LexCHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO AND ORS. versus STATE OF AP. REP. BY HOME SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 631 CHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO AND ORS. v. STATE OF AP. REP. BY HOME SECRETARY (Criminal Appeal No.1116 of 2011) JANUARY 10, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 324 rlw s. 34 - Prosecution under - Injured victim and 4 others eye- witnesses - Incident in question was sequel to an incident on C previous day, wherein the deceased was threatened by accused of dire consequences - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - Held: The conviction was justified in view of depositions of injured victim and other eye- witnesses - Facts of the case prove that the incident was D premeditated - Absence of charge uls. 34 would not affect the legality of conviction, as such omission caused no prejudice to the accused. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 386 - Appeal E against acquittal - Scope of - Held: While deciding appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court not circumscribed by any limitation - It has power to review the entire evidence - Appellate court can reverse the acquittal order, if, on appraisal of evidence, it finds that the view taken F by court, while acquitting the accused was not a possible view. Criminal Trial - Conviction on the basis of s. 34 /PC for which the accused was not charged - Held: Mere omission s. 34 in charge-sheet does not ipso facto or ipso jure lead to any inference or presumption of prejudice having been caused G to the accused - Prejudice from such omission needs to be s~tisfactorily demonstrated - In the instant case, no prejudice shown to have been caused - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 34. 631 H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A The appellants-accused, alongwith accused No. 4 were alleged to have caused death of one person and caused injuries to another. The prosecution case was that all the accused persons stopped the deceased and PW1 (the injured witness). All the accused except A-4 B were armed with casuarinas sticks. They assaulted the deceased and PW-1 and caused injuries to them. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries. The incident was a sequel to an incident which had taken place one day before the day of the incident between the accused c persons on one hand and the deceased and PWs-1 on the other and the same was pacified at the intervention of PW-3. Appellant No.1 ·had also threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Charges were framed against the appellant accused u/ss. 302 and 324 IPC. A-4 0 was charged u/ss. 302 and 324 IPC with the aid of s. 34 IPC. PWs 2,3,4 and 6 were examined as eye-witnesses. Trial court acquitted all the accused. High Court maintained the acquittal order as regards A-4, while reversed the acquittal order as regards appellants- accused and convicted them u/s. 302/34 and 324/341PC. E In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that High Court was not correct in reversing the acquittal order by fresh appraisal of the evidence; that appellants- accused were not charged u/s. 34 IPC and hence could F not have been convicted by the High Court with the aid of s. 34; and that there was no basis for the High Court to hold that the appellants had common intention to commit the murder. G H Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court committed no error in holding the appellants guilty especially when the statement of PW-1 who was also injured in the incident was found to be credible. The depositions of PW-1, PW- CHINNAM KAMESWARA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 633 REP. BY HOME SECRETARY 2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 all supported the prosecution A version that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants resulting in grievous injuries to him that culminated in his death. The trial court fell in error in rejecting the testimony of these witnesses on minor contradictions which was not sufficient to shatter their B credibility. The acquittal recorded by the trial court was not thus a reasonably possible view in the matter which the High Court was entitled to reverse while hearing the appeal. [Para 17] [647-E-G) 2.1 A reading of s. 386 Cr.P.C. leaves no manner of C doubt that in an appeal against an order of acquittal the appellate court may reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made or that the accused be re-tried, as the case may be, or impose a sentence upon him according to law. Similarly in the case of appeal from a D conviction, the appellate court has the power to reverse th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.