KARNAM RAM NARSAIAH AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 05-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
KARNAM RAM NARSAIAH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 5, 2004 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
S. 302 r/w s. 34-0ut of 17 persons prosecuted, 5 convicted by trial 
court-High Court convicting only three of them-Conviction challenged C 
on the ground that there was no charge against them for offence u/s 302 
rlw s.34-Held, there is no error or illegality in conviction of appellants 
under s.302 rlw s.34-/t is proved that appellants attacked the deceased 
with a common intention. 
D 
Malhu Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2002) 5 SCC 724, relied 
on. 
Ninaji Raoji Boudha & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [1976] 2 SCC 
117 and Ram Lal v. Delhi Administration, (1973] 3 SCC 466, held 
inapplicable. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1467 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh F 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 1080 of 2001. 
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants. 
Mohanprasad Meharia for the Respondent. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Seventeen accused persons were tried by the Second Addi. Sessions 
Judge, Nalgonda in the State of Andhra Pradesh for various offences under 
Sections 148 and 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 324 read with Section H 
361 
• 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 149 1.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The Sessions Judge convicted five 
of the accused persons, namely Al to A4 and A9. These convicted persons 
preferred an appeal before the High Court and the High Court was pleased 
to acquit A2 and A9 and the I st, 3rd and 4th accused W.!re convicted for 
B the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 
of the !PC. Their convictions and sentences are challenged before us. 
The incident happened on 21.11.1995 at about 6.30 p.m. The 
deceased Sunkari Lingaiah and the accused persons were residents of 
C Bakkaiahgudem village. All the accused persons belonged to one political 
party and the deceased belonged to another political party. It seems that 
there was some election to the post of office bearers of a local co-operative 
society and the disputes arose on account of this. The deceased, along with 
PWs I, 2 and 3 were proceeding to their agricultural field for irrigating 
the crop. The accused were waiting rtear a temple and when PWs I and 
D 2 reached near the accused the first accused hurled a bomb and it exploded. 
Thereafter Al to A4, who were armed with sticks started beating the 
deceased. It was alleged that A2 beat the deceased on his left eye, A3 beat 
on the back and left side of the chest and A2 beat with a stone on the head 
and A4 also beat the deceased. PWs 3 to 5 tried to rescue PWs I and 3 
E and the deceased but they were also beaten. Hearing the noises, the mother 
of the deceased, wife and sister and some others came to the scene of 
occurrence and then all the accused left the scene. PW I at about 9.45 a.m. 
went to the Nereducherla Police Station and gave statement before PW 15, 
the head constable. The injured while being taken to the hospital died on 
F the way. 
G 
PW 16, Circle Inspector of Police Huzumagar conducted the inves-
tigation and he filed a report against Al to A2. PWs I to 16 were examined 
by the prosecution and Exs. Pl to P 32 and Nos. I to 15 were got marked. 
However, Ex. PW! was not found guilty. 
The Sessions Judge partly accepted the prosecution case and held that 
Al to A4 and A9 were guilty. The High Court in the appeal held that Al 
to A3 and A4 were responsible for the death of the deceased Sunkari 
Lingaiah. They were convicted for the offences under Section 302 read 
H with Section 34 of the !PC. 
KARNAM RAM NARSAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. 
363 
The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the A 
High Court seriously flawed in convicting these appellants for the offences 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 as there was no charge filed against 
the accused appellants for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 
34. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the charges against 
the appellants were only for the offences under Section 302 simpliciter and B 
counsel further submits that the High Court should not have convicted the 
appellants under the above sections. It was argued that it is not specific 
as to who caused the fatal injuries to the deceased anc', t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.