LexKAMMARI BRAHMIAH AND ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KAMMARI BRAHMIAH AND ORS. A ~ "' -I v. . w. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP . FEBRUARY 3, 1999 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.) B ) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 464--lndian Penal " Code-Sections 302, 304 Pait II, 325, 149-Appellants along with two others charged for offence of murder under Section 30~Acquittal by trial court-High Court convicting appellants under Section 325 read with Section c 149-No mch charges framed-Whether prejudice caused to the ac- cused--Held no prejudice is caused-Conviction for a lesser offence not ii- legal. The Appellants (Accused A3 to A6) along with two other were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court D acquitted aff the accused. On appeal by State, the High Court reversed the ·-:.l.._ Judgment of Sessions Judge and convicted Accused No. 1 under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C., Accused No. 2 under Section 325 I.P.C. and Accused Nos. 3 to 6 under Sections 325 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. The High Court held that the prosecution has made out a case that E accused formed an unlawful assembly and during the course of the said unlawful assembly, they caused injuries and so they were liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. The High Court also held that though no charge was framed by trial Court under Section 148, since it was found that all the accused participated and the F main charge framed against the accused is under Section 302 and as no prejudice is caused to the accused, the accused could be convicted for a lesser offence under Section 325 r/w Sec. 149 I.P.C. On appeal, the appellants contended that the order passed by the G High Court convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Sec. 149 is on the face of it illegal as no charge was framed ,._, under Section 149 and that all accused were charged only for the offence ·"r punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The Respondent contended that even though it is an error on the part of the trial Court of not framing the charge under Section 302 r/w Sec. 149 I.P.C. no prejudice is caused to the H 361 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A accused as relevant facts were placed before the Court and the attention ., - of the accused also was drawn. Dismissing the Appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The non-framing of charge would not vitiate the convic- B tion if no prejudice is caused thereby to the accused. The trial Court should be fair to the accused, fair to the State and fair to the vast mass of t the people for whose protection penal laws are made and administered. Criminal Procedure Code is a procedural law and is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless c technicalities. [369-G] Panduram v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1955) SC 216, cited. Ramkishan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1997) 7 SCC 518 and Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., [1955) 2 SCR 1140, relied on. D 1.2. It is apparent that no prejudice is caused to the accused who were charged for the offence under Section 302, by not framing the charge for the ,J...; offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Sec. 149. The conviction of the accused no. 3 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Sec. 149 cannot be said to be anyway illegal which requires to be set aside. [370-B-C] E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cr!. A. No. 1088 of 1992. F L.N. Gupta, (A.C.) for the Appellants. Gunt.ur Prabhakar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G SHAH, J. Short question in this appeo.I is whether some accused could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 149, when all of them were charged for an offence punishable under ··- ...,. Section 302 I.P.C. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad H in Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 1992 by which the High Court reversed the ) . -c>._ / KAMMARIBRAHMIAH v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H.C. OF AP. (SHAH, J.] 363 judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabub- A nagar in Sessions Case No. 156 of 1992 acquitting the accused no. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted the accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under Sect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.