LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P. T. APPAIAH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
580
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
y,
P. T. APPAIAH AND ANOTHER
August 28, 1980
[R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s. 498-Difjerence between two Judges
of High Court on nature of offence committed by accused-Reference to thud
Judge-Third Judge considering evidence and finding accused not guilty-
Acquitta/ whether valid.
The Sessions Judge convicting the respondents under section 302 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, senttonced each of them to imprisonment
for life. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court found that the accus-
ed caused the injuries but the Judges composing the Division Bench differed
D
on .the nature of the offence committed by the accused.
The third Judge to
whom the case was referred under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure 1898, found no motive for the accused to commit the offence and held
that the evidence of the chief prosecution witness was of a doubtful nature
and that it was not safe to find the accused guilty relying on that evidence.
He acquitted both the accused.
E
F
G
In apj,eal to this Court by the State, it was contended that as the difference
between the two Judges of the Division Bench was confined to the nature of
the offence only, the third Judge to whom the case was referred in a reference
under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had no power to acquit
the accused by upsetting the concurrent finding of two Judges.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD:
1. The third Judge to whom the case was refen:ed under section
429 did not over-step the limits of his jurisdiction and it cannot be said that
the view taken by him was unreasonable or perverse. [586 D·E]
2. In Bhagat Ram's Case, [1972] 3 SCR 303 the scop1~ of section 429
was not considered, nor any question wa:; raised whether tbe Judges of the
Division Bench could restrict the powers of the third Judge under section 429,
nor was the notice of the Court drawn 1!0 the three earlier decisions of this
Court. [584 DJ
'
3. What Section 429 contemplates is that it is for the third Judge to
decide on what points he shall hear arguments, if any, and that postulates
that he is completely free in resolving the difference as he thinkg fit. [584 E]
H
Babu and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1965] 2 SCR 771 applied.
4. The language of section 429
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
explicit that the case with the opinion of the Judges comprising the Court ot
f
ANDHRA PRADESH v. p, T. APPAIAH (Gupta, J.)
581
Appeal shall be laid before another Judge of the same Court and that the judg·
A
ment or order shall follow the opinion of the third Judge who can or will deal
with the whole case. [585 D-E]
Union ~I India and another v. B. N. Ananti Padmanabiah etc. [1971] Suppl.
'SCR 460: Hethubha v. The State of Gujarat [1971] l·SCR 31: referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
3-10-1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ilil Criminal Appeal
Nos. 57 and 325 / 72.
~
P. Rama Reddy, G. S. Rao and G. N. Rao for the Appellant.
A. N. Mulla and G. Narisimhal,u for the Respondenlt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.-This appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh
is directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
·by which a learned Judge of that Court exercising jurisdictibn under
-section 429 of the Code of Crimiool Procedure, 1898 set aside the
-0rder of conviction and the sentences
passed on the respoodents
before us by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor
Division.
The charge
against the
respondents
was
that at about ten on the night of
September 5, 1971 Venkataramaiah Chetty anid Cbakala Giddappa
{P.W. 1) were returning to their village Sanganapalle from Kadepalle
where they had gone and
when
they
were
about a mile from
.· Sanganapalle, respondent
No. 1 armed
with a bill-hook
and
respondent No. 2 with a stout
stick attacked them and beat
Venkatarama.iah Cbetty severely causing multiple iinjuries as a result
·Of which he died. The Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 1
and the dying declaration said to have been made by Venkataramaiah
Chetty in the presence ·of several witnesses
including P.W. 1 and
·convicted the respondents under section 302 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo
imprisonment for
life.
On appeal
preferExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.