Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
Kummari Dummalapati Nageswara Rao, S/o Veeraiah and anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 1019 of 2010
Decided On : 19-12-2023
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal - Section 457, 342, 412 - The court found the appellants guilty of charges under Section 457, 342, and 412 of the IPC. The judgment was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 342 and 457, and confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 412 of the IPC. The appellants were entitled to a refund of the fine amount if paid under Section 457 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dacoity at the house of the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased and theft of cash, gold ornaments, and silver articles. The prosecution proved the commission of dacoity and the arrest of the appellants with stolen property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish charges under Section 342 and 457 of the IPC against the appellants. However, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 412 of the IPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants criminally trespassed and wrongfully confined the deceased, and whether they were found in possession of stolen property. The court also considered the sufficiency of evidence for the charges under Section 342, 457, and 412 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the prosecution proved the commission of dacoity, it failed to establish the identity of the persons involved. The evidence was insufficient to prove charges under Section 342 and 457 of the IPC, but it was sufficient to establish the charge under Section 412 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The judgment was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 342 and 457, and confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 412 of the IPC. The appellants were entitled to a refund of the fine amount if paid under Section 457 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is by the appellants who were the A.3 and A.5 to the judgment, dated 23.08.2010 in S.C.No.561 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the present appellants guilty of the charges under Section 457, 342 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning about the quantum of sentence sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month each for the charge under Section 457 of the IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month each for the charge under Section 412 of the IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year for the charge under Section 342 of the IPC and that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for the sake of convenience.
3. (i) The S.C.No.561 of 2009 arose out of committal order in P.R.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur, pertaining to Crime No. 7 of 2009 of S.H.O., Holagunda Police Station, which was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, it was numbered as Sessions Case and made over the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool for disposal in accordance with law.
(ii) The case of the prosecution in brief as set out in the charge sheet is that. G.Agalur Narsa Reddy was son of Basanna Gowd, 70 years, belongs to Gajjahalli Village of Holagunda Mandal. He was the father of the LW.1-Gajjehalli Agalur Yerriprasad Reddy who is the de-facto complainant. LW.2-Gajjehalli Agalur Sundaramma is the wife of the deceased. LW.3-Chakali Ramalingamma is the maid servant of the deceased. LW.1 and his family were residing at Bellary. They came to their native village Gajjehalli for Sankaranti festival. On 14.01.2009, while returning to Bellary, they took namely LW.2- Gajjehalli Agalur Sundaramma along with them who is the wife of the deceased, while leaving his father Narsa Reddy and LW.3 maid servant in the house. During the said night, deceased and the maid servant slept in the house. On the intervening night of 14/15.01.2009, at about 12 hours, six (6) unknown offenders forming into unlawful assembly with a common object to commit dacoity, by arming with daggers, knives and sickles, gained entry in to the house. One (1) of them stood at the gate. Five (5) offenders trespassed into the house of LW.1 through ventilator and the steps. The maid servant due to the sound woke up and saw the five (5) unknown offenders and that they used criminal force, hold the legs of deceased and tied him and covered bed sheet over his face and caused suffocation with knowledge that it is sufficient to cause his death. They also tied the maid servant to a bench close to the cot. They demanded her in Kannada language to deliver the keys and valuable papers by threatening her at knife point. She kept quite due to fear. They broke the open iron box and three almirahs and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver ornaments and cash and decamped with booty. The maid servant somehow got herself released and rushed to LW.4-Gajjehalli Agalur Basavana Gowd and informed the occurrence at 03.30 AM. LW4 rushed in to the house and found Narsa Reddy lying dead on the cot. He informed the same to LW.1 by phone. Then LW.1 along with his mother and wife came down to Gajjinahalli Village and saw the dead body lying on the cot with a cut injury extending from middle of right ear to midpoint of cheek. On verification, they found missing of cash of Rs.1,20,000/- and (1) Two gold chains (2)one Gold Nagara Billa, (3) Muty
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the conviction if the overall evidence is credible.
The conviction under IPC Sections 391 and 395 was undermined by unreliable identification evidence and procedural delays, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the appellants.
The judgment establishes the importance of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and the conduct of the accused in determining guilt in a dacoity case.
For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.
Point of Law : Conviction for an offence of dacoity less than five persons is not sustainable. It was also held that before an offence under Section 395 of the IPC can be made out, there must be an a....
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
