, abused P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in filthy language and threatened him with death because he had collected donations from their area. They attacked him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao hit him on his head with the cool drink bottle causing a grievous injury and instigated other accused to tie a telephone wire around his neck to kill him. He along with A-2 - Chintha Krishna and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao tied the telephone wire around the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and pulled it from both sides to strangulate him with the intention to kill him. A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on his right cheek with an iron rod. A-2 - Chintha Krishna beat him on the forehead and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on the left eye and on the cheek. On making a hue and cry, P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was rescued by others, who were present. On a complaint, Crime No. 85/98 under Sections 307 and 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered, investigated and a charge sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed and read over to the accused. They did not plead guilty.

4. P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked apart from M.Os. 1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above.

6. P.W. 3 (Kotipalli Srinivas) and P.W. 5 (Sunkara Sreenivasa Rao) eye witnesses were declared hostile. P.W. 7 (Marri Sambhasiva) is the circu
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top