Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY
Angadi Chennaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-30-85
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - MULTIPLE OFFENSES - SECTION 71 IPC - RIOTING AND CAUSING INJURIES - SEPARATE OFFENSES - SENTENCE UNDER BOTH SECTIONS NOT BARRED - WEAPONS USED - DEADLY WEAPONS - INFERENCE FROM EVIDENCE - INJURIES ON ACCUSED - EXPLANATION BY PROSECUTION NOT NECESSARY - SENTENCE NOT EXCESSIVE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted of rioting armed with deadly weapons under Section 148 IPC and causing simple injuries with deadly weapons on individual persons under Section 324 IPC. They challenged the convictions and sentences, arguing that the sentence under both sections was opposed to Section 71 IPC, the prosecution story was false as the injuries were not incised, the weapons used were not recovered and produced before the court, the injuries on some of the accused were not explained by the prosecution, and the sentence was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sentence under both sections was not barred by Section 71 IPC as the offenses were separate and distinct. The court also found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the weapons used were deadly weapons and that the injuries on the accused did not render the prosecution story false. The court further held that the sentence was not excessive.
Issues: 1. Whether the sentence under both Section 148 and 324 IPC was opposed to Section 71 IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution story was false due to the nature of the injuries? 3. Whether the weapons used were deadly weapons? 4. Whether the injuries on some of the accused rendered the prosecution story false? 5. Whether the sentence was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 71 IPC does not bar the sentence under both Section 148 and 324 IPC as the offenses are separate and distinct. 2. The nature of the injuries does not render the prosecution story false as the weapons used could cause lacerated injuries rather than incised injuries. 3. The evidence supports the conclusion that the weapons used were deadly weapons. 4. The injuries on some of the accused do not render the prosecution story false as they could have been caused by their own people or by the victims turning around to inflict injuries. 5. The sentence is not excessive considering the nature of the offenses committed.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence as confirmed by the Additional Sessions judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 301/80 dated 21-4-1932 modifying the judgment of the Principal Assistant sessions Judge, Guntur, in S C No 100/ 80. The revision petitioners are A1, a3, A5 and A9. The facts that led to this revision petition are as follows :
( 2 ) SHO, Nagarampalem, filed a charge-sheet against these appellants and 14 others, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 32i, etc. It is alleged in the charge- sheet that on 8-12-1979, all these cused formed into an unlawful assem- armed with oeadly weapons like spears, axes, etc, and attacked and his party people causing inju-W1 and others. The case was as Crime No. 262/79 P S nagarampalem. The learned Magistrate i. e. , the Additional Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Guntur, committed the accused to take the trial under various sections of the Code to the Court of the sessions in his order dated: 30-6-1980 in P R C No. 9/1980. The learned principal Assistant Sessions Judge tried the accused for various offences in S C no. 100/80 and found the accused 1 to 5, A9 and A10 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 148 I P C beyond all reasonable doubt and while convicting them thereunder, sentenced each one of them to suffer R I for one year. He further found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 I P C on three counts-causing injuries with a deadly weapon (axe) on the person of P Ws. 1, 3 and 4. While convicting thereunder the Court sentenced him to suffer R I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default, to suffer R I for one month for the offence under Section 324 on each count. He found A3 further guilty of the offence under Sec. 324 I P C on three counts for causing injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and similarly sentenced him as in the case of A1. He found A9 also guilty of the offence under Section 324 ipc on two counts for causing injuries on the persons of PWs. 2 and 3 and sentenced him to undergo two years R I and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under each count. He found A5 guilty under Sec. 324 IPC on two counts for causing injuries to PWs. 1 and 2 and while convicting him thereunder, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, to suffer R I for one month. He also found similarly some other accused guilty of various offences on various counts and sentenced each one of them to various periods of imprisonment and fines. He however acquitted A6, A7, and A15.
( 3 ) THE accused who were found guilty and convicted, i. e. , A1, A2, A3, a4, A5, A9, A10 and A1 1 preferred appeal against their convictions and sentness to the Sessions Judge at guntul The learned Additionsl Sessions judge heard the matter in Criminal appeal No, 301/80. The learned Sessions Judge in the appellate Court acquitted A4 and A11 of all the charges. The convictions of A1, A2, A5 and A10 under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing injuries to P W 1 by a deadly weapon was confirmed. However, the sentence of R I for two years imposed by the Court of first instance on each counts was reduced to four months R I, while maintaining the fine imposed. The convictions of A2, A4, A5 and A9 under section 324 I P C for causing injuries to P W 2 by means of a deadly weapon were also confirmed but the sentence of two years R I awarded by the trial court was reduced to four months R 1- while maintaining the fine. The conviction of A1, a3 and A3 under Section 324 ipc for causing injuries io P W 3 by means of a deadly weapon was confirmed. But, the sentence of two years R I awarded by the lower Court was altered to four months R I while maintaining the fine. The convictions of A1 to A3, A5, a9 and A10 under Section 148 I P C were confirmed and the sentence of one year R Iimposed by the trial Court was altered to four months R I. The rest of the charges on which the tria
AI
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
