& Ors. Vs. State of A.P.  INSC 1526 (9 September 2008)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1439 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)
No.3419 of 2007) Kaparapu Apparao & Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus State of
Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
herein, namely, Kaparapu Apparao [A-1], Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu
[A-3] and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4], along with seven other accused persons were
convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."] and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each;
in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months each.
On appeal being
preferred, the High Court recorded a finding that there was no common intention
and acquitted Peddada Demudu S/o Somulu [A-5], Kandrakota Sathibabu [A-6],
Vulamparthi Raju [A-7], Peddada Nookaraju [A-8], Peddada Demudu @ Yerra Demudu
[A-9], ...2/- -2- Chandada Apparao [A-10] and Paddada Arjuna Rao @ Arjun
[A-11] of the charge.
So far as the
appellants are concerned, it converted their conviction from Section 302 read
with Section 34 I.P.C. to one under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence, this appeal by
In this case, limited
notice was issued on the question of nature of offence.
According to the
medical evidence of Dr. S. Narsingaraju [PW-8], who examined the deceased, only
one injury, which was on the head, was fatal and the same is said to have been
inflicted by A-1, who is Appellant No.1 herein. So far as this accused is
concerned, in the opinion of the doctor, injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of the nature and the witnesses have consistently
supported the prosecution case. In our view, the High Court was quite justified
in convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C.
In relation to other
accused persons, namely, Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3] and
Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4], they are said to have inflicted injuries upon
different parts of the body and the doctor [PW-8] has nowhere stated in his
evidence that the injuries inflicted by them were even grievous in nature much
less fatal one. In view of the finding recorded by the High Court that there
was no common intention, these appellants could have been convicted for their
individual act and, as the doctor [PW-8] has not stated that the injuries
inflicted were grievous one, at the highest, they could have been convicted
under Section 324 I.P.C. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in
convicting them under Section 302 I.P.C.
...3/- -3- In the
result, the appeal filed by Kaparapu Apparao [A-1] is dismissed whereas the
appeal filed by Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3] and Gantyada
Nookaraju [A-4] is allowed in-part, their conviction and sentence under Section
302 I.P.C. are set aside, they are convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and
sentenced to the period already undergone by them as we are told that these
accused persons have remained in jail for a period of more than three years.
Appellant Nos.2 to 4, who are in custody, are directed to be released
forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.