POGULA KOMURAIAH versus THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASAYAT, J.]

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 15-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

POGULA KOMURAIAH v. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY 
701 
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASAYAT, J.] 
Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC as was done A 
in the case of the two accused. The finding of guilt in 
respect of other offence and the sentence imposed do 
not warrant any interference. [Para 9] (703-H; 704-A-B] 
Kalegura Padma Rao and Anr vs. The State of A.P Rep. 
B 
by the Public Prosecutor 2007 (2) SCR 781 - relied on. 
" 
f 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
-t 
No. 94 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2006 of c 
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in 
Crl. A. No. 1114/2005 
S. Sadasiv Reddy and S. Usha Reddy for the Appellant. 
Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
-,.. 
~ 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, disposing of four Criminal E 
Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal nos. 1114, 1128, 1130 and 1155 
of 2005. 
3. 16 accused persons were charged for offence 
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448 read with Section 149 
.... 
and Section 302 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section 
F 
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). 
4. The High Court by the impugned order disposed of the 
appeals with the following observations: 
rf 
"In the result, Crl.A.No. 1114 of 2005 is allowed in G 
-1:·' .. ~ 
part. Crl. A.No.1128 of 2005 is allowed. Crl. A.No.1130 of 
2005 is dismissed. Crl. A.No.1155 of 2005 is allowed. 
The convictions and sentences imposed by the lower Court 
on A-1, A-3, A-7 to A-9, A-12 and A-13 for the offences 
under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 148, 448 read 
H 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
with 149, 324 read with 149 of l.P.C., are confirmed. The 
~ 
convictions and the sentences imposed on A-2, A-4 to A-
6, A-10, A-11 and A-14 to A-16 for all offences are set 
aside and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are 
not required in any other crime." 
8 
5. It is to be noted that the appellant was accused no.12 
(for short A 12) before the Trial Court. It is relevant to note that 
accused nos. 1 and 3 filed SLP (Crl.) no.5591 of 2006 before 
~ 
~ 
this Court which was subsequently converted into Criminal 
c 
Appeal no.222 of 2006. By judgment dated 19th February, 2007 
the appeal was partly allowed with the following findings: 
" .... If the evidence on record is considered on the 
touchstone principles set out above the inevitable 
conclusion is that the proper conviction would be Section 
D 
304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The conviction 
of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302 
read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with 
';,-
"' 
Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would 
meet the ends of justice. The findings of the guilt in respect 
E 
of other offences and the sentences imposed do not 
warrant interference. The sentence shall run concurrently. 
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 
F 
present appellant stands in the same footing as the appellants 
. .,. 
in Criminal Appeal no.222 of 2006 and the present appeal may 
be disposed of on similar terms. 
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that 
the present appelllant was armed with an iron rod, while the 
G appellants in Criminal Appeal no.222 of 2006 were armed with 
lathi. Therefore, the similar treatment cannot be given to the 
f. 
present appellant. 
8. It is to be noted that the High Court with reference to the 
evidence of PW1 noted as follows: 
.....-
H 
POGULA KOMURAIAH v. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY 
703 
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASAYAT, J.] 
¥ 
"19. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior A 
Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a delay 
of five hours in preferring the complaint and there were no 
specific overt acts attributed to the accused and omnibus 
allegations were made. The medical evidence is not 
corroborating with the oral evidence and the deceased B 
has no premeditation to kill the deceased and no motive 
• 
; 
was suggested by the prosecution for the commission of 
... 
the offence and it was only in respect of the hiring of the 
Auto rickshaw by the deceased. He further submitted that 
in Ex.P-1 complaint only seven accused were said to be c 
attacked and the witnesses mentioned in the inquest report 
were

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