Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
L.N. Reddy and M.S.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Konikineni Rama Koteswara Rao - Appellants
Vs.
State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2010
Decided On : 20-03-2014
For the Appellant : T. Bal Reddy for G. Vijaya Saradhi
For the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indina Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with 149 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Section 216 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction – Case of prosecution was that villagers owing alliance to Telugudesam party, planned to install statue of late Sri N.T. Rama Rao in the middle of village. Ramaiah, deceased, was said to be a person eking out livelihood through labour work, and few months before the incident, he purchased an auto-rickshaw to ply between Rupenagunta and Narsaraopet. P.W. 2, was said to have been engaged as a driver – When deceased was in his house together with P.W. 1, his mother, P.W. 2 came and informed them that, A7, stopped auto-rickshaw and broke windscreen – On receiving information, deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are said to have gone to the place where A7 was present they are said to have found A2 and A3 at that place and when the deceased was asking A7 as to why he has broken the glass of the auto-rickshaw, A7 was said to have grew wild and attacked the deceased, A2 hacked him with an axe on the head and A3 hit him with a stick. deceased is said to have fell down on the spot with injuries and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 raised cries, A2, A3 and A7 are said to have run away – Thereafter deceased is said to have been shifted to Hospital – Statement of P.W. 1 was recorded by that time, the deceased was said to be undergoing treatment – Held, It is, no doubt, true that Section 215 Cr.P.C. condones certain minor defects in framing of the charges and such a defect cannot tell upon the result in a criminal case. Such omissions, however, are confined to the statement of offence, or particulars required to be stated in the charge – One should not lose sight of the fact that a criminal Court is conferred with the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charges at any stage, before the judgment. Whatever be the reasons to frame the charge in such a manner, at least when trial Court was preparing the judgment, and it came to the conclusion that A2 alone is found guilty, the charge ought to have been scrutinized and if necessary, steps could have been taken to alter it. Failure to take steps in that direction would certainly have its impact upon the case of the prosecution and the corresponding right of the accused in its own way – Names of A1 and A5 did not figure in Ex. P41, at all. Once a charge is to the effect that a group of persons resorted to a criminal act with a common objective, it becomes virtually impermissible to isolate one of them and to allege that the offence was committed exclusively by that person. If that is so, the content of the charge and the nature of evidence must be different – Evidence, which was initially planned by the prosecution, to be in general against a group of the accused cannot transform to be the one, pointedly against one of the accused – In view of defects pointed out by us in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence ordered against A2 cannot be sustained in law – conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant-A2, are set aside – Criminal Appeal allowed. (Paras 16, 17, 18 and 19)
L.N. Reddy, J.
1. As many as 20 accused were tried by the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Narasaraopet in S.C. No. 29 of 2008 for committing the murder of the accused, by name Kodhari Ramaiah, in the afternoon of 26.02.2007 in Rupenagunta Village, Nakerikal Mandal.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 26.02.2007, the villagers of Rupenagunta, owing alliance to Telugudesam party, planned to install the statue of late Sri N.T. Rama Rao in the middle of the village. Ramaiah, the deceased, was said to be a person eking out livelihood through labour work, and few months before the incident, he purchased an auto-rickshaw to ply between Rupenagunta and Narsaraopet. P.W. 2, Saidulu, was said to have been engaged as a driver.
3. On 26.02.2007, when the deceased was in his house together with P.W. 1, his mother, P.W. 2 came and informed them that Vadlamudi Appa Rao, A7, stopped the auto-rickshaw and broke the windscreen. On receiving the information, the deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are said to have gone to the place where A7 was present. They are said to have found A2 and A3 at that place and when the deceased was asking A7 as to why he has broken the glass of the auto-rickshaw, A7 was said to have grew wild and attacked the deceased, A2 hacked him with an axe on the head and A3 hit him with a stick. The deceased is said to have fell down on the spot with injuries and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 raised cries, A2, A3 and A7 are said to have run away. Thereafter, the deceased is said to have been shifted to the Government Hospital, Narsaraopet for treatment. The statement of P.W. 1 was recorded on 26.02.2007 at 5.30 p.m. By that time, the deceased was said to be undergoing treatment.
4. Crime No. 14 of 2007 was registered by Nakerikal Police Station mentioning the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 and 427 I.P.C. The deceased is said to have succumbed to injuries on 01.03.2007. The provision in the F.I.R. was altered and the steps required under law, such as preparation of scene of offence panchanama, inquest and post-mortem were taken. During the course of investigation, the involvement of other accused is said to have been noticed. Therefore, a comprehensive charge sheet was filed alleging offences against A1 to A20 under various provisions of law. On receipt of the same, the trial Court framed six charges in different combinations of the accused. They pleaded not guilty. Trial was taken up, wherein P.Ws. 1 to 32 were examined and Exs. P1 to P51 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 4 were taken on record and the contradictory statements of P.W. 8 were taken on record as Exs. D1 and D2. The accident register maintained by the Government Hospital was marked as Ex. X1.
5. Through its judgment, dated 04.01.2010, the trial Court acquired A1 and A3 to A20, but convicted A2 alone for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed. Hence, this appeal.
6. Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for A2, submits that the trial Court committed mistake at the stage of framing the charges. According to him, specific allegation in charge No. 3 was made only against A1, A2 and A5, and though the charged accused were three in number, the trial Court framed it under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. He further submits that whatever may have been the circumstances under which such a charge was framed, once A1 and A5 were acquitted, there does not exist any basis to convict A2. He further submits that the deposition of P.W. 1 is to the effect that the deceased was in a position to speak when he was undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital and that his statement was recorded by the police, whereas that was not made part of the record and that the same amounts to withholding of vital information to the Court.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits tha
