Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Velthepu Srinivas and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2852 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Mr. Devadipta Das, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sirajudden, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Seshagiri Rao, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Lothungbeni T. Lotha, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, Adv. Ms. Medha Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Puppala, Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Evidence of PWs mutually corroborative and conclusively establishes guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt – Though High Court saw that trial court extensively examined evidence and considered all submissions, it has nevertheless considered evidence afresh and after a detailed examination, arrived at same conclusion – Considering statements of eye-witnesses, coupled with post-mortem report, it is not possible to contend that A-3 would have had intention to commit murder of deceased and as such, he cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC – Even though, A-3 might not have had common intention to commit murder, nevertheless, his participation in assault and wielding of stone certainly makes him culpable for offence that he has committed – A-3 acquitted of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but he is liable for offence under 304 Part II IPC – A-3 should have had knowledge that use of a stone to hit head of deceased is likely to cause death – However, evidence is insufficient to deduce a conclusion that he shared a common intention with other accused to commit murder of deceased – Considering role that A-3 has played, A-3 held guilty of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and his sentence altered – Conviction and sentence of A-1, A-2 and A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld. (Paras 16, 17, 25, 28, 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Instant criminal appeal by appellants is against concurrent conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentence for life imposed by Trial as well as Telangana High Court.
Findings of Court:
In the past, this Court has considered factors such as lack of medical evidence to prove whether act/injury was individually sufficient to cause death, a single blow on head with a hammer and lack of cogent evidence of eye-witnesses that accused shared a common intention to commit murder as some factors to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Result : Criminal Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. This criminal appeal by appellants (accused 1 to 4) is against the concurrent conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentence for life imposed by the Trial as well as the Telangana High Court. For the reasons to follow, while we confirm the judgment and sentence with respect to A-1, A-2 and A-4, the conviction and sentence of A-3 is however modified to Section 304 Part II and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The details of the crime, trial, decisions of the Courts, followed by our analyses and conclusions are as follows.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 4 belonging to the same family, and the deceased, come from the same village - Janda Venkatpur, Asifabad, Telangana. It is alleged that the sister of the deceased and the wife of A-4 were political aspirants and they contested the Gram Panchayat elections. In the said elections, the sister of the deceased succeeded and the wife of A-4 lost and that, unfortunately, led to an animosity between the two groups, eventually leading to the murder of the deceased which is described as follows.
3. On 15.11.2001, at about 8 AM, the deceased was going to Luxettipet on some work in an auto-rikshaw. In the same autorikshaw, one Sanga Swamy @ Thruputhi (PW-6) and Smt. Chetimala Rajitha (PW-9) were travelling as co-passengers. When the auto reached the house of A-4, it is alleged that A-1 stopped the auto-rickshaw and dragged the deceased out by pulling his legs. At the same time, A-2 joined A-1 and both the accused dragged the deceased towards the house of A-4. At that point, it is alleged that A-1 to A-4 attacked the deceased with an axe, a sword, a stone and a knife, thereby inflicting severe bleeding injuries leading to death of the deceased on the spot.
4. The son of the deceased, Kona Kiran Kumar, later examined as PW-1, being an eye-witness, proceeded to the police station and reported the incident at about 9 PM by way of a complaint (Exhibit P-1). The Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-17), Luxettipet received the complaint and registered an FIR (Exhibit P-32), and took up the investigation. He then recorded the statement of PW-1.
5. In view of the gravity of the crime, the Circle Inspector of Police (PW-18) took up further investigation and immediately proceeded to the village to examine the scene of offence. He found the body of the deceased in the front yard of A-4’s house. He enabled PW-15 to take photographs of the dead body (Exhibits P-21 to 30) and himself drew the sketch of the scene of offence (Exhibit P-37). He also conducted an inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of PW-10 and PW-12 (panch witnesses). The inquest report was marked as Exhibit P-5. He also seized a stick (MO.4), control earth (MO.5), blood-stained earth (MO.6), cotton full shirt (MO.7) and a baniyan under cover of a panchnama. PW-18 recorded the statements of PWs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15. The prosecution maintained that PWs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are eyewitnesses to the incident.
6. The Judicial Magistrate First-Class (PW-16) also recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 9 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The Postmortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr Victor Dinesh (PW-11) at 3PM on 15.11.2001 at the Government Civil Hospital. PW-11, in his report, found 8 incised wounds, 3 partial amputations and 1 deep lacerated wound. It was his opinion that the cause of death was due to cardio-pulmonary arrest due to transaction spinal cord at atlanto occipital joint.
7. The Sub-Inspector (PW-17) is said to have apprehended all the accused on 23.11.2001 and produced them before PW-18 in his office. PW-18 recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of PW-13 and PW-14 (panch witnesses). In pursuance of the confession, all the accused led him and the panch witnesses to the field of one Mr. Appani Gangaiah at Laximpur Shivar. There, A-1 recovered and showed an axe, A-2 a sword and A-4 a knife which
