ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. Suresh Reddy and K. Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Behara Mohan – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 and 551 of 2024
Decided on 26.12.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 250 and 251] – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 – Section 3(2)(v) read with Sections 302/34, 326 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Murder due to acid attack – Common intention – Life sentence – Procedural requirements which ensure fairness in trial, must be adhered to strictly – A hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to accused to defend himself would vitiate trial as being meaningless and stage-managed, which is in violation of principle of judicial calm – Framing of charges is upon consideration of record of case and documents submitted therewith and after ‘hearing submissions of accused and prosecution in that behalf – Special Sessions Judge ought to have afforded opportunity to accused to engage a Counsel, instead of proceeding with framing of charges without hearing accused – Impugned Judgment set aside and matter remitted back to trial Court for de novo trial by affording sufficient opportunity to accused to defend their case in a proper perspective – Remanding the matter back would eventually be status quo ante from stage of hearing accused on framing of charges. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
Result: Criminal Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.—These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.
2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024 is A.2; appellant in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2024 is A.1 and Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2024 is A.3, in the aforesaid Sessions Case. In the said Sessions Case, the learned Special Sessions Judge tried the appellants herein, along with other accused A.4 to A.6.
3. Substance of charges against the accused is that– on 13.06.2023 at about 9.00 PM, on the road situated at the back side road of Monastery, Vidya Nagar, Eluru, A.1 to A.4 conspired together to commit an offence i.e. to pour acid on Smt. Yadla Fransina @ Francinamma (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with 34 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 wrongfully restrained the deceased from proceeding further and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3, at the instigation of A.1, voluntarily caused grievous hurt by pouring acid on the deceased and thereby A.1 to A.3 committed an offence punishable under Section 326-A IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 to A.4, at the instigation of A.1, intentionally and knowingly that their act would cause death, poured acid on her face and chest and caused death, and thereby A.1 to A.4 committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 committed the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, knowing fully well that the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 committed the offences punishable under IPC as mentioned in the schedule of SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015, knowing fully well that the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (va) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015, and lastly that A.5 and A.6, prior to 13.06.2023 possessed and sold away corrosive acid to A.2 without proper licence and thereby contravened Rules 13 to 15 read with 19 of the A.P. Poisonous Possession and Sales Rules, 2016 punishable under Section 6 (1) (i) of the Poisonous Act, 2019.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
(a) The deceased is a married woman and blessed with a daughter and was residing in a portion of the house of her parents situated at Vidhya Nagar, Eluru, due to differences with her husband. P.W.1 is the mother, P.W.2 is the younger sister, and L.W.2-Y.Soulu Raju is the father, of the deceased. P.W.2, who also got married, is staying in the portion of her parents’ due to disputes with her husband. The deceased was working in Veda Priya Smart Dental Clinic, Vidhyanagar, Eluru, as a Receptionist. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the daughter and son of P.W.1, and they were residing on the backside of Monastery Missionary Institute, Vidhyanagar, Eluru. A.1 is a resident of Kothagudem Colony, Eluru, and he was a painter by profession. Two years prior to the incident, A.1 attended painting works in the house of P.W.1 and he got acquaintance with P.W.2, which became love and led to an extramarital relationship between them. A.1 used to visit the house of P.W.2 frequently. The deceased and P.W.4 did not like his visits to the home of P.W.2 and raised objection for A.1 visiting their house. On that, A.1 bore grudge and conspired with A.2 and A.3 to do away with the life of deceased by attacking her with Acid. A.2, with the help of his friend A.4, secured the acid from
Procedural requirements which ensure fairness in trial, must be adhered to strictly – A hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to accused to defend himself would....
(1) Justice is not intended to be imparted to one party of lis only.(2) Attempts to expedite process of trial should not be at expense of basic elements of fairness and opportunity to Accused on whic....
Failure to provide timely, effective legal aid in death penalty trial, denying representation during key stages, violates Article 21 fair trial right, requiring de novo proceedings despite offence gr....
A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.
(1) Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to accused as is to victim and society.(2) In hallowed halls of justice, essence of fair and impartial trial lies in steadfast embrace of judicial calm.
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.