advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Sec.307 and Ses.452 I.P.C.- "Defined what is an attempt to murder " - "a act which cause death if done , but left with injury or no injury on the body on prevention amounts to an Attempt to murder "- strangulation with telephone wire is enough to say that it is an attempt to murder - no fracture and dislocation of thyroid bone is necessary - trespass in to the office to commit body injuries amounts to trespass in to house - Apex court held that lower court correctly punished the accused where as High court committed wrong and as such , Apex court set aside the order of high court = PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO …. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS = 2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41242

Sec.307 and Ses.452 I.P.C.- "Defined what is an attempt to murder " - "a act which cause death if done , but left with injury or no injury on the body on prevention  amounts to an Attempt to murder "-  strangulation with telephone wire is enough to say that it is an attempt to murder - no fracture and dislocation of thyroid bone is necessary - trespass in to the office to commit body injuries amounts to trespass in to house - Apex court held that lower court correctly punished the accused where as High court committed wrong and as such , Apex court set aside the order of high court =
  The High Court in appeal, referred to the deposition of  P.W.  1
    (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) where he had honestly  admitted  that
    accused did not come there armed with any weapon.  
The Appellate  Court
    observed that the injuries were not only simple but were  trivial.   
As
    regards Injury No. 5, it  observed  that  though  the  Medical  Officer
    stated that the injury was dangerous to life, it is not clear as to how
    the witness stated so, meaning thereby that there  was  no  explanation
    for the medical opinion. 
Even though the High Court noticed  that  this
    injury is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size around the neck.   
The
    High Court accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire  around  the
    neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao)  and  pulled  it  from
    both sides but observed that this act may not actually amount to  being
    dangerous.  
It was of the opinion that if a knife is used  and  only  a
    grazing injury is caused but no actual stabbing is done  on  any  vital
    part of the body, it cannot be  said  that  the  injury  is  dangerous.
    
Further observing that no intention could be attributed to the  accused
    to cause the death of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  since
    the accused had not come to the scene with dangerous weapon  or  caused
    injuries on the vital part of the body, the  High  Court  modified  the
    conviction under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34  IPC  to  Section
    324 IPC.

    12.    As regards the charge under Section  452  IPC,  the  High  Court
    observed that the  incident  occurred  when  P.W.  1  (Pasupuleti  Siva
    Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office and not  at  any
    private place and  hence  ipso  facto  set  aside  the  conviction  and
    sentence under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. =
  
    Sec. 307 I.P.C. -Attempt to murder     =
   It  is  not  possible  to  accept  this   contention   in   the
    circumstances of the case that the act of strangulating a person by the
    throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from  both  sides,  which  is
    proved here, does not amount  to  the  commission  of  the  offence  of
    attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. 
The  first  part  makes
    any act committed with the intention or knowledge that it would  amount
    to murder if the act caused death punishable with  imprisonment  up  to
    ten  years.   
The  second  part  makes  such  an  act  punishable  with
    imprisonment for life if hurt is caused thereby.   
Thus even if the act
    does not cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up  to  10
    years.  If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is punishable
    with imprisonment for life.  
There is no merit  in  the  contention  that  the  statement  of
    Medical Officer that there is  no  danger  to  life  unless   there  is
    dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to  strangulation  means
    that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their  act
    would cause death.  The circumstances of this case clearly attract  the
    second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No.5 which
    is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307
    IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act  causes  ‘hurt’.   It
    does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any  particular
    degree.  The intention to cause death is clearly  attributable  to  the
    accused since the victim was strangulated after  throwing  a  telephone
    wire around his neck and telling him he should die. 
Sec .452 IPC -Trespass into house/private place to commit an offence“452. House-trespass after  preparation  for  hurt,  assault  or
           wrongful restraint. =

There is no doubt that the trespass was into a  house  and  that
    the appellant entered the office having prepared to assault the  victim
    and in any case for putting him in fear of hurt or of  assault.   There
    is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest that  the  use  to  which  the
    house is put makes any  difference.   It  is  not  the  requirement  of
    Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be an offence the house must  be
    a private place and not an office.  The law  protects  any  house  from
    trespass, vide Section 448 IPC and further protects persons within  the
    house from being assaulted or even put in  fear  of  hurt  or  wrongful
    restraint within their own house.

