Blog

Title: VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2852 OF 2023

Date of Judgment- February 06, 2024

CORAM: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Facts of the Case:

The case began with the prosecution accusing four individuals (referred to as accused 1 to 4) of the murder of a person from their village in Telangana. Allegedly, the motive behind the crime stemmed from a political rivalry between the deceased’s sister and the wife of accused 4 during the Gram Panchayat elections. The incident occurred on 15.11.2001 when the deceased was traveling in an auto-rickshaw. Witnesses claimed that the accused stopped the vehicle, dragged the deceased out, and proceeded to assault him with various weapons, resulting in his death.

Following the incident, the son of the deceased reported the crime to the police, leading to an investigation. The police conducted inquiries, collected evidence, and apprehended all four accused. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was brought before the Judicial Magistrate First-Class, who committed it to the Court of Sessions for trial. Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses and evidence, while the accused denied the allegations.

The Trial Court, after careful examination of the evidence and witness testimonies, found all four accused guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused appealed to the High Court.

Initially, the High Court acquitted the accused, but upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was overturned, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration. Upon rehearing, the High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment, leading the accused to file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

The case then reached the Supreme Court, where the appellants 1 to 4 are seeking relief from the concurrent conviction and sentencing by the Trial Court and the High Court.

Laws Involved:

Section 34 read with Section 302 of IPC, 1860

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the principle of joint liability in criminal acts. According to this section, when a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, each of them is liable for that act as if the act was done by them individually. In essence, Section 34 attributes criminal liability to all participants who share a common intention and act together to commit an offense.

On the other hand, Section 302 of the IPC pertains to the offense of murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, along with a fine. Murder, as defined in the IPC, involves the intentional killing of another person with premeditated malice aforethought or during the commission of certain other specified crimes.

Issues framed by the court:

Whether or not Accused number 3 is guilty under section 34 read with section 302 of IPC or not?

Courts Judgments and Analysis:

After thorough consideration of the evidence presented before it, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the guilt of the accused parties in the case at hand. The Court noted that the trial court had meticulously examined the evidence and arguments presented before it, and the High Court, upon reviewing the case afresh, arrived at the same conclusion. The Supreme Court expressed full agreement with the decisions of the lower courts, asserting that their analyses and conclusions were grounded in a correct understanding and application of both the evidence and the law.

However, the Supreme Court identified a significant aspect of the case that required further examination – specifically, the culpability of Accused No. 3 (A-3) for the charge of murder. The court acquitted A-3 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC for several reasons outlined below.

Firstly, the court noted that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish A-3’s intent to commit murder. While the testimonies of eyewitnesses indicated A-3’s involvement in the assault with a stone, there was no clear indication that he shared a common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased. Additionally, the court observed that A-3 did not wield the axe, which was the primary weapon used in the assault, unlike the other accused.

Furthermore, the medical evidence presented in the post-mortem report suggested that the injuries inflicted by A-3 using a stone were not individually sufficient to cause death. While the court acknowledged that the use of a stone to hit the head of the deceased could potentially lead to death, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate A-3’s knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death.

The court also considered the sequence of events leading up to the assault. It was noted that A-3 arrived at the scene after the other accused had already assaulted the deceased with a sword. This timing suggested that A-3’s involvement in the assault was not part of a premeditated plan to murder the deceased.

Based on these factors, the court concluded that while A-3 was culpable for his participation in the assault, his actions did not amount to the level of intent required for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, considering the severity of the assault and A-3’s knowledge that his actions were likely to cause harm, the court found him guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of A-1, A-2, and A-4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC while altering A-3’s conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. Pending applications were duly disposed of in light of the Court’s judgment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aditi

Click here to view the judgment