Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause death; a sudden quarrel due to intoxication without prior enmity does not suffice to establish such intent, though conviction under Section 326 IPC may still be sustainable based on the nature of the assault.

Revision filed under Section 397 /401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Crl.Revision by setting aside the Judgment dt 03.12.2012 made in Crl.A.No.117/2011 on the file of the court of the Special Sessions Judge- Cum-IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District against the Judgment, dt 13-05-2011 made in the SC No. 182 / 2011 on the fiel of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3768 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order passed in Judgment dt 13.05.2011 made in SC No. 182 /2011 on the file of the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge , Tirupathi Chittoor district and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3798 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the the appellant on bail by suspending the Judgment dt. 3-12-2012 made in CrlA.No.117/2011 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge Cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirpathi, Chittoor District against the Judgment dt. 13-05-2011 made in SC.No.182/2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati , Chittoor District. and pass.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. Both the petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) by learned trial court vide judgment dt.13.05.2011 in S.C. No.182 of 2011 and the conviction was confirmed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dt.03.12.2012 in Crl.A. No.117 of 2011.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:

a) On 09.01.2011 A.2 and P.W.4 met A.1 at Jelsa wine shop in Tirupati, where they drank together till 10.00 P.M., when A.1 started commenting on P.W.4. A quarrel broke out and A.1 and A.2 assaulted P.W.4. Later, A.1 took a Jacky from his Tata Sumo and beat P.W.4 on the head several times, causing severe bleeding injuries, for which P.W.4fell unconscious. The said incident was witnessed by L.Ws.2 to 4 at the scene of offence, caught hold A.1 and A.2 and handed over them to police. On the report of L.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2011 and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that conviction under Section 326 as well as Section 307 of I.P.C. cannot simultaneously run together. He further submits that there are no ingredients to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the present petitioners. There are no intention to kill P.W.4. Rather, the facts suggest that both the petitioners and P.W.4 were friends and were consuming liquor together at a wine shop at the relevant point of time. The alleged incident occurred due to intoxication of all the persons involved, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not maintainable in this case.

b) In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar , 1(1965) AIR (SC) 843, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

“A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Proof of intention or