    20.    We thus find that the accused were not entitled to be  acquitted
    for the offences under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

    21.     We accordingly set aside the judgment of  the  High  Court  and
    restore the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31st July,  2003   passed
    by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram  in  Sessions  Case
    No. 234 of 1999.  
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and
      3  [A-2-Chintha  Krishna]   are   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
    imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a  fine  of     Rs.
    100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for  a  period  of
    three months each for the offence under Section  452  with  Section  34
    IPC.   
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and   3  [A-2-
    Chintha Krishna]  are also sentenced to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment
    for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each,  in  default  simple
    imprisonment for a period of three month each  for  the  offence  under
    Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.  Both  the  sentences  shall  run
    concurrently. Sentence already undergone, if any, shall be set off.

    22.    Accordingly this appeal is allowed.  
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-
    Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha  Krishna]   are  directed  to
    surrender before Judicial Magistrate/Superintendent of Police concerned
    forthwith.  In case, they failed to do so within one  month,  steps  be
    taken, in accordance with law, to apprehend them.
2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41242
H.L. DATTU, S.A. BOBDE
                                        REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.   466    OF 2014
                [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7044 of 2007]







     PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO           …. APPELLANT




                            VERSUS

    STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.        …. RESPONDENTS






                                  JUDGMENT

    S. A. BOBDE, J.

    1.     Leave granted.

    2.     The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal  against
    the judgment dated 1st February, 2007  passed  by  the  learned  Single
    Judge of the High Court of Judicature at  Andhra  Pradesh.  
The  High
    Court allowed the appeal in part, and acquitted  the  accused  for  the
    offences under Section 452 read with Section 34  of  the  Indian  Penal
    Code [hereinafter referred  to  as  “IPC”].  
The  High  Court  further
    modified the conviction  and  sentence  under  Section  307  read  with
    Section 34 IPC to one -under Section 324 IPC  and  accordingly  reduced
    the sentence of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two  months  each
    and also to fine of Rs. 2,000/-  each,  in  default  to  suffer  simple
    imprisonment for a period of six months.  Further, an amount of     Rs.
    4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused  collectively  as
    compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) – the  victim.
 
 Earlier, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows:

    A-1 to A-4 under Section 452 read with  Section  34  IPC  for  rigorous
    imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/-  each,  in  default,  to
    suffer simple imprisonment for a period of  3  months  each  and  under
    Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment  for  10
    years and fine of     Rs. 100/- each,  in  default,  to  suffer  simple
    imprisonment for a period of 3 months each.

    Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court, the present  appeal
    is filed.

    3.     The prosecution case is that the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti  Siva
    Ramakrishna Rao) was the President of Bhimavaram  Taluk  Lorry  Workers
    Union. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao @ Bandi  Srinu  and  A-2  -  Chintha
    Krishna @ Bandi are brothers.  A-4  -Chintha  Lakshmana  Rao  is  their
    cousin.  A-3 -Addla -Umamaheswara Rao is the close associate of A-1, A-
    2 and A-4.
They are all residents of Bhimavaram.   About  a  fortnight
    prior to  the  date  of  incident  –  20.04.1998,  the  victim  P.W.  1
    (Pasupuleti  Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  and  some  other  Lorry   Workers
    collected Rs. 10,000/- as donations to  perform  the  marriage  of  the
    daughter of a  poor  lorry  worker.   That  incensed  the  accused  who
    believed that P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna  Rao)  ought  not  to
    have collected donations from their locality.
On 20.04.1998  at  about
    8.00 pm when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the  Lorry
    Workers Union Office near Anakoderu Canal in Undi Road, Bhimavaram, the
    accused armed with deadly weapons entered the  office,  abused  P.W.  1
    (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in filthy language and threatened him
    with death because he had collected donations from  their  area.   They
    attacked him.  A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao hit him on his head with the
    cool drink bottle  causing  a  grievous  injury  and  instigated  other
    accused to tie a telephone wire around his neck to kill him.  He  along
    with A-2 - Chintha Krishna and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara  Rao  tied  the
    telephone wire around the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti  Siva  Ramakrishna
    Rao) and pulled  it  from  both  sides  to  strangulate  him  with  the
    intention to kill him.  A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao  beat  him  on  his
    right cheek with an iron rod. A-2 - Chintha Krishna  beat  him  on  the
    forehead and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 -  Chintha  Lakshmana
    Rao beat him on the left eye and on the cheek.  On  making  a  hue  and
    cry, P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was  rescued  by  others,
    who were present.
On a complaint, Crime No. 85/98 under  Sections  307
    and 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered, investigated and a
    charge sheet was filed against all the accused.   Charges  were  framed
    and read over to the accused.  They did not plead guilty.

