Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 411 (AP)

SAKUNALA MANGESWARA RAO v. KOLLAPALLI SUBBA RAO

2003-03-12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the de facto complainant. On the complaint submitted by him the prosecution initiated proceedings against A1, the 1st respondent, A2 and A3, alleging offence under Section 307 IPC against them. The same came to be tried as sessions Case No. 294 of 1995 in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Razole. The trial Court through its judgment dated 14-5-1996 acquitted A-2 and A-3, but convicted a1 of the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. Aggrieved thereby, A1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1996 in the court of I Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry. The lower appellate Court through its Judgment dated 3-8-2000 had acquitted the accused of the offence under section 307 IPC and set aside the sentence. However, it convicted him for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him for imprisonment for the period already undergone, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The same is challenged in this petition. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence against A1 and the trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing him. He submits that the lower appellate court had interfered with the same without any basis. ( 3 ) SRI M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that even if the entire evidence on record was taken on its face value, it did not disclose any offence under Section 307, and as such, the lower appellate Court had set aside the conviction and sentence under section 307 IPC. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution was that there was a meeting at the house of pw7 on 14-3-1995 at 11:00 p. m. as regards a theft of coconuts in the garden of the complainant-PW1. It is said that in addition to PW1, PWs. 3 to 5 and PWs. 7 to 12, as well as all the accused have participated in the meeting. During the course of the discussion, PW1 had expressed his unhappiness over the non-co-operation from a3 in the matter of apprehending the person, who committed theft. It is said that in addition to PW1, PWs. 3 to 5 and PWs. 7 to 12, as well as all the accused have participated in the meeting. During the course of the discussion, PW1 had expressed his unhappiness over the non-co-operation from a3 in the matter of apprehending the person, who committed theft. At that juncture, altercation took place and all of a sudden Al took an Axe and hit the PW1 with the blunt edge resulting in serious injuries. Other persons intervened and prevented further attack on PW1. It was under these circumstances A1, A2 and A3 were charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 17 and marked Exs. Pl to P10 and MOs. 1 to 3. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. ( 6 ) THE trial Court believed the evidence of PWs. 3 to 5 and 7 to 12, who are eye-witnesses to the incident and thereby it found that no overt acts were committed by a2 and A3, and accordingly, acquitted them. It found A1 guilty of the offence under section 307 IPC, convicted for it and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. The lower appellate court took into account the fact that though a1 may have caused injuries to PW1, he did not entertain the idea of murdering PW1. It has also taken the view that had A1 entertained the idea of murdering PW1, he would not have used the blunt edge of the axe, or just stopped by hitting with blunt edge. It was in this context that it had set aside the conviction and sentence under section 307 IPC, to impose the one under section 324 IPC. ( 7 ) AN element of definite intention to commit murder needs to be established in case of offence under Section 307 IPC. The nature of injury becomes immaterial. Whatever be the nature of injury inflicted by accused, if it is established that the same has been inflicted in the attempt to commit the murder of the victim, the offence can be said to have been committed. The nature of injury becomes immaterial. Whatever be the nature of injury inflicted by accused, if it is established that the same has been inflicted in the attempt to commit the murder of the victim, the offence can be said to have been committed. Where, however, it is not established that the accused did not entertain the idea of murdering the victim, or that the attendant circumstances do not disclose the same, the accused cannot be convicted for such an offence. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 , had delineated the parameters of the offence under Section 307 IPC. ( 9 ) IN this case the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have believed the evidence of, PWs. 3 to 5, notwithstanding the fact that they were brothers and father respectively of PW1. Similarly, the Courts below have taken the evidence of PWs. 7 to 12 as corroborating the version of PW1. Even if the said evidence is taken on its face value, it is too difficult to imagine that A1 had entertained the idea of committing murder of PW1 and that it was in pursuance of the same, he had inflicted the injury with an Axe. As observed by the lower appellate court, if at all A1 entertained the idea of committing the murder of PW1, would have used Axe with the sharp edge and not the blunt one. The evidence discloses that, what had taken place was an emotional blow administered to PW1, which is not a premeditated one. ( 10 ) COMING to the injury that has been inflicted on PW1, it is not in dispute that the wound certificate discloses that it was only a simple injury. Therefore, it is evident that the lower appellant Court had appreciated the evidence and decided the matter in its proper perspective. This court is not convinced to interfere with the same. At any rate, the scope of interference in a revision, with the order of acquittal is very limited having regard to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 401 Cr. PC. The revision is accordingly dismissed.