2001 JTR(SC) 417
2001 3 AICLR 267 ; 2002 AIR(SC) 2419 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 2642 ; 2001 43 AllCriC 291 ; 2001 2 EastCrC(SC) 333 ; 2001 5 JT 309 ; 2002 9 SCC 208 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 469 ; 2002 KHC 1552 ; 2001 5 Supreme 675
2001(5) Supreme 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Boya T. Venkateswarlu & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of A.P. -Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1162-1163 of 1999
Decided on 1-3-2001
IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction and sentence of A1 and A2 under Section 302 IPC needs no interference as deceased s mother and son saw them committing the crime. But the involvement of A3 to A5 with the aid of Section 149 IPC is doubtful being not supported by medical evidence and they appear to be implicated as mother of deceased had deliberations with her relatives. A1 and A2 s appeals are dismissed. A3 to A5 s appeals allowed. They are acquitted on benefit of doubt.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.3
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.149
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include sections under the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for murder, while Section 149 creates liability for members of an unlawful assembly who commit an offence in prosecution of the common object. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines relevant judicial evidence. In this case, the accused were held liable for murder under Section 302, with certain individuals additionally convicted under Section 149 for aiding and participating in the offence during a communal assault. The evidence was evaluated in light of these provisions to determine individual culpability.
(B) Key legal principles include the distinction between principal offenders and those participating in a riot under Section 149, the burden of proof requiring satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, and the evaluation of ocular evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Facts of the case:
The incident occurred at night during a dispute over property involving the deceased, where two primary accused inflicted fatal injuries. Three other accused were alleged to have participated by beating other family members with sticks. The timeline, motive, and involvement of the accused were scrutinized based on delayed FIR registration and subjective embellishments.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of the two primary accused under Section 302, while expressing reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of the other three accused. It held that the latter were potentially implicated without sufficient evidence and acquitted them.
Issues:
Whether the three accused who were relatives by marriage were proven to have participated in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and whether their conviction was supported by sufficient evidence under Section 149 read with Section 302.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the necessity of clear evidence to convict individuals under Section 149 for an offence committed in prosecution of a common object, and ruled that vague allegations and delayed implicatory statements do not satisfy the burden of proof.
Result:
The appeal of the primary accused under Section 302 was dismissed, while the appeals of the three relatives were allowed, resulting in their acquittal and release.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include sections under the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for murder, while Section 149 creates liability for members of an unlawful assembly who commit an offence in prosecution of the common object. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines relevant judicial evidence. In this case, the accused were held liable for murder under Section 302, with certain individuals additionally convicted under Section 149 for aiding and participating in the offence during a communal assault. The evidence was evaluated in light of these provisions to determine individual culpability.
(B) Key legal principles include the distinction between principal offenders and those participating in a riot under Section 149, the burden of proof requiring satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, and the evaluation of ocular evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony.
Facts of the case:
The incident occurred at night during a dispute over property involving the deceased, where two primary accused inflicted fatal injuries. Three other accused were alleged to have participated by beating other family members with sticks. The timeline, motive, and involvement of the accused were scrutinized based on delayed FIR registration and subjective embellishments.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of the two primary accused under Section 302, while expressing reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of the other three accused. It held that the latter were potentially implicated without sufficient evidence and acquitted them.
Issues:
Whether the three accused who were relatives by marriage were proven to have participated in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and whether their conviction was supported by sufficient evidence under Section 149 read with Section 302.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the necessity of clear evidence to convict individuals under Section 149 for an offence committed in prosecution of a common object, and ruled that vague allegations and delayed implicatory statements do not satisfy the burden of proof.
Result:
The appeal of the primary accused under Section 302 was dismissed, while the appeals of the three relatives were allowed, resulting in their acquittal and release.
ORDER
Five persons were convicted in respect of the death of one Boya Pedda Narayan. Among them the first accused - Boya Chinaramudu and his brother Boya Peddaramudu were found guilty of Section 302, IPC besides other offences. The remaining three were the sons-in-law of one or the other of the first two. They were convicted under Section 302, IPC with the help of Section 149. It is unnecessary to mention about the other offences for which they were convicted. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed on them.
2. The above incident happened on the night of 6.11.1994 inside the house of the deceased. According to the prosecution, there was love-lost between the deceased and her mother PW-3 Seshamma on the one side and A1 and A2 (who were her cousins) on the other. This was on account of some claim which the two accused made in respect of the properties left behind by the father of the PW 3, Seshamma. More details of the aforesaid dispute are not necessary, except saying that the said dispute had sprouted acute enmity in the mind of A1 and A2 towards PW 3 Seshamma. Hence they determined to avenge for it. Hence all the five persons trespassed into the house of the deceased at 10.00 p.m. A1 and A2 were armed with axes and they inflicted a number of injuries on the deceased who was sleeping on the cot till the arrival of the assailants. The role attributed to the remaining three accused was only that when the wife and son of the deceased interfered, those three appellants beat them with sticks.
3. PW 1 Laxamma is the widow of the deceased and PW 2 Boya Naidu is the son of the deceased. Both have been the occurrence and they narrated it in the trial Court. From their narration it is difficult for us to think that they would have implicated A1 and A2 falsely. Hence were are not disposed to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed on those two accused, particularly since the trial Court and the High Court concurrently held them guilty of inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased.
4. While considering the involvements alleged against the remaining three accused who are sons-in-law of one or the other of the first who persons, we find some difficulty. Neither PW 1 nor PW 2 mentioned the names of the assailants even when the Village Administrative Officer (PW 7) asked them about it on the next morning. PW 1 then told him that he would mention all the names only after meeting her relatives. We are of filter the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 for the purpose of satisfying ourselves that the three sons-in-law were truly implicated with overt acts attributed to them. Even a sifting process to separate the chaff from the corn is permissible while evaluating the ocular evidence.
5. The only overt act attributed to A3 to A5 is that they have beaten PW 1 and PW 2 with sticks. PW 2 was examined by Dr. Venugopal (PW 9) and found two incised injuries. None of them could be attributed to a blow with a stick. PW 1 was examined by the same doctor and he noticed one small lacerated would on the left wrist, a contusion on the left knee and an incised injury on the left ear. The contusion on the left knee could very probably be the result of any contact with hard objects while tumbling down it was a small contusion. It is difficult for us to countenance the situation that three Lathi born youthful sons-in-law would have inflicted all the blows with the sticks on PW 1 lady ultimately resulting in just one minor lacerated injury on her left wrist.
6. In our perception the roles were attributed to the three sons-in-law as a result of the deliberations made during the interval between the time of occurrence and the lodging of the FIR. That interval is quite good enough for embellishments and exaggerations after the deliberations with the relatives for whom PW 1 was waiting before the FIR was lodged by her.
7. We are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the three sons-in-law with the aid of Section 149 for what the principal assailants A1 and A2 had done on the night as against the deceased. We entertain a reasonable doubt whether those accused were present at the scene at all. We have a feeling that those three persons were implicated after PW 1 had deliberations with her relatives.
8. In the result we confirm the conviction and sentence passed on A1-Boya Chinnaramudu and A2-Boya Peddaramudu and dismiss the appeal filed by them. We allow the appeals filed by the remaining three persons A3 to A5 - Bochhu Naganna, Boya Vaddemanu Ramudu, Boya Talari Venkateswarlu and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them and acquit them. As they are already on bail the bail bond will stand cancelled. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(N.K.R.) Appeals disposed of accordingly.
***************