Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GANGADHARA RAO, RAMANUJULU NAIDU
PASUPULA NARSAIAH - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIRMAL - Respondent
Decided On : 07-01-82
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 380 IPC - ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA) CHILDREN ACT, 1951 - SECTION 2(D), 21, 23 - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - ANDHRA PRADESH BORSTAL SCHOOLS ACT, 1925 - ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) CHILDREN ACT, 1920 - ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREA) CHILDREN PROTECTION ACT (IX OF 1343 FASLI) - ANDHRA PRADESH CHILDREN ACT, 1979 (ACT 26 OF 1979) - CONVICTION FOR MURDER AND THEFT - SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TWO YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT - APPEAL - APPELLANT'S AGE AT THE TIME OF OFFENCE - APPLICABILITY OF CHILDREN ACT - DIRECTION TO SEND APPELLANT TO CERTIFIED SCHOOL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder and theft and sentenced to life imprisonment and two years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had killed the deceased, an old woman living alone, in order to steal her gold ornaments. The appellant was caught red-handed while running away from the scene of the crime and confessed to the murder and theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was cogent and clinching and confirmed the appellant's convictions under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. However, the court held that the appellant could not be sent to prison as he was under fourteen years of age at the time of the offence and was thus covered by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Children Act, 1951.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant could be sent to prison despite being under fourteen years of age at the time of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant running away from the scene of the crime and his confession to the murder and theft, was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The court held that the appellant could not be sent to prison as he was under fourteen years of age at the time of the offence and was thus covered by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Children Act, 1951, which prohibits the imprisonment of children under the age of sixteen.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's appeal and directed that he be sent to the Senior Certified School at Yakutpura, Hyderabad, till he completes 18 years of age.
( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 362 of 1980 and 591 of 1980 are preferred by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1979 on the file of the Sessions judge, Adilabad. While Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 1980 is preferred by him from jail, Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 1980 is preferred by an advocate on instructions from his relatives. The appellant is thus common in both these appeals.
( 2 ) THE appellant, Pasupula Narsaiah, is an young boy. He was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 380 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The learned Judge directed that the two sentences should run concurrently.
( 3 ) THE case of the prosecntion is briefly as follows : The appellant is a resident of Sarangapur village. He was aged about 14 or 15 years. He was working as a farm servant under Sandu Nadipi Rajam. The deceased, advala Ashamma, was an old woman aged over 50 years. She was living alone in her house at Sarangapur village. Her sons, who were married were living separately in the same village.
( 4 ) ON 9-9-1979 at about 11 P. M. , Sandu Pochalu (P. W. 2), a resident of that village and a neighbour of the decesed. heard some cries coming from the direction of the house of the deceased and he saw the appellant running out of that house. He gave a chase. Meanwhile, on hearing the cries, Chepuri Chinnamma (P. W. 4), Gurram Devagoud (P. W. 5) and advala Ramulu (P. W. 6) came there. They caught hold of the appellant and tied him to an electric pole in front of the house of P. W. 5. On being questioned, the appellant confessed before them that, in order to commit theft of the gold ornaments, he had killed the deceased. He showed the gold padigalu (M. O. 3) which were with him. Thereupon, Padham rajadu (P. W. 3), who is a village servant, was sent to bring the Police patel. On the next day morning, Mamidi Lingareddy, Police Patel (P. W. I) came to the village. He saw the dead body of Ashamma and after enquiring the witnesses, he sent a report (Ex. P-1) to the Police Station at khanapur. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Khanapur (P. W. 9) registered the crime, issued express F. I. R. (Ex. P-5), came to the village and held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 5 and other panch- ayatdars. Ex P-2 is the inquest report. He sent the body of the deceased to the Medical Officer, Khanapur (P. W. 8) for post-mortem examination. He examined P. Ws 1 to 6 and others in the village. The Inspector of Police (P. W. 10), who received the message about the offence, reached the village and took over investigation. He seized the gold padigalu (M. O. 3) from the appellant under a mahazarnama (Ex. P-3) in the presence of P,w. 5 and others. He arrested the appellant. The Woman Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital at Khanapur (P. W. 8) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. She opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia, and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex. P-4 ). The Inspector of Police (P. W. 10) after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet.
( 5 ) THE appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he was taken awsay in the morning while he was asleep. According to him, his date of birth was 8-3-1996 and he examined a purohit (D. W. 1) who had written bis horoscope.
( 6 ) BELIEVING the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.
( 7 ) IN this appeal, it is submitted by Sri Ananda Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no direct evidence, that this is a case of circumstantial evidence, that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not cogent and clinching and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge erred in finding the appellant guilty. He further submitted that, in any event, the learned Sessions Judge erred in committing him to prison instead of sending him to the Junior Certified School under the Andhra prade
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.