    4.     P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P17  were  marked
    apart from M.Os. 1 to  5  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution.    No  oral
    evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

    5.     The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the  accused  as
    indicated above.

    6.     P.W. 3 (Kotipalli Srinivas) and P.W. 5 (Sunkara Sreenivasa  Rao)
    eye witnesses were declared hostile.  P.W. 7 (Marri Sambhasiva) is  the
    circumstantial witness.  P.W. 8 (Dirisala Murali) is the  photographer.
    P.W. 9 (Grandhi Sree Rama Murthy) is the panch witness.

    7.     P.W. 10  (Dr.  B.  Swarajya  Lakshmi,  C.A.S.)  is  the  medical
    officer, who examined P.W. 1  (Pasupuleti  Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  and
    found the following injuries:

         -

          “1. Irregular bleeding lacerated injury of 3 cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm size
         present on the left parietal region of the scalp.

         2. A contusion of 3 cm x size present lateral to the left eye  with
         overlying abrasion of ¼ cm size red in colour.

         3. A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the  left  eye  upper
         eye lid.

         4. A contusion of 4 cm with abrasion of ¼ cm size  present  lateral
         on the right side of the fore head.

         5. Ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size present below  the  thyroid
         cartilage on the front, right side and left side of the  neck,  red
         in colour.

         6. A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the right temple.

         7. A contusion of 2 cm x 2 cm size present on the right cheek.

         8. An oblique abrasion of 10 cm x 5 cm size present on the  ventral
         aspect of the left arm, red in colour.”




    8.     The Medical Officer [MO] opined that Injury No. 5 endangered the
    life of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti  Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao).   That  the  other
    injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused as alleged.

    9.      P.W. 1  (Pasupuleti  Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  deposed  that  he
    collected donations for performing the  marriage  of  the  daughter  of
    Pasupuleti  Satyanarayan,  a  driver  and  a  poor  man.   The  accused
    questioned and threatened him about the collection of contribution from
    their territory and warned him that they would take away his life.   On
    20.04.1998 at about 8.00 PM when he was  in  the  Lorry  Workers  Union
    Office, the accused trespassed into the Union Office  and  abused  him.
    They told him that he cannot become a leader  of  their  territory  and
    collect donations and they would not leave the Office unless they  beat
    him.  A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao beat him on  his  head  with  a  cool
    drink (Thums up) bottle and said he should die.  He directed others  to
    tie a telephone wire around his neck therefore A-2  -  Chintha  Krishna
    beat him on the forehead and  A-3  -  Addla  Umamaheswara  Rao  tied  a
    telephone wire around his neck and pulled wire.   Then  A-4  -  Chintha
    Lakshmana Rao beat him with the rod  on  his  right  cheek  along  with
    abuses.  A-2 - Chintha Krishna also  beat  him  with  the  rod  on  his
    forehead and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 -  Chintha  Lakshmana
    Rao beat him on the upper side of his eyebrow and his cheek.  He  named
    others who were present and intervened to rescue him stating  that  but
    for that he would have been killed.  His shirt  was  stained  with  his
    blood.  They left behind the broken Thums-up bottle, telephone wire and
    iron rod.  He was hospitalized for about 20 days.  In cross examination
    his version was not shaken.  He accepted  that  the  accused  were  not
    armed with any weapon and said that the Thums-up bottle  broke  on  his
    head, because of the impact.  The deposition of other witnesses support
    the  version  of  the  injured  witness  -  P.W.  1  (Pasupuleti   Siva
    Ramakrishna Rao).     We  have  not  referred  to  the  depositions  of
    witnesses who have been declared hostile since such declaration is  not
    of much consequences in this case.  The other depositions are  in  tune
    with the deposition of PW1, the injured witness.

