http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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  \023I.P.C.\024) 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.

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

\023External 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.\024

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.