Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Uppala Raghuramaiah 4 Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010646222009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1722/2009
Between:
1. UPPALA RAGHURAMAIAH & 4 OTHERS, S/O
SUBRAHMANYAM, R/O GAMANDLAPALEM, NARUKURU
VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR MANDAL, NELLORE DIST.
2. NASINA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O VENKAIAH, R/O
GAMANDLAPALEM, NARUKURU VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR
MANDAL, NELLORE DIST.
3. NASINA VENKATA RAMANAIAH,, S/O VENKAIAH, R/O
GAMANDLAPALEM, NARUKURU VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR
MANDAL, NELLORE DIST.
4. UPPALA SUBRAHMANYAM,, S/O SUBBAIAH, R/O
GAMANDLAPALEM, NARUKURU VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR
MANDAL, NELLORE DIST.
5. NASINA SEENAIAH,, S/O VENKAIAH, R/O
GAMANDLAPALEM, NARUKURU VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR
MANDAL, NELLORE DIST.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that
the High Court may be pleased to present the memorandum of
Crl.A., in this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the Spl. Judge
for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Addl. Dist.
& Sessions Judge, Nellore in SC.ST.SC.No.4/2008, dated 30.11.09.
2
SRK, J
Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 2785 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of
sentence and release the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of
the Crl.A.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLAMP 1075 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to permit the counsel for the
petitioner to assist the Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G VIJAYA SARADHI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY
The Court made the following:
3
SRK, J
Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 to 5 in SC/ST Sessions Case No.4 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of Offences under the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore (hereinafter referred to, as „the learned Special Judge‟), are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were tried by the learned Special Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟) and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the SCs and STs (PoA) Act‟).
3. Substance of the charges against the appellants/ accused Nos.1 to 5 is that they developed grudge against P.W1 that he was responsible for distribution of land by the Government for house sites and planned to do away with his life and in pursuance of their plan, on 03.07.2004 at about 6.30 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 5, armed with axes, iron rods, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object and at 7.00 a.m. when P.W1 followed by his son P.W2 came near the house of one Yerukula Bujjaiah, accused Nos.1 to 5 attacked P.W1 and in the 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 course of attack, the accused uttered, "ఏమిరా మాల నా కొడకా, నీవు గ్ాామములో పెద్ద హీరో అయ్యినుో య్యనావు, మేము సాగు చేసుకొొంటున్న భూమిని నీ మాల కులసుులకు పటటా ఇపపిసుునానవు. చొంపొండిరా ఈ మాల నా కొడుకుని"
and so saying accused No.1 hacked P.W1 with an axe on his left knee; accused No.3 struck with iron rod on the right hand thumb; accused No.5 beat on the left hand; accused No.2 beat with iron rod on the right leg and accused No.4 beat with iron rod on right leg and the head and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 5 committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act.
4. After completion of trial, the learned Special Judge vide Judgment, dated 30.11.2009, found accused Nos.1 to 5 guilty of, accordingly convicted them in terms of Section 235 (2) of CrPC of, and sentenced them of the charges, as under:
(i) A1 to A5 were convicted of the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each;
5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 (ii) A1 to A5 were convicted of the charge
under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) days each;
(iii) A1 to A5 were convicted of the charge under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each;
(iv) A5 is convicted of the charge under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months;
(v) A1 to A4 were convicted of the charge under Section 326 IPC read with 148 IPC for their participation along with A5 when he caused fracture injury to P.W1 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each; All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the charge under Section 307 IPC, and accused Nos.2 and 4 of the charge under Section 326 IPC, in terms of Section 235 (1) CrPC.
5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(a) P.W1 belonged to Harijana (Mala) community. The accused purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.72 cents, situated in the outskirts of Narukur village, for a sum of Rs.70,000/- from one Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah and it is useful for house sites.
(b) At the time of purchase, P.W1 advised the accused not to purchase the said extent, as there was proposal to distribute the said extent for house sites to houseless poor of the village. But the accused did not hear the advice of P.W1 and purchased the said extent, took possession of the same and started cultivating the land;
that the Harijans of the village, under the guidance of P.W1, sent applications to the District Collector and Revenue authorities for issuing pattas for house sites over the said extent.
