Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Chengala Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.05.2017 in S.C.No.41/2010 delivered by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalli convicting and sentencing Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 9, 11 to 20, 22 to 24 for different offences, the accused have filed the Criminal Appeals as narrated in the following table :
TABLE
Accused No. Name of Accused / Resident of Charges Framed by the Trial Court Convicted and punished for the offences Criminal Appeal filed by accused
A1 Chengala Venkata Rao, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam i. U/s 147 & 148,
ii. U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC
iii. U/s 302 r/w 109 IPC
iv. U/s 506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-U/s 147
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-U/s 148
Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 302 r/w 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
Imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 302 r/w 109 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-U/s 506 IPC
Crl.A.No.544/2017
A2 Perla Yellayya, Bangarammapeta i. U/s 147 & 148,
ii. U/s 324 IPC
iii. 302 IPC Rigorous imprisonme
The court clarified that mere membership in an assembly does not imply unlawful assembly or vicarious liability without proof of a common criminal intent.
Prosecution must establish shared common object and active participation of accused in unlawful assembly for conviction under IPC; mere presence is insufficient.
The unlawful assembly's common object did not support the charge of murder; liability under Section 149 requires proof of foresight for the act committed, demonstrated through individual roles during....
Point of Law : Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused and more so, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an acquittal judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
An FIR cannot be quashed if allegations disclose potential criminal activity, including vicarious liability under unlawful assembly provisions, despite claims of mere presence at a gathering.
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the common object of the accused in a fatal assault.
The mere presence in an unlawful assembly implicates accused members under Section 149 IPC, regardless of individual intent, if actions align with the assembly's common purpose.
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
