CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 227 of 2006 PETITIONER: YERRAM BHASKAR REDDY & OTHERS RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2008 BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
1. The appellants along with accused No. 4 Yerram Badikadi Venkata Reddy were
convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/- each (rupees one thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Criminal Appeal
No. 1412 of 2002 was filed before the High Court. During the pendency of the
appeal before the High Court, accused No. 4 Yerram Badikadi Venkata Reddy
expired and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court was
confirmed by the High Court against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 before it. Aggrieved
by the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, the present appeal by special
leave has been filed in this Court.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.4.1996 at about 5.30
p.m. Saddala Naganna (since deceased) was beaten by appellant No. 1 and some
other
persons. Saddala Naganna lodged a complaint in the police station and a case was
registered against appellant No.1 and other persons under Section 324 of I.P.C.
and Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST (POA) Act. Matter was settled between
appellant No.1, other accused and Saddala Naganna provided Saddala Naganna
(since deceased) was given Rs. 1500/-. Out of Rs. 1500/-, an amount of Rs. 1,000/-
was given to Saddala Naganna. Thereafter Saddala Naganna and appellant No.1
used to quarrel over the balance amount of Rs. 500/-. On 20.9.1999 at about
4.p.m., appellants along with accused No. 4 were sitting on the pial near the hotel
of P.W. 3 Ediga Ankanna. At that time Saddala Naganna was talking to PWs 1,2
and S. Yerranna in his house. On coming to know that appellant No. 1 was in the
hotel of PW 3 Ediga Ankanna, Saddala Naganna went to the hotel and asked
appellant No. 1 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 500/-. While Saddala Naganna
was proceeding to the hotel, PWs 1,2 and S. Yerranna followed him. There was
exchange of words and quarrel between appellant No.1 and Saddala Naganna
(since deceased). During the quarrel, appellants took out natu sticks from nearby
carts and appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3 gave a blow each on the head of Saddala
Naganna with natu sticks and caused fracture of bones on his head. Accused No. 4
Yerram Badikadi Yenkata Reddy beat Naganna on the left temple with stick and
caused fracture of the frontal bone. Appellant No.4 (accused No. 5 Yerram
Venkata Reddy) beat Naganna on the right knee with natu stick and caused injury.
Due to the beating, Saddala Naganna succumbed to the injuries and died on the
spot.
3. PW 8 Dr. G. Thirupalu who conducted post-mortem examination on 21.9.1999
found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
External injuries:
1. Lacerated injury present over back of head over middle of
occipital region 4 cms x 1 cm x bone deep, edges irregular.
2. Lacerated injury present over back of head over upper part of
occipital region 4 cms away injury No. 1 measuring 3 cms x 1
cm x bone deep.
3. Lacerated injury over back of head over lower aspect of
occipital region 2 cms below and behind injury No.1
measuring 2.5 cms x 1 cm x bone deed, edges irregular.
4. Contusion with swelling over left frontal region 4 cms x 3 cms.
5. Upper 2 contains and two inscissors loosened.
6. Abrasion over anterior aspect of right lower leg 6 cms below
right patella 3.5 cms x 2 cms.
7. Lacerated injury over anterior aspect of middle part of right
lower leg 4 cms x 1 cm x skin deep, edges irregula.
Internal injuries:
1. Fracture of occipital bone, right and left parietal bones
present corresponding to external injuries 1,2 and 3.
2. Fracture of frontal bone present corresponding to external
injury No. 4.
In his examination-in-chief, PW 8 opined that Saddala Naganna appeared to
have died of shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of occipital both parietal,
frontal bones and injury to brain. As far as injuries to the leg are concerned,
there is no opinion given by PW 8. The injuries caused to the leg are stated to
be abrasion over anterior aspect of right lower leg 6 cms below right patella 3.5
cms x 2 cms and lacerated injury over anterior aspect of middle part of right
lower leg 4 cms x 1 cm x skin deep, edges irregula.
4. It has come in the evidence of PW 2 Saddala Madduleti that appellant No.1
and Naganna (since deceased) were grappling with each other and during that
time, other appellants were simply sitting on the pial. The other appellants then
picked up the cart pegs from the bullock cart stationed near the hotel and each
accused caused one injury on the body of Naganna (since deceased). From this
evidence, it is apparent that there was no common intention of the appellants to
cause the death or to cause such other bodily injuries which may cause death
and, therefore, each accused was held responsible for his own act.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinised the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who were the eye-witnesses and we do not find
any good or
sufficient reason to disbelieve their testimony. Therefore, the conviction of
appellant-accused No. 1 Yerram Bhaskar Reddy, No. 2 Yeram Thirupathi
Reddy and No. 3 Yerram Aravindra Reddy under Section 302 I.P.C. is
maintained. However, so far as appellant No. 4 Yerram Venkata Reddy
(accused No. 5) is concerned, as there was no common intention to cause the
death of Saddala Naganna (since deceased) and appellant No. 4 caused the
injuries only on the leg of Saddala Naganna (since deceased), he could not have
been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. At best, appellant No. 4 could have
been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C.. We, accordingly, acquit appellant
No. 4 under Section 302 I.P.C. and instead convict him under Section 323
I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo R.I. for one year. We have been informed
that appellant No. 4 has already undergone the sentence for a period more
than that for which he has been convicted and, thus, he shall be set at liberty
immediately if he is not required in any other case.
6. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.