LexBALA SEETHARAMAIAH versus PERIKE S. RAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ( A BALA SEETHARAMAIAH v. y PERIKE S. RAO AND ORS. MARCH 16, 2004 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1862: c ss.148, 302, 324 and ss.302 read with l4Y-Six accused-Prosecuted for murder-Charges framed u/s.148,302 and 324-Trial court held all the accused guilty of offences u/s.148, and 302-Besides, two of them were also ... . held guilty u/s.324-High Court noticed that there was no charge framed I! JI under s.3,02 read with s. 149-lt found one accused guilty under s.304 Part- I and remaining five under s.326-Conviction under s.302 set aside-Held, D Sessions Judge did not frame charge against accused persons for offence punishable under s. 302 read with s. 149-Relevant prosecution allegations so as to bring in the ingredients of the offence punishable under s. 302 read with s. 149 also were not incorporated in the charge framed by the Sessions Judge-Accused were not told that they had to face charge of being member E of unlawful assembly and common object of such assembly was to commit murder of deceased and in furtherance of that common object murder was committed and thereby they had the constructive liability and thus they committed offence punishable under s. 302 read withs. 149-0f course, mere omission to mention s. 149 may be considered as an irregularity, but failure to mention the nature of the offence committed by them cannot he said to be F a mere irregularity-Therefore, it is not possible to reverse con,,iction of accused .under s. 326 and substitute conviction for offence punishable under s.3021149 as there was no charge framed against them for such offence-As regards the sentence for offence uls 326, the incident happened in 1990, accused must have undergone the period of sentence imposed on them and at this distance of time, it would not be just and proper to enhance the sentence G imposed by High Court. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.96. of the Andhra Pradesh >.- H 28 r,-· "'( , ! BALA SEETHARAMAIAH v. P.S. RAO 29 High Court in Crl. A. No. 107 of 1996. A WITH Crl. A. No. 1108 of 1997. Mrs. K. Amareshwari, B. Ramana Reavthy, Shiv Kumar Suri, Ms. T. B Anamika and Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellants. Y. Raja Gopala Rao and Ms. Sasmita Tripathy for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : c The Sessions Court of Krishna Division at Machilipatnam at Andhra Pradesh tried six accused persons alleging that they caused the death of Vemulapalli Buddah Vara Prasad @ Buddah Prasad. The deceased Buddah Prasad was the owner of banana garden. The prosecution allegation was that these accused tresspassed into his property and took away some bamboo poles used for supporting the plants. Some criminal cases were also filed D against these accused alleging that they have committed theft of bamboo poles. According to prosecution the accused nurtured grudge against the deceased and on 3.11.1990, they attacked deceased Buddah Prasad and caused his death. PW-1 and PW-2 had seen the accused committing the offence. They went and informed the matter to the Ex. Sarpanch (P.W.3.) who prepared E report, then PW-I and PW-2 went to the police station and gave that report to the Sub inspector of police (PW-9). After investigation, police filed charge sheet alleging that accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of Buddah Prasad. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused on three counts. F The first charge was under Section 148 !PC alleging that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object, they caused death of Buddha Prasad and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 148 !PC. The second charge was under Section 302 !PC simpliciter against each of the accused. The third charge was framed against A- I and A- G 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 !PC for having caused injury to Bala Seetharamaiah. The Sessions Court found A-I to A-6 guilty of offence punishable under Section 148 !PC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A I to A-6 were also sentenced to H imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 !PC, A- 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A I and A-2 were also punished under Section 324 IPC and each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.