LexVELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 87 Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2852 of 2023) 06 February 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, s. 304 Part II – Murder with common intention – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Political animosity between two groups led to the murder of the deceased – Prosecution witnesses corroborating incident of accused A 1 stopping an auto, dragging the deceased to the house of A-4, and the other accused-A2, A4 joined A-1 and assaulted the deceased with various weapons, whereas, A-3 used a stone to assault the deceased – Conviction u/ss. 302/34 and sentence for life imposed by the courts below – Correctness: Held: As regards A1, A2 and A4, the decision of the trial court and the High Court is concurred with – Their analyses and conclusions are based on correct appreciation of evidence and law – However, as regards, the culpability of A-3 for murder, testimonies of four eye-witnesses state that the A-3 had used a stone to hit the deceased’s head, he never took axe in his hands – Perusal of the evidence would reveal that it is not the case of the prosecution that A-3 was along with the other accused while the deceased was dragged to the house – After the other accused assaulted the deceased with sword, A-3 came thereafter and assaulted the deceased with stone lying there – Evidence insufficient to deduce a conclusion that A-3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased – In fact, both the courts mechanically drew an inference against A3 u/s. 34 merely 2 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused – Even though, A-3 might not have had the common intention to commit the murder, nevertheless, his participation in the assault and the wielding of the stone certainly makes him culpable for the offence that he has committed – A-3 should have had the knowledge that the use of a stone to hit the head of the deceased is likely to cause death – Thus, he is held guilty of the offence u/s. 304 Part II – Conviction and sentence of A-1, A-2 and A-4 u/s. 302/34 is upheld, however, the conviction of A-3 is modified to s. 304 Part II and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. [Paras 17, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32] Case Law Cited Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa, [2000] 2 SCR 1088 : (2000) 9 SCC 1; Bawa Singh v. State of Punjab 1993 Supp (2) SCC 754; Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 16 SCC 479; Ghana Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Orissa 1991 Supp (2) SCC 451 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Murder; Common intention; Witnesses; Corroboration; Sentence for life; Evidence; Eye-witnesses; Appreciation of evidence and law; Testimonies; Oral and documentary evidence; Scene of offence; Post-mortem report; Likely to cause death. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.2852 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No.308 of 2005 Appearances for Parties Gaurav Agrawal, D. Abhinav Rao, Ms. Prerna Robin, Rahul Jajoo, Devadipta Das, Advs. for the Appellants. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., Krishna Kumar Singh, Sri Harsha Peechara, Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, Akshat [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3 Velthepu Srinivas and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) and Anr. Kulshreshtha, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, G.Seshagiri Rao, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Rahul Aggarwal, Amit Pratap Singh, Ms. Lothungbeni T. Lotha, Yimyanger Longkumer, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. This criminal appeal by appellants (accused 1 to 4) is against the concurrent conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentence for life imposed by the Trial as well as the Telangana High Court. For the reasons to follow, while we confirm the judgment and sentence with respect to A-1, A-2 and A-4, the conviction and sentence of A-3 is however modified to Section 304 Part II and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The deta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.