(c) Upon the Orders of the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer, T.P.Gudur measured the land, fixed boundaries and proposed to give pattas for the house sites to the houseless poor; that P.W1 obtained orders from the District Collector to give pattas to the houseless poor and accordingly, on 01.07.2004, the 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 Revenue Inspector and the Panchayat Secretary came to the village and identified 22 houseless poor persons.
(d) Thereupon the accused developed grudge against P.W1 that he was responsible for distributing their land, by the Government, for house sites and planned to do him away, and in pursuance of their plan, with a common object, on 03.07.2004 at about 6.30 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 5, armed with axes and iron rods, formed themselves into unlawful assembly, and at 7.00 a.m., when P.W1 followed by his son, P.W2, came near to the house of one Yerukula Bujjaiah, attacked P.W1 and in the course of attack, the accused uttered "ఏమిరా మాల నా కొడకా, నీవు గ్ాామములో పెద్ద హీరో అయ్యినుో య్యనావు, మేము సాగు చేసుకొొంటున్న భూమిని నీ మాల కులసుులకు పటటా ఇపపిసుునానవు. చొంపొండిరా ఈ మాల నా కొడుకుని" and so saying accused No.1 hacked with an axe on his left knee, accused No.3 struck with iron rod on the right hand thumb, accused No.5 beat on the left hand, accused No.2 beat with iron rod on the right leg, and accused No.4 beat with iron rod on right leg and on the head, of P.W1 and left the scene. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to
4. 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
(e) Thereafter, P.W1 was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nellore; that on receipt of Ex.P10-Hospital Intimation, P.W14, Head Constable of Out-Post, Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore recorded Ex.P1-statement of P.W1 and forwarded the same to T.P.Gudur Police Station. P.W15, Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station, on the strength of Ex.P1-statement of P.W1, registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2004 for the aforesaid offences under Ex.P11.
(f) P.W16, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural conducted investigation, observed the scene of offence in the presence of L.W14/Konatham Ravindra Babu and P.W11, got prepared Ex.P6-Scene Observation Report, dated 03.07.2004; that P.W16 visited the scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch, got photographed the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 11 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
(g) During the course of investigation, on 09.07.2004, P.W16 arrested the accused at 7.00 a.m., near Narukuru Vishnu Sai Hatcheries in the presence of P.W12 and L.W18-Kanagaluru Lakshmaiah under the cover of Ex.P8-Mediators Report. 9
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
(h) P.W9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, DSR Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore examined P.W1 and issued Ex.P4- Wound Certificate, opining that injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are simple and injury No.9 is grievous in nature. After completion of investigation and after receipt of all reports, P.W16-Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural filed charge sheet against the accused.
6. After examining the accused Nos.1 to 5, charges under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act against accused Nos.1 to 5, and charge under Section 326 IPC against accused Nos.2 to 4, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language. Accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting M.Os 1 to 14.
8. When the accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 CrPC, they denied the incriminating evidence, brought on record, against them.
9. None was examined on behalf of defence. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of defence.
10
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
10. The plea of accused Nos.1 to 5 is one of denial.
11. After examining entire evidence coupled with the material documents that were exhibited on either side, learned Special Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the charge under Section 307 IPC and accused Nos.2 and 4 of the charge under Section 326 IPC. However, learned Special Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the charges under Sections 147, 324 IPC, Sections 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act, accused No.5 of the charge under Section 326 IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 of the charge under Section 326 read with 148 IPC in terms of Section 235 (2) CrPC, for their participation along with accused No.5 in causing fracture injury to P.W1 and imposed the aforesaid sentence. Challenging the same, accused Nos.1 to 5 preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A5 contends that the incident did not take place as suggested by the prosecution, but the learned Special Judge erred in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 148 IPC simply on the ground that they were acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel further contends that charge under Section 326 IPC was not framed 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 against the accused Nos.1 and 3; indeed, it was framed only against accused Nos.2 and 4 and in the absence of any charge against accused Nos.1 and 3, convicting accused Nos.1 to 4 of the charge which is not framed, is not tenable under law. Learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A5 further contends that in Ex.P1- statement of P.W1, there is no reference with regard to presence of P.W2, who is son of P.W1, at the time of incident, and so, P.W2 is a planted witness.
