IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1439 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3419 of 2007)

Kaparapu Apparao & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Four  appellants  herein,  namely,   Kaparapu   Apparao  [A-1],  Gantyada

Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3] and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4], along with

seven other accused persons were convicted by the Trial  Court under Section 302

read  with  Section  34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  [hereinafter  referred  to  as

“I.P.C.”] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

each; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months each.

On appeal being  preferred, the High Court recorded a finding that there was  no

common intention and acquitted Peddada Demudu S/o Somulu [A-5],  Kandrakota

Sathibabu  [A-6],  Vulamparthi  Raju  [A-7],  Peddada  Nookaraju   [A-8],   Peddada

Demudu @  Yerra   Demudu  [A-9],

...2/-

- 2 -  

Chandada Apparao [A-10] and Paddada Arjuna Rao @ Arjun [A-11] of the charge.

So far as the appellants are concerned, it converted their conviction from Section 302

read with Section 34 I.P.C. to one under Section 302 I.P.C.  Hence, this appeal by

special leave.

In this case, limited notice was issued on the question of nature of offence.   

According  to the  medical  evidence  of  Dr.  S.  Narsingaraju  [PW-8],  who

examined the deceased, only one injury, which was on the head, was fatal and the

same is said to have been inflicted by A-1, who is Appellant No.1 herein.  So far as this

accused is concerned, in the opinion of the doctor, injury was sufficient to cause death

in the ordinary course of the nature and the witnesses have consistently supported the

prosecution case.  In our view, the High Court was quite justified in convicting him

under Section 302 I.P.C.

In  relation  to  other  accused  persons,  namely,  Gantyada  Ramulu  [A-2],

Peddada  Demudu  [A-3]  and  Gantyada  Nookaraju  [A-4],  they  are  said  to  have

inflicted injuries upon different parts of the body and the doctor [PW-8] has nowhere

stated in his evidence that the injuries inflicted by them were even grievous in nature

much less fatal one.  In view of the finding recorded by the High Court that there was

no common intention, these appellants could have been convicted for their individual

act and, as the doctor [PW-8] has not stated that the injuries inflicted were grievous

one, at the highest, they could have been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C.  The High

Court was, therefore, not justified in convicting them under Section 302 I.P.C.

...3/-

- 3 -  

In the result,  the appeal  filed by Kaparapu Apparao [A-1] is  dismissed

whereas the appeal filed by Gantyada Ramulu [A-2],  Peddada Demudu [A-3] and

Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4] is allowed in-part,  their conviction and sentence under

Section  302  I.P.C.  are  set  aside,  they are  convicted  under  Section  324 I.P.C.  and

sentenced to the period already undergone by them as we are told that these accused

persons have remained in jail for a period of more than three years. Appellant Nos.2

to 4, who are in custody,  are directed to be released forthwith,  if  not required in

connection with any other case.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

New Delhi, September 09, 2008.