Back
2004(1) Crimes 238 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Goura Venkata Reddy —Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 519-521 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 672-674 of 2003
Decided on 19-11-2003
For the Appellant :Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, V.R. Avula, C. Prakash Reddy, Sanjay Jain, Adolf Mathew and D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Sr. Advocate, B. Ramana Murthy, Ms. T. Anamika, Mrs. Swarupa Reddy, Advocates for Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate/Advocates.
Important Point
No general rule could be laid that stone could not cause injury leading to death punishable u/s 302 IPC and it would depend upon facts of each case.
Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 147—Accused, 20 in number, way laid 8 prosecution persons who were travelling in motor cycles, dragged away two persons deceased and caused them injuries with stones picked up from way side—Trial Court convicted only eight and conviction upheld by High Court—Appeal—Witnesses first took injured to hospital to save their lives hence it could not be said there was delay in lodging FIR—Witnesses apprehending assault on them had run away and thus no injury on any prosecution witness stood explained—A 6 was not named in FIR but his name was given in statements recorded immediately after FIR—Merely because PW1 had some confusion about presence of A6, it could not be a ground to doubt veracity of other witnesses. (Paras 4 to 6)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Accused persons, 20 in number, way laid two deceased and assaulted them with stones picked up from way side—No general rule could be laid that stone could not cause any injury leading to death—No evidence however that any particular injury was intended which would result in death—Accused however could be attributed with intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death—Conviction was liable to be recorded under Section 304 Part I and sentence of 10 years imprisonment awarded. (Para 7)
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 107—Abetment—May be instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid—A 1 instigated other accused and accused way laid two deceased and caused them injuries by stone picked up from way side—Other accused convicted u/s 304 Part I IPC—A1 was liable to be convicted u/s 304 Part I r/w 109 IPC. (Para 8)
Result : Appeals allowed partly.
Judgment
Arijit Pasayat, J.—Different political ideologies may be followed in a democractic set up; that is but natural. But when differences become physical and lead to loss of life by violent acts it reflected sadly on the political maturity of people and the citizens at large. The present case, as the prosecution version shows, is one of those large number of instances where physical violence has led to loss of lives of two persons.
2. The appellants who faced trial along with 11 others and two deceased persons, and the prosecution witnesses belong to different political parties. The difference between them is said to be long-standing on account of political rivalry, and it reached its crescendo on 18th October, 1995 and 19th October, 1995. On the first of the dates, relative of one political leader was allegedly kidnapped and his dead body was found later on the next day i.e. 19th October, 1995 to which the present case relates. The two deceased persons, namely, Ambi Reddy and Chinna Ramasubbaiah (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2) along with PWs 1 to 4 and two others were travelling by four motorcycle with two occupants in each. As the prosecution version shows the 20 persons way laid them. D-1 and D-2 were dragged out of the motorcycle and at the instigation of A-1 Goura Venkata Reddy and one M. Venkateswara Reddy others picked up stones from the way side and threw them causing grievous injuries. After causing injuries, assailants-accused persons went away. The occurrence took place at 11.45 a.m. The accused persons were traveling in a Jeep and two lorries. The injured persons were taken to the hospital; one of them (D-2) was declared dead at the first hospital where he was taken. The doctor, however, advised the relative to take the other deceased D-1 to another hospital for better treatment. At the said hospital in spite of the best efforts his life could not be saved. The first information report was lodged around 1.00 p.m. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, the charge sheet was placed. It is to be noted that during investigation the name of M. Venkateswara Reddy was deleted pursuant to the directions of the Sub Divisional Police Officer. As such in total 19 accused persons were charge sheeted. However, the case of one was separated and 18 accused persons were tried. Out of them A-1 to A-8 were convicted, and the rest were acquitted. A-1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’). A-2 to A-8 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 147. A-1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, while A-2 to A-8 were similarly sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 and two years for offence punishable under Section 147. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the acquittal of the 10 persons and for non-conviction of A-1 under Section 147 and for such non-conviction under Section 148 in relation to A-2 to A-8. The convicted persons also questioned correctness of the their conviction. The High Court by the impugned order upheld the acquittal of the 10 accused persons. Appeal relating to non-conviction under Section 148 so far as A-2 to A-8 are concerned was also dismissed. In case of A-1 conviction was made under Section 147 and by a modified order sentence of two years was imposed. The convicted accused persons have preferred these appeals questioning the common judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. As the appeals related to the same judgment, they are taken up together for disposal.
3. According to Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the High Court cannot be maintained on more grounds than one. There was delay in lodging the complaint. In the first information report only 7 names were given out of which name of M. Venkateswar
