STATE OF A. P. versus M. SOHAN BABU & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 14-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1038 
STATE OF A. P. 
v. 
M. SOHAN BABU & ANR. 
(Criminal App~al No. 363 of 2005) 
DECEMBER 14, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 302134, 460 and 324 - Accused entering the house of 
victims at midnight - During the scuffle A-2 stabbed one of 
the victims - A-1 also causing injuries to him - Death of the 
victim - Witnesses also received injuries at the hands of the 
0 
accused - Conviction by trial court uls 302134, 460 and 324 
- High Court converting the conviction u/s. 302134 into one 
uls. 304(Part-I) - Held: It cannot be ignored that the two 
accused, duly armed, had entered the premises at mid night 
with the intention of committing robbery - They were also 
E charged with the offence punishable uls 460 - A2 had caused 
one injury in the stomach of the deceased while he lay on top 
of him - Injuries were also thereafter caused to the deceased 
by both the accused - It is also in evidence that when the 
neighbours arrived on the scene they too were caused injuries 
and threatened with dire consequences - The High Court has 
F been influenced by the fact that there was no common 
intention on the part of the accused to commit murder -
However, the common intention can be inferred from the 
circumstances of the case as they arise even during the 
incident - The initial purpose was to commit robbery, but as 
G the accused were armed with knives which they had used 
repeatedly and effectively, they were willing to kill - Therefore, 
the High Court's observation that the matter fell u/s. 304 (Part-
/) and not uls. 302 of the /PC is erroneous and to that extent 
H 
1038 
STATE OF A. P. v. M. SOHAN BABU & ANR. 
1039 
High Court's judgment is set aside - The judgment of the trial 
A 
court is restored. 
s. 34 - Common intention - Explained. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 363 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 37 
of 2002. 
B 
c 
I. Venkatanarayana, Ramesh Allanki, D. Mahesh Babu for 
the Appellant. 
Anil Kumar Tandale, Manoj C. Mishra, Brajesh Jha for the 
Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This is indeed an unfortunate case. 
2. P.W. 1-Maxwell Trevor, P.W.2-Gene Trevor and P.W. 4-
Marlene Moss are brothers, whereas P.W. 5 Sherlyn Trevor is 
the wife of the deceased Glen Trevor. P.W. 3 Ezzard Moss is 
D 
E 
the sister of the deceased and wife of P.W. 4. The entire 
extended family was residing in a residential house bearing No. 
F 
12-5-18812 Lalaguda, Secuoderabad, consisting of two floors 
with two portions in each floor. The deceased was an employee 
of the Railways and he along with his wife and children was 
residing in the southern portion of the ground floor whereas 
P.W. 4 along with his wife and children was residing in the 
G 
northern portion of the ground floor. P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 were 
· residing on the first floor of the said premises. P.W. 6-D. 
Francis Satyanandam, was a neighbour of P.Ws. 1 to 5 with 
his residence on the southern side of the said premises. During 
\he intervening night of 20th/21st November, 1991 shortly after 
H 
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A midnight the deceased heard some footsteps and came out 
to investigate. He found A2 standing on the balcony of the first 
floor. A scuffle ensued between the two and the shouts and 
screams that came about in the scuffle woke up the other 
occupants of the building and they saw the deceased and A2 
B grappling with each other. As the deceased was a sportsman 
of some repute and physically strong he managed to pin A2 to 
the ground by falling on him. A2 thereupon took out a knife from 
the right side of his hip pocket with his right hand and stabbed 
the deceased on the left side of the abdomen and when P.W. 
c 3 went to his rescue A2 stabbed him on the lower part of the 
right arm as well. In the meanwhile, A1 came from the side of 
the balcony and stabbed the deceased on both his thighs. A 1 
also prevented P.Ws. 1 and 3 from going to the rescue of the 
deceased by holding a knife at the throat of P.W. 3. A1 also 
0 stabbed P.W. 2 on his left shoulder. Despite the injuries having 
been caused to them, P.Ws.1 and 2 over powered A-2 and 
pushed him from balcony. In the meanwhile, the other 
neighbours arrived at the scene and got hold of A 1 as well. 
P.Ws. 1 to 3 brought both the accused to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.