Learned counsel further emphasized that P.Ws.3 and 4, the relatives of P.W1, who went to the scene of offence on hearing cries of P.W1 and shifted P.W1 to the Government Hospital, deposed in their cross-examination that when they specifically asked P.W1 as to who caused injuries to him, P.W1 did not respond to them and did not state to them that it is the accused who caused the injuries to him. Learned counsel further contends that out of all the injuries received by P.W1, only one injury i.e. injury on the leg, is grievous in nature, and all the other injuries are simple in nature. He further submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular testimony.
Learned counsel further contends that the incident was said to have taken place on 03.07.2004 at 6.30 a.m., but Ex.P11-FIR 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 was registered on 03.07.2004 at 11.30 a.m., and it was sent to the Court concerned on the same day at 12.00 noon and there is no explanation as to why that much delay occurred in registering Ex.P11-FIR and forwarding the same to the Court concerned and the said unexplained delay is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is further contended that there are cases and counter-cases between the parties and they are still pending and in such circumstances, reaching of FIR to the Court at a belated stage has to been seen with suspicion. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Criminal Appeal.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the injured contends that when a charge under Section 307 IPC has been framed, there is no illegality in convicting the accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence under Section 326 read with 148 IPC, which is a minor offence, as contemplated under Section 222 (2) and 215 read with 464 CrPC. By saying so, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision in Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is consistent enough to prove that the incident was said to have taken place at about 7.00 a.m. and immediately within a period of four hours, the statement of injured was recorded and FIR 1 (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 334.
13
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 was registered and that itself goes to show that the incident was said to have taken place as suggested by the prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that the medical evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.
14. Now the point for determination:
"Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beyond all reasonable doubt?
15. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen (16) witnesses, among which, the injured was examined as P.W1. P.W1 deposed in his examination in chief that towards west of his house, an extent of Ac.0.72 cents of land is located, which is a Gramanattam; that one Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah is cultivating the said land; that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 03.07.2004. He further deposed that about five years prior to the incident, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 purchased the said land for a sum of Rs.70,000/- from one Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah; that P.W1 advised them not to purchase the said land, as it belongs to the 14 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 village and for the benefit of the villagers; that in spite of that, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 purchased the said land.
16. With regard to motive for the offence, it is the evidence of P.W1 that at about six months prior to the incident, P.W1 and other Harijana community people of their village made a petition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, T.P.Gudur to give land for their houses; that on the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, P.W8-Revenue Inspector and the Village Secretary visited their village and observed Ac.0.72 cents and stated that the above land is fit for assignment as house sites to P.W1 and others, but the revenue officials did not assign any pattas. Thereafter, P.W1 and others made a petition to the District Collector.
17. P.W1 further deposed that on 01.07.2004, P.W8- Revenue Inspector and Panchayat Secretary visited the village and stated that pattas would be given to the landless poor in respect of Ac.0.72 cents of house site on 07.07.2004; that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 came to know about the said fact. He further deposed that on 02.07.2004 at about 11.00 a.m., when P.W1 returned to home, he was informed by P.W5 that one Nasina Kameswaramma, W/o.Venkataramanaiah, Nasina Venktalakshmi, W/o. Seenaiah went to their house and beat P.W5, abusing her in the name of 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 caste, as they were making efforts for getting assignment of Ac.0.72 cents of land, purchased by accused Nos.2, 3 and 5, and they also sprinkled chilly powder on P.W5 and in connection with that, P.W5 and their children gave a police report.
