LexSABBI MALLESU AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SABBI MALLESU AND ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH JULY 12. 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973: Section 246-Alteration of charge-Duty of Trial Court-Held: Trial C Court ought to draw it to the notice of accused and also explain the same to him. Section 154-F!R need not contain all the details but in a case where large number of persons are involved. complainant alleging injury must D disclose the name of accused ll'ho caused injwy and overt act committed by accused--Statement of eye-witnesses as to role played by appellams I and 2 having found corroboration ji-om medical evidence, conviction against them is sustained-As no overt acts are alleged against appellants 3 and 4, they are entitled to benefit of doubt-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 147, 149. E Judgment cannot be given in slipshod manner-Court must duly consider all contentions raised by parties. Prosecution's case was that there was a dispute over a Bund between deceased No.2 and appellant No.2. Allegedly, with a view to settle the dispute, F many persons came to the place of occurrence. Appellant No. I attacked deceased No. I with a stout stick on his head and others also attacked deceased no. I and 2 with sticks and stones. Prosecution filed a case against 39 persons including 15 who were named in the FIR lodged by PWI. PWI had claimed that he was also injured. PW2 and PW3 were other eye witnesses. The G Sessions Judge convicted 6 persons including appellants under Sections 302/ 149 IPC though the charge sheet was under Sections 302/147 IPC. On appeal, High Court convicted only the appellants and others were acquitted. H In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that apart from general allegation no specific overt act was attributed to any of the appellants; that 490 y SABBI MALLESUv. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 491 although in the First Information Report, appellant No.2 was alleged to have A caused injury to deceased No.I but he was acquitted of the said charge and purportedly was convicted only for causing injury to deceased No.2. Partly allowing the appeal of the accused and dismissing the appeal of the State, the Court B HELD: I.I. The High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants in a very slipshod manner. As appellants had raised a number of contentions before the High Court, it ought to have dealt with each one of them. Unfortunately, both the Sessions Judge as also the High Court failed to attach due importance to the fact that in the First Information Report, PW-I C did not disclose any overt acts played by the other accused persons apart from appellant Nos. l and 2. PW-I was himself injured in the occurrence and, therefore, it was expected of him at least to state as to who amongst accused caused the said injury. Even injury on his person was not proved. No overt act against any person was at all attributed in regard to the death of deceased no. 2. (495-G-H; 496-A-B( D 1.2. The Sessions Judge as also the High Court failed to notice that in a case of this nature where a large number of people allegedly took part in commission of an offence, chance of some by-standers being falsely implicated therein cannot be ruled out. (496-B-CI 2. The First Information Report need not contain all the details but in a case of this nature it is expected that incident would be narrated in some details as otherwise it will be difficult for the Trial Judge to find out the truth pa11icularly having regard to the fact that both P.W.l and P.W.2 made omnibus statements. It is beyond any cavil that in his deposition before the Court, P.W. I made improvements. He not only attributed overt acts to those who were allegedly responsible for causing death of deceased No. l but also who had allegedly caused the death of deceased No. 2. If he was an eye-witness and had seen the entire occurrence from a close proximity and indeed suffered an injury himself, there is no reason as to why the First Information Report would E F lack the details of the offence involving all the accused persons. The appellants G 3 and 4 are entitled to be given benefit of doubt as no overt act had been attributed as against them. (496-C-E; 497-A( 3. The power of the Court to alter the charges is neither in doubt or in dispute but in terms of Sub-section 2 of Section 246 Cr.P.C., it was obligatory on the part of the Sessions Judge to bring it to the notice of the accu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.