IMPORTANT POINT
As nobody can enter into the mind of accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and nature of the injuries caused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 148,307/149, 302, 302/149 and 324-Prosecution of appellant, for offences of rioting, attempt to commit murder of (PW.1),murder of one S. and causing hurt to one another-Appellant tried for said offences along with seven others- Trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC but sentenced all of them for offence under Section 148, 324/149 and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/149 and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.-On appeal, conviction of all accused except the appellant under Section 302/149 of IPC was set aside- Appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 324 and 302 of IPC was upheld –Appeal- All the injured witnesses P.W. 1 to 5 consistently stated that appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar on his head- Autopsy surgeon, opined that , death had occurred due to laceration over the vertex of the scalp and multiple skull fractures-As nobody can enter into the mind of accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and nature of the injuries caused- Instantly appellant had chosen a crow bar as the weapon of offence- He had further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which had caused multiple fractures of skull- This clearly showed force with which the appellant had used the weapon- The cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly led to one and the only conclusion that appellant intended to cause death of deceased-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 15, 16, 21, 22)
       Facts of the Case :
       Appellant, was prosecuted herein in the instant case for offences of rioting, attempt to commit murder of (PW.1),murder of one S. and causing hurt to one another. Appellant was tried for said offences along with seven others. Trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC but sentenced all of them for offence under Section 148, 324/149 and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/149 and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.On appeal, conviction of all accused except the appellant under Section 302/149 of IPC was set aside. Appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 324 and 302 of IPC was upheld.
       2.Aggrieved appellant has preferred present appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
       All the injured witnesses P.W. 1 to 5 consistently stated that appellant assaulted the deceased with a crow bar on his head. Autopsy surgeon, opined that , death had occurred due to laceration over the vertex of the scalp and multiple skull fractures. As nobody can enter into the mind of accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and nature of the injuries caused. Instantly appellant had chosen a crow bar as the weapon of offence. He had further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which had caused multiple fractures of skull. This clearly showed force with which the appellant had used the weapon. The cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly led to one and the only conclusion that appellant intended to cause death of deceased. Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Prasad, J. —

1.The sole petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2006 affirming the judgment and order dated 6.4.2006 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2003, has preferred this petition for grant of special leave to appeal.

2.Leave granted.

3.Altogether eight persons, including the appellant were put on trial for various offences punishable under Section 148, 307/149, 302, 302/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.The appellant, in particular, was charged for offences of rioting, attempt to commit murder of S. Ramulu (PW.1), murder of S. Ramalingam and causing hurt to S. Ramchandriah (PW.5), punishable under Section 148, 307, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The trial court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code but sentenced all of them for offence under Section 148, 324/149 and 302/149 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 and rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 148 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, conviction of all the accused except the appellant under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside. However, the conviction of other accused under other offences have been maintained to which we are not concerned in this appeal. Appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been maintained.

5.Sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence.

6.According to the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 5 and accused persons are close relatives and they are residents of village Tirumalairi. There was a dispute between the prosecution party and the accused persons over a pathway for which an altercation took place earlier between them and a case bearing Crime No.15 of 1997 was registered at the Police Station Balanagar under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. S. Ramulu (PW.1) and his brothers were prosecuted in the said case and ultimately they were found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. According to the prosecution, accused persons were annoyed on account of their conviction and waiting for an opportunity to take revenge.

7.According to the prosecution, on 9.7.2002 at 7 A.M., S. Ramulu (PW.1)was on way to his newly constructed house situated at the end of the village. He noticed one of the accused and two other persons at the house of S. Thirumalaiah (PW.6). One of the persons at the house of PW.6 was Bichya Naik who happened to be the Chairman of Watershed Committee. One of the accused and said Bichya Naik requested PW.6 to provide chairs for the school to which S. Ramulu (PW.1) replied that the chairs purchased by the Sarpanch could be spared for the purpose. The said accused did not like that and abused PW.1 for which the later admonished him. At this, according to the prosecution, the said accused assaulted PW.1. In the meanwhile, according to the prosecution, the appellant herein came from behind, held his head and threw him down.

8.According to the prosecution, accused persons assaulted S. Ramulu (PW.1), S. Narsimha (PW.2), S. Nagaiah (PW.3), S. Anjaiah (PW.4) and S. Ramchandriah (PW.5, )and all of them have sustained various injuries on their person. The present appellant, according to these injured persons, hit the deceased with a crow bar at his head causing serious injury. A report of the incident was given by PW.1-S.Ramula to PW.11-Rajender Kulkarni, the Station House Officer of Balanagar Police Station and on that basis, crime no. 147 of 2002 was registered. Rajender Kulkarni, Sub-Inspector of Police sent all the injured to the Government Hospital, Shadnagar but Ramalingam succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. All the injured witnesses, namely PW.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 525

2010 (5) Supreme 196SUPREME COURT OF INDIAG.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.Singapagu Anjaiah — AppellantversusState of Andhra Pradesh — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2010(Arising out of Slp(Crl.)No.7091 of 2008)Decided on : 6-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINTAs nobody can enter into the mind of accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and nature of the injuries caused.

Cases Referred (3)

2010 (5) Supreme 196
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Singapagu Anjaiah — Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2010
(Arising out of Slp(Crl.)No.7091 of 2008)
Decided on : 6-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
As nobody can enter into the mind of accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and nature of the injuries caused.