Chava Ankama Rao & Ors Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh
[2004] Insc 629 (12 October 2004)
B.N.Agrawal & H.K.Sema
with Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2004 the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, .Appellant Hyderabad.
Versus Chava Sreenu & Ors. Respondents B.N.AGRAWAL, J.
Out of the eleven chargesheeted accused persons, two, namely, Chava Subbarao
(accused No. 4) and Chukkapalli Suraiah (accused No. 11) died before the
commencement of trial and Daruvuri Nageswararao (accused No. 7) absconded
himself and his trial was separated, as such remaining eight accused persons
were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, they were convicted
under Section 148 of the Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month;
they were further convicted under Section 304 Part I/149 of the Penal Code
and out of them, Chava Ankama Rao (accused No. 1), Chava Bhadraiah (accused No.
2), Chava Narasimharao (accused No. 3), Chava Sreenu (accused No. 5) and
Vempati Prasad (accused No. 9) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months whereas Chava
Pullaiah (accused No. 6), Vempati Narayana (accused No. 8) and Vempati
Venkateswarlu (accused No. 10) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Chava
Pullaiah (accused No. 6) was further convicted under Section 324 of the Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a further period of one month. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run
concurrently.
The convicted accused persons preferred two appeals before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh whereas an appeal was preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh
making a grievance that trial court was not justified in convicting the accused
under Section 304 Part I/149 of the Penal Code rather they should have been
convicted under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code. Similar grievance was made
by Daruvuri Subbarao (PW 2), brother-in-law of the deceased, by filing a
revision application before the High Court. So far as conviction of Chava
Ankama Rao (accused No. 1), Chava Bhadraiah (accused No. 2), Chava Narasimha
Rao (accused No. 3) and Vempati Prasad (accused No. 9) is concerned, the High
Court was of the view that the trial court committed an error in convicting
them under Section 304 Part I/149 of the Penal Code.
Accordingly, they have been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their conviction and
sentence under Section 148 of the Penal Code, however, have been confirmed. So
far as A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-10 are concerned, the High Court acquitted them of
all the charges.
Against the order of their conviction, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-9 preferred
appeal to this Court by special leave which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No.
1122 of 2002, whereas the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred another appeal
by special leave giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2004 against the
order of acquittal of A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-10 who are respondent Nos. 1 to 4
respectively in the said appeal, and out of whom, as Vempati Venkateswarlu
(respondent No.
4) died during the pendency of the appeal, the same abated against him. As
such, the said appeal has to be considered only in relation to the remaining
three respondents.
Prosecution case, in short, was that on 21st June, 1993 at 7.25 p.m., one
Bolineni Raghavarao (deceased) and Daruvuri Subbarao (PW 2) were returning on a
scooter from nursing home situated near Tower Clock Centre, Narasaraopet, and
when they reached near the Centre, all the eleven accused persons, armed with
spears and coconut cutting knives, appeared, surrounded the deceased and PW-2
and pounced upon the deceased, out of them, A-2 exhorted. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6
and A-9 assaulted the deceased with coconut cutting knives. A-1 and A-2
assaulted on the head whereas A-3 on the right shoulder, A-6 on the right side
of abdomen and A-9 on the right eyebrow. When Gannamneni Ramaiah (PW 1) came to
the rescue of the deceased, A-4 and A-6 assaulted him with coconut cutting
knife. Thereafter, A-5 assaulted the deceased on his back by spear. A-7 stabbed
the deceased on his right hip. A-8, A-10 and A-11 stabbed the deceased
indiscriminately. As a result of the injuries, the deceased fell down and
succumbed to his injuries. Choppalli Venkateswara Rao (PW 3) and Bolineni
Krishna (PW 4) also came to the place of occurrence and had also seen the
occurrence. Stating the aforesaid facts, a first information report was lodged
at Narasaraopet Town police station on the same day at 8.30 p.m.
The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion
thereof submitted chargesheet against all the eleven accused persons, on
receipt whereof, the learned magistrate took cognizance and committed the
accused persons to the Court of Session to face trial.
Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent, falsely
implicated in the present case and no occurrence, much less the occurrence
alleged, had taken place.
During trial, prosecution examined several witnesses and exhibited certain
documents. Defence in support of its case has not examined any witness. As
before the commencement of trial, accused Nos. 4 and 11 died and accused No. 7
remained absconder, the trial proceeded only against eight accused persons out
of eleven. Upon conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted eight accused persons,
as stated above. Thereafter, on appeals being preferred, while maintaining
their conviction under Section 148 of the Penal Code, the High Court modified
conviction of four appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 2002 from 304 Part
I/149 of the Penal Code to 302/149 of the Penal Code and acquitted the other
four accused persons, which is subject matter of challenge by the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2004 and as Respondent No. 4 of
the said appeal died during the pendency of the appeal, the same abated against
him.