18. With regard to the incident proper, it is the specific evidence of P.W1 that on 03.07.2004 at about 6.30 a.m., P.W1 proceeded on his cycle for distribution of daily newspaper "Prajasakthi‟ in the village. P.W2, son of P.W1, also accompanied him. By the time they went to the bus shelter, near Samaadulu of his village, it is alleged that accused No.1 armed with an axe, and accused Nos.2 to 5 armed with iron rods, and accused No.1, by proclaiming that P.W1 should be hacked, hacked P.W1 with an axe on his left leg below the knee, as a result, P.W1 sustained a bleeding injury; that P.W1 fell down and accused No.2 beat him with an iron rod on his right palm near the thumb and right index finger, as a result P.W1 sustained a bleeding injury; that accused No.3 beat him with an iron rod on his left elbow joint as a result, P.W1 sustained a bleeding injury; that accused No.5 beat P.W1 with an iron rod on his left arm below the joint and caused an injury, as a result, P.W1 sustained bleeding injury, and that accused No.4 beat P.W1 below the right scapula and accused No.1 hacked on his 16 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 left middle finger with an axe and inflicted an injury; that accused No.5 beat P.W1 with an iron rod on his right foot resulting a fracture injury to P.W1. P.W1 and his son raised cries and on hearing the same, P.W3 and his wife viz. P.W4 and others witnessed the incident. The accused after beating P.W1, went away towards Macherlavaripalem. P.W1‟s son i.e. P.W2 and P.Ws.3 and 4, on securing an auto, took P.W1 to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore at about 8.00 a.m.
19. In the cross-examination of P.W1, he deposed that he was having Ac.0.50 cents of land in Piduru tank; that accused No.3 purchased Ac.1.00 cents of land from Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah and Gutam Lakshmamma; that four years prior to the date of incident, Ac.0.72 cents was left as Beedu; that Ac.0.72 cents was never cultivated by Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah and Gutam Lakshmamma. P.W1 further deposed in his cross-examination that he stated before police that Ac.0.72 cents of land was encroached by Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah of his caste and cultivated the same, but he does not remember in which year accused No.3 and others purchased Ac.0.72 cents of land.
20. P.W1, in his cross-examination, further deposed that a case was filed against him alleging that he beat and caused injuries 17 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 to accused No.3 and his father viz. Venkaiah and brother Seenaiah and one Parusuramaiah and then, he filed the case against them alleging that they abused him touching his caste and parties effected compromise in those cases. He further deposed that he stated in Ex.P1-statement that by the time he went to the house of one Erikula Bujjaiah for supplying newspaper, the accused beat him there. Though, learned defence counsel put-forth suggestions denying the specific overt act as against the accused No.3, and the said suggestions were denied by the witness.
21. P.W2 is the son of P.W1. He, in his examination in chief, reiterates the version of his father as deposed by him in his examination in chief. With regard to incident proper, P.W2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.07.2004 at about 6.30 a.m., himself, along with his father, proceeded to supply the newspaper to the readers and he started to provide injections to the residents in the Harijanawada and when they reached Samadhulu bus shelter of their village at about 7.00 a.m., accused No.1 armed with an axe and accused Nos.2 to 5 armed with iron rods, stopped P.W1 and abused him touching his caste and beat P.W1. He specifically deposed that accused No.1 hacked P.W1 with an axe below the left 18 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 knee and when P.W1 fell down, accused Nos.2 to 5 beat P.W1 with iron rods and inflicted bleeding injuries.
22. In the cross-examination, P.W2 deposed that it was proposed to allot the site to 20 beneficiaries, but the pattas were proposed to be issued for 7 beneficiaries, however, those pattas were not granted to anybody. According to him, in respect of the incident that occurred on 02.07.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., a case was registered. He concedes that his father is a leader of CPM Party in the village of Narukuru and surrounding villages. Except the suggestions, nothing material could be elicited in the cross- examination of P.W2.
23. P.W3 is the brother-in-law of P.W1. According to him, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on the date of incident and on hearing cries, P.W3 and his wife i.e. P.W4 and P.W2 took the injured to Nellore Government Hospital in an auto. In the cross-examination, P.W1 was asked as to who beat P.W1, but P.W1 did not state before P.W3 as to who beat him. He further deposed that he was not aware as to whether P.W1 was having disputes with the villagers and whether cases are pending against him.
19
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
24. P.W4, who is the wife of P.W3, also speaks as narrated by P.W3. In the cross-examination, P.W4 categorically states that P.W1 stated before P.W4 that he cannot say who beat him. P.W1 was having disputes with good number of people in the village.
