Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 966 of 1997
PETITIONER:
State of Andhra Pradesh
RESPONDENT:
Naragudem Papireddy & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2004
BENCH:
N Santosh Hegde & B P Singh.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
The short question which arises for our consideration in
this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in
concluding that the convicted appellants before it were not
guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC as has
been held by the trial court and holding the said appellants
guilty of a lesser offence punishable under sections 324 and 325
IPC ? For the purpose of deciding this question, we will deal
with only such facts as are necessary for disposal of this appeal.
In view of the findings of the trial court as affirmed by
the High Court against which there is no appeal by the
convicted accused, the fact that in the incident as alleged by the
prosecution on 8.4.1989 at 4.45 a.m. PWs.2 and 3 suffered
injuries as also the fact that in the second incident which took
place at 5.15 a.m. the mother and brother of PWs.2 and 3 were
injured and because of the injuries so suffered one of the
victims Narsimha Reddy died on 13.4.1989, is not disputed.
Therefore, the incidents as found by the trial court and the High
Court against the appellants has become final. In that
background, the trial court convicted A-1, A-2, A-5 to A-8 of
the offence under section 324 IPC. It convicted A-3 and A-4 of
an offence under section 324 read with 149 IPC.
A-1 to A-5 and A-8 were convicted for offence under
section 324 IPC for causing hurt to PW-3.
A-6 and A-7 were found guilty of offence under section
324 read with section 149 IPC.
A-1 to A-5 to A-7 were found guilty of an offence
punishable under section 302 IPC.
A-3, A-4 and A-8 were found guilty under section 302
read with section 149. A-1 to A-9 and A-10 were acquitted of
the charge under section 323 IPC. It awarded a sentence of 1
year to all the convicted accused under section 148 and those
convicted under section 324 read with 149 IPC and awarded
imprisonment for life to those convicted under section 302 read
with section 149 IPC.
In an appeal filed against the said judgment to the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, the High Court allowed
the said appeal in part and convicted A-1, A-6 and A-7 for an
offence punishable under section 325 read with 34 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months. They were
further convicted for an offence punishable under section 324
read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6
months each. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
The High Court convicted accused 2, 5 and 8 for an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
offence under section 324 read with 34 IPC and the High Court
held that the sentence already undergone would suffice for the
said offence. However, they were imposed a fine of Rs.1,000
each, in default to undergo RI for a period of 3 months each. A-
1, A-2 and A-5 to A-8 were acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
In this appeal the State of Andhra Pradesh contends that
the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the
acts of the accused which caused the death of Narsimha Reddy
would not amount to an offence punishable under section 302
IPC. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
State submitted the High Court having accepted the finding of
facts of courts below and having noticed the fact that nearly 8
persons armed with deadly weapons had assaulted 4 persons,
out of which to the deceased, they caused such grievous injuries
knowing very well that the said injuries would in the normal
course cause the death of the victim, it could not have found
them guilty of offence under section 325 only. He also
submitted from the material on record it is clear that all those
persons who assaulted the deceased, had also the intention to
kill the deceased.
Learned counsel for the respondents, of course, has
justified the judgment of the High Court.
The point to be considered by us in this appeal, therefore
is whether the respondents before us did cause the injury to
deceased Narsimha Reddy with an intention of causing his
death or caused the same with an intention of causing grievous
hurt only. This we can primarily gather from the injuries
suffered by the deceased and from the medical evidence in this
regard.
PW-14 the doctor who was then In-charge of the
Orthopedic Department, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad,
examined the deceased on 8.4.1989 at about 10.40 a.m. and he
found the following injuries on his person :
1. Fracture of right ulna;
2. Fracture of left ulna;
3. Fracture of right fibula;
4. Fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpals left.
He noticed that the patient was conscious at the time of
examination and there was no injury on any vital part of the
body. PW-16 who after seeing the post mortem report given by
Dr. Smt. Rajagopalan with whose handwriting he was familiar,
stated in his evidence that which is in conformity with the post
mortem report. In the said report, it is noted that corresponding
to the external injuries the following internal injuries were
found :
Internal Injuries :
1. Fracture of right ulna \026 lower 1/4th
2. Fracture of left ulna \026 lower 1/4th
3. Fracture of right fibula \026 lower 1/3rd
4. Fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpal bone.
In the post mortem report the cause of death is noted as
multiple fracture. We have also noticed the fact that the
deceased in this case suffered these injuries on 8.4.1989 and
died about 5 days later on 13.4.1989. A perusal of the injuries
as stated by the doctor PW-14 who first saw the victim as also
the post mortem report commented upon by PW-16, we notice
the assailants i.e. the respondents herein, caused injuries which
led to the fracture of the two hands and the right fibula along
with fracture of 4 metacarpal bones. Keeping in mind the fact
that these injuries had been caused by lathis and the assailants
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
have not used any sharp-edged weapon nor have they attacked
the victim on any vital part of the body like head or chest
leading to injuries to the internal organs or to haemorrhage,
merely from the injuries noted hereinabove, it is extremely
difficult for us to accept the argument of the State that the High
Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the
injuries caused to the deceased would not be one attracting the
provision of section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the State then
argued that these injuries cannot be read in isolation but will
have to be appreciated or noticed in the background of the
evidence led by the prosecution through eye-witnesses
including injured eye-witnesses. According to the learned
counsel, it is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that all
the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons
came with one and the only intention of causing the death of
not only the deceased but also PWs.2 and 3 because of the
enmity they entertained with the deceased and his family.
Herein it should be noted that the family of the deceased
and that of the accused are closely related descending from a
common ancestor. The victim’s father and some of the
assailants are direct brothers. Between them, there was some
dispute with regard to their ancestral property which was
pending in a civil court. That is stated to be the motive. PWs.2
and 3 stated in their evidence that in the morning of 8.4.1989 at
about 4.45 a.m. all the accused persons came and beat them
mercilessly all over the body with sticks, iron rods and knives,
but a perusal of their injury does not support their case at all
because all that is suffered by these witnesses are minor injuries
which are mostly in the nature of abrasions. There are no
incised injuries corresponding to the use of a sharp-edged
weapon. If really the intention of the assailants was to murder
these victims, it will be very difficult to comprehend that they
would come armed only with lathis and assault the victims only
on non-vital parts of body that too in case of PWs.2 and 3
causing minor injuries. In regard to the assault on the victim it
is to be seen that the very same group moved thereafter to the
house of mother of PWs.2 and 3 where the deceased was
residing, called him out and assaulted him, causing the
abovenoted 4 grievous injuries. It is to be noted herein also that
if really the intention was to cause the death of this victim we
fail to understand why at least one of the assailants did not
wield his weapon so as to attack the victim on a vital part of the
body. The nature of injuries and the manner of attack as stated
by the victims themselves indicates that the respondents did not
have either the intention to cause the death of Narsimha Reddy,
or to cause injuries which they knew to be so imminently
dangerous as would cause his death in all probability.
Learned counsel then relied upon a judgment of this
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and
Anr. (1976 4 SCC 382) to substantiate his argument that even
attack by lathis causing fracture which leads to death, could be
construed as an act of murder punishable under section 302
IPC. We have no doubt that there may be cases like in the case
of Rayavarapu (supra) where from the material on record the
intention of the parties would be clear that they intended to
cause the death or had the knowledge that their acts would
cause death of the victim. In the said case it is to be noted that
the assailants went on pounding on the legs of the victim who
was quite old which indicated the intention of the assailants;
whereas in the instant case as noted above, we do not find any
such material on record to come to a similar conclusion.
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this
appeal. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4