Prosecution, in support of its case, examined four eyewitnesses in all,
namely, Gannamneni Ramaiah (PW 1), Daruvuri Subbarao (PW 2), Choppalli
Venkateswara Rao (PW 3) and Bolineni Krishna (PW 4), out of whom PW-1 is the
informant himself. He is an injured witness. His injuries were examined by Dr.
I.Jagannadha Reddy (PW 12) who found five injuries on different parts of his
body. PW.1 is an independent villager and the prosecution case disclosed by him
is supported by his subsequent statement made before the police as well as in
court. He has supported the prosecution case in all material particulars and no
infirmity could be pointed out in his evidence. PW-2 is nobody else than
brother- in-law of the deceased. He had also gone to the police station along
with PW-1 to lodge the first information report. He was accompanying the
deceased on the scooter. His presence at the place of occurrence cannot be
doubted. He has consistently supported the prosecution case in his statement
made before the police as well as in court. The only ground of attack to his
evidence was that he was related to the deceased. It is well settled that if
evidence of a witness is otherwise trustworthy, merely because he is relation
of the deceased, his evidence cannot be doubted. PWs 3 and 4 also claimed to be
eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have consistently supported the
prosecution case in all material particulars. These two witnesses are
independent villagers and no infirmity could be pointed out in their evidence.
Coming now to the medical evidence, the doctor who held postmortem
examination on the dead body of Bolineni Raghavarao found fifteen injuries. In
the opinion of the doctor, the same were caused by coconut cutting knife as
well as spear. According to the postmortem report, two of the injuries on the
head were fatal which are said to have been caused by A-1 and A-2. The
postmortem report supports the prosecution case of inflicting injuries by the
four appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 2002 and in our view the High
Court has not committed any error in convicting them under Section 302/149 of
the Penal Code.
Turning now to the State's appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2004, as
respondent No. 4 died during the pendency of the appeal, we are required to
consider cases of remaining three respondents, namely, Chava Sreenu (respondent
No. 1), Chava Pullaiah (respondent No. 2) and Vempati Narayana (respondent No.
3). Out of these respondents, so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned,
according to the prosecution case and evidence, he stabbed the deceased on his
back with a spear but curiously enough, the doctor did not find any injury on
the back of the deceased. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, the
allegations are that he inflicted injury in the stomach of the deceased with a
coconut cutting knife but the doctor found injury in the stomach of the
deceased caused by spear and no injury was found in the stomach by coconut
cutting knife. From the aforesaid facts, as the prosecution case in relation to
these two respondents is falsified by the postmortem report, the High Court
recorded their acquittal. We find that the view taken by the High Court was not
only possible but reasonable one and the same cannot be said to be perverse in
any manner so as to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Now remains the case of respondent No. 3 (A-8). The High Court recorded his
acquittal by committing an error of record as if there was no allegation
against him, which is factually incorrect. According to the first information
report, A-8 stabled the deceased indiscriminately. PWs 1, 2 and 3 consistently
stated that A-8 along with others surrounded the deceased and stabbed him. PW-4
specifically stated that A-8 assaulted the deceased with knife. These facts
clearly show that A-8 assaulted the deceased and statements of prosecution
witnesses are consistent with the prosecution case disclosed in the first
information report and the High Court has committed an error while acquitting
this respondent stating that there was no allegation against him. As such, we
are of the view that this respondent is also liable to be convicted under
Section 302/149 of the Penal Code along with the appellants of Criminal Appeal
No. 1122 of 2002. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt
against appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 2002 and respondent No. 3 Vempati
Narayana of Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2004 as all of them committed an offence
punishable under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 2002 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal
No. 137 of 2004 is dismissed in relation to Chava Sreenu (respondent No. 1) and
Chava Pullaiah (respondent No. 2) and so far as Vempati Venkateswarlu
(respondent No. 4) is concerned, the same abated against him as he died during
the pendency of the appeal. The appeal against respondent No.
3 Vempati Narayana is allowed, the order of acquittal rendered by the High
Court in relation to him is set aside and he is convicted under Section 302/149
of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is further
convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences, however, shall run
concurrently. Bail bonds of this respondent are cancelled and he is directed to
be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence
for which compliance report must be sent to this Court within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of order by the trial court.
Back
