LexBANDLAMUDDI ATCHUTA RAMAIAH AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
BANDLAMUDDI ATCHUTA RAMAIAH AND ORS.,
B
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Indian Peal Code, 1860-Sections 97, 304 (Part-I)-Following an alter-
cation on the previous day, Second accused inflicted a stab injury on the chest
of ti1e deceased, when he was held by other accused---All the accused were
C caught and beaten by the furious neighbours-Held, on facts deceased's party
was aggressor-Second accused had exceeded the limit of right of private
defence and is liable to be convicted under Section 304 (paTt-1 )-But the third
accused cannot be found guilty of any offence as his acts had not gone beyond
the limit of right of private defence.
D
Criminal Procedure Code1 1973-Section 154-FIR-{]se of-State-
ment contained in the FIR lodged by the accused cannot also be used against
another accused---Such statement cannot be used against its maker, if it is
inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of co"oboration or
contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in the triaHt can
E be used as an admission against its maker along unless the admission does
not amount to confession.
According to the prosecution, following an altercation on the pre·
vious day, the appellants attacked PW-1 by beating him. When his wife
PW-2 intervened she too was assaulted by the appellants. Hearing the hue
F and cry, some other persons from the household of PW-1 including the
deceased and PW-3 rushed to the scene. When the deceased was held by
the other accused, A-2 inflicted a stab injury on the chest of the deceased.
By then, the neighbours who arrived at the scene caught hold of A-2 and
A-3. A·l escaped from the scene but he was chased and caught from his
G house and brought back to the scene. All the accused were beaten up by
the furious neighbours and finallly they were trussed up at the same place.
Poli'ce arrived at the scene and removed all the injured to the hospital, but
the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way.
On the basis of the statement recorded from PW-1, a case was
H registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed
34
,.
'
' '
')'
BA RAMAIAH v. STAIB
35
against all the accused.
The Sessions Judge acquitted A-1 but convicted A-2 under Section
304 (Part II) besides Section 326 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to a
rigorous imprisonment for five years for the main offence. A-3 was con-
victed under Section 324, IPC and was sentenced to R.I. for one year. High
Court, on appeal, convicted A-2 under Section 302 and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life, and set aside the acquittal of A-1 but
convicted him under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced
him to R.I. for three years. High Court passed the same conviction and
sentence as against A-3. Hence these appeals.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
A
B
c
HELD: 1. The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrently
found that all the three accused sustained injuries when the furious mob
attacked them in retaliation of what they did to PW-1 and his family
members. There is no scope to disturb the said finding. The trial Court D
and the High Court concurrently found that it was the second accused who
inflicted the fatal stab injury on the chest of the deceased while the other
two accused held him by hands. The evidence on that score is overwhelming
and this court is not persuaded to interfere with that finding. [39-E-F]
2. In view of the concurrent finding that the second accused inflicted
the stab injury on the chest of the deceased while the other two were
holding him, there is little scope for reaching a finding that the assailants
did not intend to cause the chest injury which is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. [39-H; 40-A]
3. The statement attributed to the first accused in Ext. P-24 was
completely disowned by him when he was questioned by the Sessions Judge
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Even assuming that this was truly recorded by
the police, its utility in evidence is very much restricted by law. A statement
E
F
in an FIR can normally be used only to contradict its maker as provided G
in Section 145 of the Evidence Act or to corroborate his evidence as
envisaged in Section 157 of the Act. Neither is possible in a criminal trial
....._.,
as long as its maker is an accused in the case, unless he offers himself to
be examined as witness. [40-H; 41-AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.