http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  966 of 1997

PETITIONER: State of Andhra Pradesh  

RESPONDENT: Naragudem Papireddy & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2004

BENCH: N Santosh Hegde & B P Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       The short question which arises for our consideration in  this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in  concluding that the convicted appellants before it were not  guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC as has  been held by the trial court and holding the said appellants  guilty of a lesser offence punishable under sections 324 and 325  IPC ? For the purpose of deciding this question, we will deal  with only such facts as are necessary for disposal of this appeal.         In view of the findings of the trial court as affirmed by  the High Court against which there is no appeal by the  convicted accused, the fact that in the incident as alleged by the  prosecution on 8.4.1989 at 4.45 a.m. PWs.2 and 3 suffered  injuries as also the fact that in the second incident which took  place at 5.15 a.m. the mother and brother of PWs.2 and 3 were  injured and because of the injuries so suffered one of the  victims Narsimha Reddy died on 13.4.1989, is not disputed.  Therefore, the incidents as found by the trial court and the High  Court against the appellants has become final. In that  background, the trial court convicted A-1, A-2, A-5 to A-8 of  the offence under section 324 IPC. It convicted A-3 and A-4 of  an offence under section 324 read with 149 IPC.         A-1 to A-5 and A-8 were convicted for offence under  section 324 IPC for causing hurt to PW-3.         A-6 and A-7 were found guilty of offence under section  324 read with section 149 IPC.         A-1 to A-5 to A-7 were found guilty of an offence  punishable under section 302 IPC.         A-3, A-4 and A-8 were found guilty under section 302  read with section 149. A-1 to A-9 and A-10 were acquitted of  the charge under section 323 IPC. It awarded a sentence of 1  year to all the convicted accused under section 148 and those  convicted under section 324 read with 149 IPC and awarded  imprisonment for life to those convicted under section 302 read  with section 149 IPC.         In an appeal filed against the said judgment to the High  Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, the High Court allowed  the said appeal in part and convicted A-1, A-6 and A-7 for an  offence punishable under section 325 read with 34 IPC and  sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of  Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo RI for 6 months. They were  further convicted for an offence punishable under section 324  read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6  months each. Both the sentences were directed to run  concurrently.         The High Court convicted accused 2, 5 and 8 for an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

offence under section 324 read with 34 IPC and the High Court  held that the sentence already undergone would suffice for the  said offence. However, they were imposed a fine of Rs.1,000  each, in default to undergo RI for a period of 3 months each. A- 1, A-2 and A-5 to A-8 were acquitted of the charges framed  against them.         In this appeal the State of Andhra Pradesh contends that  the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the  acts of the accused which caused the death of Narsimha Reddy  would not amount to an offence punishable under section 302  IPC. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the  State submitted the High Court having accepted the finding of  facts of courts below and having noticed the fact that nearly 8  persons armed with deadly weapons had assaulted 4 persons,  out of which to the deceased, they caused such grievous injuries  knowing very well that the said injuries would in the normal  course cause the death of the victim, it could not have found  them guilty of offence under section 325 only. He also  submitted from the material on record it is clear that all those  persons who assaulted the deceased, had also the intention to  kill the deceased.           Learned counsel for the respondents, of course, has  justified the judgment of the High Court.            The point to be considered by us in this appeal, therefore  is whether the respondents before us did cause the injury to  deceased Narsimha Reddy with an intention of causing his  death or caused the same with an intention of causing grievous  hurt only. This we can primarily gather from the injuries  suffered by the deceased and from the medical evidence in this  regard.           PW-14 the doctor who was then In-charge of the  Orthopedic Department, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad,  examined the deceased on 8.4.1989 at about 10.40 a.m. and he  found the following injuries on his person : 1.      Fracture of right ulna; 2.      Fracture of left ulna; 3.      Fracture of right fibula; 4.      Fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpals left.