    10.     The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected
    the argument that the other witnesses were not  reliable  because  they
    were interested witnesses.  As regards charge under Section 34 IPC, the
    Trial Court relied on the settled  position  in  law  that  it  is  not
    necessary that there should be a  clear  positive  evidence  about  the
    meeting of mind before the occurrence and that if there are  more  than
    one accused a common  intention  to  kill  can  be  inferred  from  the
    circumstances of the case. The prosecution need not prove the overt act
    of the accused.  As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC the  Trial
    Court held that there was clear intention of accused here and  that  it
    was clearly established that the accused went to the office of  P.W.  1
    (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in a car and the other  circumstances
    clearly  establish  that  there  was  preparation  for  committing  the
    offence.  As noticed earlier, the Trial Court convicted  and  sentenced
    accused under Section 452 IPC for 7 years and under Section 307 IPC for
    10 years read with Section 34 IPC.

    11.    The High Court in appeal, referred to the deposition of  P.W.  1
    (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) where he had honestly  admitted  that
    accused did not come there armed with any weapon.  The Appellate  Court
    observed that the injuries were not only simple but were  trivial.   
As
    regards Injury No. 5, it  observed  that  though  the  Medical  Officer
    stated that the injury was dangerous to life, it is not clear as to how
    the witness stated so, meaning thereby that there  was  no  explanation
    for the medical opinion.
Even though the High Court noticed  that  this
    injury is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size around the neck.  
The
    High Court accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire  around  the
    neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao)  and  pulled  it  from
    both sides but observed that this act may not actually amount to  being
    dangerous.
It was of the opinion that if a knife is used  and  only  a
    grazing injury is caused but no actual stabbing is done  on  any  vital
    part of the body, it cannot be  said  that  the  injury  is  dangerous.
    
Further observing that no intention could be attributed to the  accused
    to cause the death of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  since
    the accused had not come to the scene with dangerous weapon  or  caused
    injuries on the vital part of the body, the  High  Court  modified  the
    conviction under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34  IPC  to  Section
    324 IPC.

    12.    As regards the charge under Section  452  IPC,  the  High  Court
    observed that the  incident  occurred  when  P.W.  1  (Pasupuleti  Siva
    Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office and not  at  any
    private place and  hence  ipso  facto  set  aside  the  conviction  and
    sentence under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

    13.    During the pendency of this  matter,  respondent  Nos.  4  &  5,
    namely, Addla Umamaheswara Rao (accused No. 3)  and  Chintha  Lakshmana
    Rao (accused No. 4) expired.  Hence the special leave petition  insofar
    as those respondents has already abated, vide order dated 04.02.2014.

    14.     Shri Altaf Ahmed, senior advocate, appearing for respondents  2
    to 5 vehemently supported the Judgment of the High Court to the  extent
    that it has rightly held that Section 307  IPC  is  not  attracted  and
    neither was Section 452 IPC.  He  also  opposed  the  conviction  under
    Section 324 IPC on the ground that no dangerous weapon  or  means  were
    used for causing the injury which according to the learned counsel  was
    simple in nature.

    15.    As regards the act of the tying the  telephone wire  around  the
    neck and pulling it on both sides and causing an  injury  thereby,  the
    learned counsel for the accused, heavily relied on a statement  in  the
    cross examination of the Medical Officer  that  the  Injury  No.  5  is
    simple in nature and the further statement that if the strangulation is
    of high nature the thyroid bone may be dislocated and ruptured and that
    there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation  or  rupture  of
    the thyroid bone.

    16.     It  is  not  possible  to  accept  this   contention   in   the
    circumstances of the case that the act of strangulating a person by the
    throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from  both  sides,  which  is
    proved here, does not amount  to  the  commission  of  the  offence  of
    attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. 
The  first  part  makes
    any act committed with the intention or knowledge that it would  amount
    to murder if the act caused death punishable with  imprisonment  up  to
    ten  years.   
The  second  part  makes  such  an  act  punishable  with
    imprisonment for life if hurt is caused thereby.   
Thus even if the act
    does not cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up  to  10
    years.  If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is punishable
    with imprisonment for life.  
The Section reads as under:

           -
           “307. Attempt to  murder.--  Whoever  does  any  act  with  such
           intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
           by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
           punished with imprisonment of  either  description  for  a  term
           which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
           and if hurt is caused to any person by such  act,  the  offender
           shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life],  or  to  such
           punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.


             Attempts by life convicts. - When any person  offending  under
           this section is under sentence of  [imprisonment for  life],  he
           may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]


           Illustrations


           (a) A shoots at  Z  with  intention  to  kill  him,  under  such
           circumstances that, if death ensued A would be guilty of murder.
           A is liable to punishment under this section.


