PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO versus STATE OF A. P. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 20-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 1 S C.R. 1139 
PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO 
V. 
STATE OF A. P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2014 
[H. L. DATTU AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
A 
8 
PENAL CODE, 1860: s.307 rlw s.34, s.452; s.324 -
Attempt to murder - Attack on victim when he was sitting in 
worker union office - Accused entered the office and attacked C 
victim with cold drink bottles lying there and strangulated him 
with telephone wire and hit him iron rod - Trial court found 
them guilty uls.307 r/w s.34 and s.452 - High Court modified 
conviction u/s.307 rlw s.34 to s.324 holding that accused had 
not come to the place of incident with dangerous weapons nor o 
caused injuries on the vital part of the body and set aside 
conviction u/s.452 on the ground that the victim was sitting at 
the Union Office and not at any private place - On appeal by 
complainant, held: The plea that the act of strangulating a 
person by the throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from 
E 
both sides would not attract s. 307 cannot be accepted - The 
first part of s.307 makes any act committed with the intention 
or knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act caused 
death punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, the 
second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment 
F 
for life if hurt is caused thereby - Thus, even if act does not 
cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 
years - If it·does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is 
punishable with imprisonment for life - s.307 does not require 
that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree -
The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the 
G 
accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a 
telephone wire around his neck and telling him that he should 
die - Further, the law protects any house from trespass and 
1139 
H 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A further protects persons within the house from being assaulted 
or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own 
house - There is nothing in s. 452 to suggest that the use to 
which the house is put makes any difference - The accused 
were not entitled to be acquitted for the offences u/s. 452 rlw 
8 
s. 34 - The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the 
judgment of the trial court is restored. 
The prosecution case was that PW-1 was the 
President of workers union. The accused were annoyed 
with PW-1 as he had collected donation for marriage of 
C driver's daughter from their locality. On the fateful day, 
when PW-1 was sitting in Union Office, the accused 
persons entered the Office and attacked PW-1. A-1 picked 
up a cold drink bottle from there and hit PW-1 on head 
and thereafter along with A-2 and A-3 tied telephone wire 
D around his neck and pulled it from both sides to 
strangulate him. A-4 then attacked him with iron rod. PW-
1 was somehow rescued. Charges were framed against 
the accused persons under Sections 307 and 452 IPC r/ 
w Section 34 IPC and trial court convicted them under 
E the charged offences. On appeal, the High Court 
accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire around 
the neck of P.W. 1 and pulled it from both sides but 
observed that this act may not actually amount to being 
dangerous. Further observing that no intention could be 
F attributed to the accused to cause the death of P.W. 1 
since the accused had not come to the scene with 
dangerous weapon or caused injuries on the ·vital part of 
the body, the High Court modified the conviction under 
Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC. 
G As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC, the High 
Court observed that the incident occurred when P.W. 1 
was in the Union Office and not at any private place and, 
therefore, ipso facto set aside the conviction and 
sentence under Section 452 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. 
H Aggrieved, the complainant filed the instant appeal. 
PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1141 
OF A. P. & ORS. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not possible to accept the contention 
A 
in the circumstances of the case that the act of 
strangulating a person by the throat by a telephone wire 
and pulling it from both sides does not amount to the 
8 
commission of the offence of attempt to commit murder 
under Section 307 IPC. The first part of Section 307 IPC 
makes any act committed with the intention or knowledge 
that it would amount to murder if the act caused death 
punishable with imp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.