25. P.W5 is the wife of P.W1. She deposed in her examination in chief that about four years prior to the date of her evidence, her husband sustained injuries; that towards west of their house, there is a site of about Ac.0.72 cents and it was used to be cultivated by one Balakrishna; that they made applications to the Government for allotment of that site to them i.e. Harijans and went to the District Collector; that the MRO and the RI visited the village and examined the land and stated that they would allot the land to them as house sites. P.W5 further deposed that on the second day thereafter, the daughter of accused No.3 along with some others came upon their house and hurled stones; that the wife of Venkataramanaiah viz. Kameswaramma and the wife of accused No.5 viz. Venkatalakshmi and their relatives Papulamma came upon their house and sprinkled chilly powder and beat her.
26. With regard to the incident proper, P.W5 deposed that on the next day her husband went to village to supply the newspaper to the readers, and P.W2, her son, accompanied her 20 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 husband on their respective cycles; that she came to know that her husband was beaten and by the time she went to the scene of offence, her husband was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore. In the cross-examination of P.W5, she deposed that they were having house in Narukuru Harijanawada and it is in an extent of Ac.0.20 Ankanamas and it is an ancestral property. Nothing incriminating is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W5, except putting suggestions with regard to the incident proper.
27. P.Ws.6 and 7 did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution.
28. P.W8 is the Revenue Inspector of T.P.Gudur Mandal. His evidence is to the effect that on the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he went to the Narukur village on 01.07.2004 and verified the land and proposals were sent to the Government to allot Ac.0.22 cents out of Ac.0.72 cents as house sites to seven beneficiaries; that they also prepared to issue pattas to the seven beneficiaries, but subsequently, quarrel took place between the beneficiaries and the occupants of that Ac.0.72 cents of land and so, pattas were not distributed.
29. In the cross-examination, P.W8 deposed that Ac.0.72 cents of land is situated in S.No.55 of Narukuru village and there is 21 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 no patta land within that survey number. According to P.W8, by that time the said Ac.0.72 cents of land is under cultivation of Seenaiah and Venkateswarlu, but there are no entries in the revenue records evidencing that the above said two persons were cultivating the said land; that he was informed by the Panchayat Secretary that a quarrel ensued between the beneficiaries and the occupants; that he did not issue any proceedings and due to that dispute, issuance of pattas is cancelled.
30. P.W9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon at DSR Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore. She deposed in her evidence that on 03.07.2004 at 7.50 a.m. she examined P.W1, who came to the hospital along with his son by name Chandraiah and on her examination, she found that P.W1 sustained the following injuries:
1. An irregular wound over right palm of hand between right thumb and index finger;
2. An irregular wound over right elbow joint;
3. Swelling over right hand, right forearm and right elbow joint;
4. A lacerated wound of about 1 x ¼ cms, into skin deep over left elbow joint;
5. A lacerated wound of about 2 x ¼ cms, into skin deep over left middle of forearm with swelling of left forearm and hand;22
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
6. A lacerated wound above 3 x ½ cms, into bone deep over left leg;
7. Two abrasions of about ½ x ¼ cms over right leg;
8. A lacerated wound of about 8 x ¼ cms over right foot;
9. Swelling of the right foot;
10. Contusion of about 5 x 3 cms with an abrasion of about 1 x ¼ cms over right frontal region;
31. P.W9 issued Ex.P4-Wound Certificate. According to P.W9, injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are simple in nature and injury No.9 is grievous in nature. In the cross-examination, she deposed that injury No.9 might be possible if a person falls on a stone while coming onto contact with that part of body, but it is not possible if such person dashes a stone with a considerable speed. She denied the suggestion that all the injuries, except injury No.9, are possible when a person falls down while peddling cycle.
32. A perusal of entire evidence on record goes to show that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the accused purchased Ac.0.72 cents of land from one Sadepalli Balakrishnaiah, and it also reveals that the alleged incident is said to have taken place as there were disputes between the accused and P.W1, because of filing petitions by P.W1 seeking the Government for 23 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 allotment of the land, that was purchased by the accused, to himself and other members of Harijan community.
