PARA SEENAIAH & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 10-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 942 
PARA SEENAIAH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2012 etc.) 
MAY 10, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 324 and 326 - Assault -
Subsequent death - Four witnesses to the incident - The 
C deceased in his statement to police implicating the accused 
- Medical evidence proving injuries on the deceased - Charge 
u!ss. 147, 148, 324, 307, 341, 302 r/w. s. 149 IPC - Trial court 
acquitting the accused persons of all the said charges but 
convicting A-1, A-2 and A-4 uls. 326 - High Court affirming 
o conviction of A-2 and A-4, but altering the conviction of A-1 
to uls. 324 and reducing the sentence - On appeal, held: 
Though the injuries on the deceased not proved to be cause 
of death, prosecution case cannot be rejected in toto -
Prosecution case supported by the evidence offourwitnesses, 
E 
statement of the deceased and the medical evidence -
Conviction and sentence as ordered by High Court, justified. 
Appellants-accused were charged for offences ulss. 
147, 148, 324, 307, 341 rlw s. 149 ands. 302 rlw s. 149 IPC 
for having caused death of one person. Prosecution case 
F was that the accused and the complainant party formed 
two factions in the village and were having strained 
relationship and enmity. In order to avenge the attack on 
the life of son of A-3, the accused assaulted the deceased. 
The incident was seen by PWs 1 to 4. The deceased also 
G made a statement to the Investigating Officer (Ex. P-25) 
implicating the accused persons. 
Trial court acquitted all the accused of all the 
charges, but convicted A-1, A-2 and A-4 for offences 
H 
942 
PARA SEENAIAH & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
943 
PRADESH & ANR. 
punishable u/s. 326 IPC and sentenced them to R1 for A 
three years and fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused, State and also 
the complainant challenged the order of the trial court. 
High Court affirmed the conviction of A-2 and A-4 u/s. 326 
IPC and the sentence, but altered the conviction of A-1 
to u/s. 324 IPC and sentenced him to R1 for one year and 
B 
a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Hence the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the 
view taken by the High Court that the statement of the C 
deceased made to the Investigating Officer (Ex.P-25) is 
corroborated by the evidence of PW 1 to 4 about the 
truthfulness of the overt acts attributed to A-1, A-2 and 
A-4. The fact that the witnesses had seen the initial attack 
on the deceased and returned to the scene of occurrence D 
after the accused had made their escape good, to enquire 
from him as to what had happened is not unnatural in the 
facts and circumstances of the case. In the absence of 
any compelling reason to the contrary there is no reason 
to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court, E 
as to the genesis of the incident and the persons 
responsible for the same. The prosecution has failed to 
establish that the deceased eventually died on account 
of injuries sustained by him resulting in the acquittal of 
accused persons u/s. 302 IPC, but that part of the order F 
passed by the courts below does not warrant rejection 
of the prosecution case in toto. There is sufficient medical 
evidence on record, especially in the form of depositions 
of the doctor (PW18) and the doctor (PW19) who 
conducted the autopsy over the dead-body of the G 
deceased. There is, thus, ample medical evidence to 
support the prosecution case that the deceased had 
sustained injuries, no matter the same had not been 
proved to be the cause of his death a week later. [Paras 
12 and 13] [950-B-E; 951-D) 
H 
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Even on the question of sentence awarded to the 
appellants, there is no reason, much less a cogent one 
to interfere. The conviction of A2 and A4 under Section 
326 with a sentence of three years and fine with a default 
sentence awarded by the trial court as also the conviction 
B of A1 under Section 324 and sentence of one year with a 
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default imprisonment for three 
months in the circumstances of the case is perfectly 
justified. [Para 14) [951-E-F] 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
C 
No. 802 of 2012 etc. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.12.2010 of the High 
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Criminal 
Appeal No. 2241 of 2004. 
WITH 
Crl. A. Nos. 804-805 & 806 of 2012. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Chava B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.