           (b) A, with the intention of causing the death  of  a  child  of
           tender years, exposes it in a desert place A has  committed  the
           offence defined by this section, though the death of  the  child
           does not ensue.


           (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not
           yet committed the  offence.  A  fires  the  gun  at  Z.  He  has
           committed the offence defined in this section, and, if  by  such
           firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment  provided  by
           the latter part of [the first paragraph of] this section.


           (d) A, intending to murder Z by  poison,  purchases  poison  and
           mixes the same with food which remains in A' s  keeping;  A  has
           not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food
           on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on   Z's
           table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.”
    -

    17.    There is no merit  in  the  contention  that  the  statement  of
    Medical Officer that there is  no  danger  to  life  unless   there  is
    dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to  strangulation  means
    that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their  act
    would cause death.  The circumstances of this case clearly attract  the
    second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No.5 which
    is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307
    IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act  causes  ‘hurt’.   It
    does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any  particular
    degree.  The intention to cause death is clearly  attributable  to  the
    accused since the victim was strangulated after  throwing  a  telephone
    wire around his neck and telling him he should die.   We  also  do  not
    find any merit in the contention on behalf of the appellant that  there
    was no intention to cause death because the victim  admitted  that  the
    accused were not armed with weapons.  Very few persons  would  normally
    describe the Thums-up bottle and a telephone wire used as weapons. That
    the victim honestly admitted that the accused did not have any  weapons
    cannot be held against him and in favour of the accused.

    18.     We are thus of the view that this is a clear case of  intention
    to commit the murder of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva  Ramakrishna  Rao)  the
    appellant  and the accused acted in concert and  committed  an  offence
    under Section 307 IPC.  As regards the setting aside of the  conviction
    by the High  Court  under  Section  452  IPC,  we  find  the  reasoning
    completely unacceptable and untenable.  The High Court  has simply  set
    aside the conviction of the accused under Section  452  IPC  read  with
    Section 34 IPC only on the ground that the victim was  sitting  at  the
    Lorry Workers Union Office and not at any private place.   Section  452
    of the IPC reads as follows:

           “452. House-trespass after  preparation  for  hurt,  assault  or
           wrongful restraint.- Whoever commits house-trespass, having made
           preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any
           person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting
           and person in fear of  hurt,  or  of  assault,  or  of  wrongful
           restraint,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of   either
           description for a term which may  extend  to  seven  years,  and
           shall also be liable to fine.”


    19.    There is no doubt that the trespass was into a  house  and  that
    the appellant entered the office having prepared to assault the  victim
    and in any case for putting him in fear of hurt or of  assault.   There
    is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest that  the  use  to  which  the
    house is put makes any  difference.   It  is  not  the  requirement  of
    Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be an offence the house must  be
    a private place and not an office.  The law  protects  any  house  from
    trespass, vide Section 448 IPC and further protects persons within  the
    house from being assaulted or even put in  fear  of  hurt  or  wrongful
    restraint within their own house.

    20.    We thus find that the accused were not entitled to be  acquitted
    for the offences under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

    21.     We accordingly set aside the judgment of  the  High  Court  and
    restore the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31st July,  2003   passed
    by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram  in  Sessions  Case
    No. 234 of 1999.  
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and
      3  [A-2-Chintha  Krishna]   are   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
    imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a  fine  of     Rs.
    100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for  a  period  of
    three months each for the offence under Section  452  with  Section  34
    IPC.   
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and   3  [A-2-
    Chintha Krishna]  are also sentenced to undergo  rigorous  imprisonment
    for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each,  in  default  simple
    imprisonment for a period of three month each  for  the  offence  under
    Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.  Both  the  sentences  shall  run
    concurrently. Sentence already undergone, if any, shall be set off.

    22.    Accordingly this appeal is allowed.  
The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-
    Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha  Krishna]   are  directed  to
    surrender before Judicial Magistrate/Superintendent of Police concerned
    forthwith.  In case, they failed to do so within one  month,  steps  be
    taken, in accordance with law, to apprehend them.

                                             .....................………………..J.
                                                                [H.L. Dattu]








                                                  …..............………………………J.
                                                                    [S.A.
Bobde]





    New Delhi,
    February 20, 2014




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.