         He noticed that the patient was conscious at the time of  examination and there was no injury on any vital part of the  body. PW-16 who after seeing the post mortem report given by  Dr. Smt. Rajagopalan with whose handwriting he was familiar,  stated in his evidence that which is in conformity with the post  mortem report. In the said report, it is noted that corresponding  to the external injuries the following internal injuries were  found :  Internal Injuries :

1.      Fracture of right ulna \026 lower 1/4th     2.      Fracture of left ulna \026 lower 1/4th  3.      Fracture of right fibula \026 lower 1/3rd  4.      Fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpal bone.

         In the post mortem report the cause of death is noted as  multiple fracture. We have also noticed the fact that the  deceased in this case suffered these injuries on 8.4.1989 and  died about 5 days later on 13.4.1989. A perusal of the injuries  as stated by the doctor PW-14 who first saw the victim as also  the post mortem report commented upon by PW-16, we notice  the assailants i.e. the respondents herein, caused injuries which  led to the fracture of the two hands and the right fibula along  with fracture of 4 metacarpal bones.  Keeping in mind the fact  that these injuries had been caused by lathis and the assailants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

have not used any sharp-edged weapon nor have they attacked  the victim on any vital part of the body like head or chest  leading to injuries to the internal organs or to haemorrhage,  merely from the injuries noted hereinabove, it is extremely  difficult for us to accept the argument of the State that the High  Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the  injuries caused to the deceased would not be one attracting the  provision of section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the State then  argued that these injuries cannot be read in isolation but will  have to be appreciated or noticed in the background of the  evidence led by the prosecution through eye-witnesses  including injured eye-witnesses. According to the learned  counsel, it is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that all  the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons  came with one and the only intention of causing the death of  not only the deceased but also PWs.2 and 3 because of the  enmity they entertained with the deceased and his family.                      Herein it should be noted that the family of the deceased  and that of the accused are closely related descending from a  common ancestor. The victim’s father and some of the  assailants are direct brothers. Between them, there was some  dispute with regard to their ancestral property which was  pending in a civil court. That is stated to be the motive. PWs.2  and 3 stated in their evidence that in the morning of 8.4.1989 at  about 4.45 a.m. all the accused persons came and beat them  mercilessly all over the body with sticks, iron rods and knives,  but a perusal of their injury does not support their case at all  because all that is suffered by these witnesses are minor injuries  which are mostly in the nature of abrasions. There are no  incised injuries corresponding to the use of a sharp-edged  weapon. If really the intention of the assailants was to murder  these victims, it will be very difficult to comprehend that they  would come armed only with lathis and assault the victims only  on non-vital parts of body that too in case of PWs.2 and 3  causing minor injuries. In regard to the assault on the victim it  is to be seen that the very same group moved thereafter to the  house of mother of PWs.2 and 3 where the deceased was  residing, called him out and assaulted him, causing the  abovenoted 4 grievous injuries. It is to be noted herein also that  if really the intention was to cause the death of this victim we  fail to understand why at least one of the assailants did not  wield his weapon so as to attack the victim on a vital part of the  body. The nature of injuries and the manner of attack as stated  by the victims themselves indicates that the respondents did not  have either the intention to cause the death of Narsimha Reddy,  or to cause injuries which they knew to be so imminently  dangerous as would cause his death in all probability.         Learned counsel then relied upon a judgment of this  Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and  Anr. (1976 4 SCC 382) to substantiate his argument that even  attack by lathis causing fracture which leads to death, could be  construed as an act of murder punishable under section 302  IPC. We have no doubt that there may be cases like in the case  of Rayavarapu (supra) where from the material on record the  intention of the parties would be clear that they intended to  cause the death or had the knowledge that their acts would  cause death of the victim. In the said case it is to be noted that  the assailants went on pounding on the legs of the victim who  was quite old which indicated the intention of the assailants;  whereas in the instant case as noted above, we do not find any  such material on record to come to a similar conclusion.         For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this  appeal. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4