LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus K. SRINIVASULU REDDY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. K. SRINIVASULU REDDY AND ANR. DECEMBER 18, 2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Penal Code, I 860 : Sections 34, 302 and 326-Disputes and civil litigation between C accused and deceased_;Accused attacking and hacking deceased with sha1p edged-weapons in presence.of eye witnesses and threatening them- Fifty injuries on body of deceased-Medical report stating death caused by shock and haemorrhage-High Court altering conviction from Section 302 to 326 on doubts regarding which injury caused death and attributable to which accused-Held, Section 302 rightly applied by Trial Court and D High Court not justified in altering conviction-:-Common intention clearly perceived and proved beyond reasonable doubt from conduct of accused and manner of indiscriminate assaults. . .... ·Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence-Eye witnesses-Independ- E ent witnesses attacked as "chance witnesses" by defence-Held, evidence of such witnesses cannot be implied as suspicious and their presence doubtful at place of occurrence by such description-Murders not commit- ted with previous notice to witnesses soliciting their presence-In the facts, held, said witnesses have clearly explained their presence at spot of p occurrence-Sections 34, 302 and 326. · Prosecution case was that V ~nd his wife B had no issues and were not on good terms and were living separately and V was paying maintenance to B. V wanted to give his properties to his sister's.sons, D & PW-1 whereas B wanted V to give property to accused-respondents G A-1 and A-2 who were her sister's sons. However, V bequeathed all his properties in favour of D and PW-1 and they were looking after the properties after his death and paying ~aintenance to B till her death. Accused bore grudge against D and PW-1 and disputes arose leading to various civil litigations between them. D and PW-1 obtained H decree and took possession of properties of V. Due to prolonged 1050 .ST ATE OF A.I>. v. K.S. REDDY 1051 litigation accused almost became penniless and vexed with the civil A litigation, accused alongwith A-3 and A-4 entered into criminal conspiracy to murder D and PW-1. On the date of occurrence, accused attacked D with Panakatti and axe, chased and hacked him indiscriminately. PWs. 1, 2, 3 & 5 requested accused not to kill D but they did not pay heed to their words and also brushed aside PWs. 4 B and 9 who tried to prevect accused from hacking D and threatened them and other persons gathered there. Accused inflicted fifty injuries on the body of D who was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. Medical report stated that D appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Trial Court convicted accused C under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but acquitted A-3 and A-4. Trial Court also held that no offence under Section 120-B IPC was made out. In appeal preferred by accused, High Court altered conviction from Section 302 to Section 326 IPC on the 'ground that there was doubt as to which injury was caused by which .accused and which injury ultimately resulted in death of deceased. Hence this D appeal by the State. Appellant contended that approach of High Court is erroneous and in view.the facts and circumstances2 High Court was not justified in altering conviction to Section 326 IPC; and that Section 34 IPC had E fu.11 application. Respondents contended that there was no evidence to show any common intention in making the assaults and therefore Section 302 IPChad no application;·that PWs 4 and 9 were chance witnesses who did not explain hoW., they happened to be at the alleged place of F occurrence; that conviction has been rightly altered to Section 326 IPC since no partitular injury could be attributed to any particular accpsed; and that Section 34 IPC had no application. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD : 1. From the conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence and the manner of indiscriminate assaults a common intention is clearly perceived and proved beyond doubt. Even other- wise, looking at the weapons used by the accused, the injuries being large in number and on vital parts,, Section 302 IPC had been rightly H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A applied by the Trial Court and the High Court was not justified in altering the conviction. (1057-B-C) Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.