LexDUMPALA CHANDRA REDDY versus NIMAKAYALA BALIREDDY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 (2008] 10 S.C.R. 938 DUMPALA CHANDRA REDDY \I. NIMAKAYALA BALIREDDY AND ORS. (Crl.A.No. 309 of 2001) JULY 14, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,· P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Murder - Trial Court found accused persons guilty of c committing offences punishable under s. 148 and 302 /PC and sentenced them accordingly - High Court altered the convic- tion and sentence to under S. 326 /PC as charge has not been framed against them under Section 302 r/w 149 /PC - Cor- rectness of - Held: Incorrect - High Court erred in reading the D finding of Trial Court - Object and formation of unlawful as- sembly by accused persons with the object of committing murder of the deceased with the weapon, they were armed with clearly specified in the charges - Thus charge in relation to offence punishable under s. 149 /PC not only implicit but also E patent in the charges - Hence, Judgment of Trial Court re- stored - Conviction in absence of charge. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, re- spondents, accused persons stabbed the deceased with draggers in the market place in the presence of PW.1 caus- F ing multiple injuries. PW1 ran away from the scene of of- fence and when he came back, he found the deceased dead. PW1 lodged an FIR in the Police Station. The po- lice arrested the accused persons and after investigating the matter, submitted charge sheet against accused per- G sons for committing the offences punishable under sec- tions 147, 148, 149 and 302 r/w S.149 IPC. Trial Court ex- amined the eye witnesses and found their evidence cred- ible, cogent and reliable and on the basis of evidence, held accused persons guilty of committing offences punish- H 938 " - ' /-fl I DUMPALA CHANDRA REDDY v. NIMAKAYALA 939 BALIREDDY & ORS. able under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and sentenced them A accordingly. On appeal, the High Court held that in the absence of charge under S.302 r/w s.149 IPC, accused persons could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC. Accordingly, it altered the conviction to offence punishable under S.326 IPC and s sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the present appeals. Appellants contended that if the accused persons could not have been convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC, they could not have also been convicted C for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC simplicitor; that the charges framed against accused persons clearly related to the offence punishable under Section 149, though there was no specific mention of the provision and that no prejudice has been caused to the accused D because of the non mention of the provision; and that the essence of Section 149 IPC was clearly spelt .out while framing charge. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court, lost sight of the fact that if its view is accepted in the absence of charge under Section 149, conviction in terms of Section 326 could not have been done. [Para 9] [949-A] E Willie (William) Slaney Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh F 1955 (2) SCR 1140; Ramkishan and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (7) SCC 518, B.N. Srikantiah and Ors. Vs. The State of Mysore 1959 SCR 496 Dal/;Jir Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (5) sec 334 - referred to. 1.2. The High Court appears to have misconstrued G the decision of this Court in Rewa Ram Vs. Teja and Ors. In that case, the High Court held that the accused per- sons could be held guilty only under Section 326 IPC, par- ticularly, when it was stated in the charge that their com- H ,._ 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A mon object was to assault the deceased and commit riot- ing with deadly weapons. The position is entirely differ- ent in the instant case. In fact, while framing charge and combined reading of charge No.1 and charge No.3 makes it clear, that the Court specified that the accused persons B were members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, Le, in order to commit murder of the deceased, committed the offence and at that time they were armed with daggers etc. to bring in the application of Section 148 IPC. In Charge No.3, there is c a specific reference to the transactions, as mentioned in the first charge, and the object to commit murder by hack- ing on the body of the deceased with daggers and caus- ing his intentional death and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the cha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.