33. A perusal of evidence on record goes to show that the testimony of injured witness P.W1 is consistent and the same is corroborated by P.W2. Nothing has been elicited in their cross- examination to discredit their testimony. Coming to medical evidence, P.W9 is the Doctor, who examined the injured P.W1 on 03.07.2004 at 7.50 a.m., and issued Ex.P4-Wound Certificate. She found ten (10) injuries on P.W1, out of which, injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are simple in nature. In respect of injury No.9 is concerned, it is a grievous injury as per the evidence of P.W9-Doctor.
34. Learned counsel would contend that there are number of discrepancies and lacunae in the prosecution case. According to P.W1, he along with his son went for distribution of daily newspaper „Prajasakthi‟ to the readers, at about 6.30 a.m. on the fateful day. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused would contend that in the statement of P.W1, on the basis of which, crime was registered, name of P.W2 was not mentioned that he was present along with P.W1. At a later point of time, when P.W1 had fallen down with bleeding injuries, then P.Ws.2 to 4 went there and took P.W1 to the Hospital. Learned counsel further contends that it is not the case of 24 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 P.W1 that when the alleged incident was said to have taken place, P.W2 was not present at the scene of offence and he went to him at a later point of time.
35. Indisputably, FIR is not an encyclopaedia and need not contain minute details. During investigation, it was specifically stated that P.W2 took P.W1 to the Hospital.
36. P.Ws.3 and 4 are related to P.W1. When they were taking P.W1 to the hospital, a specific question was asked by P.Ws.3 and 4 to P.W1 that as to who caused injuries to him, to which, P.W1 expressed himself that he cannot say who beat him. The said witnesses have not been declared as hostile. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the prosecution witnesses. If really P.W1 had not expressed himself before P.Ws.3 and 4 as to who beat P.W1, the same gives any amount of ambiguity with regard to genesis of the attack. Irrespective of the same, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 stated that the alleged attack is because of P.W1 filing petitions as against the accused to allot their land to P.W1 and other Harijan community. Enraged of the same, accused were alleged to have attacked P.W.1.
37. To support the prosecution version, P.W8, who worked as Revenue Inspector deposed with regard to the motive that two days prior to the date of incident, he visited the village and enquired 25 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 with regard to the land, which has been purchased by the accused and assured P.W1 and others that they would be getting pattas on 07.07.2004. A perusal of the evidence of P.W8 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, an inference can be drawn that it is the accused, who were alleged to have attacked P.W1.
38. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/ accused submitted that the learned Judge erred in convicting accused No.5 of the charge under Section 326 IPC and accused Nos.1 to 4 of the charge under Section 326 read with 148 IPC, and without there being no such charges framed against them, the accused was misled by such error or omission and that such error omission has caused failure of justice. He placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Kalicharan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under
(Paragraph Nos.18, 19 & 20):
"18. What is more important for this case is Section 213 which reads thus:
"213. When manner of committing offence must be stated. -
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with 2 (2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 583 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1718.26
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose."
19. The emphasis is on giving details of the manner of committing offence. Unless the particulars such as specific sections of the penal statute as well as the time and place of the commission of the alleged offence are incorporated in the charge, the accused will not be in a position to properly defend himself. Even these particulars may not be enough in many cases to enable the accused to properly defend himself. That is why there is a specific requirement incorporated in Section 213 that if the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. Illustration (e) to Section 213 provides that when the charge contains an allegation that A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place, the charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B.
20. Going by the charge framed in this case, it is alleged therein that it was Accused 2 who murdered deceased Harpal Singh by firing bullets from his pistol. Though the case of the prosecution as can be seen from the evidence is that Accused 1, 3 and 4 committed the murder of Harpal Singh by using sharp weapons in their hand, there is no charge framed against Accused 1, 3 and 4 alleging that they murdered Harpal Singh. As there is no charge framed against Accused 1, 3 and 4 of committing the murder of Harpal Singh, Illustration (e) will not apply. Therefore, it was necessary to frame a charge in terms of Section 213 by stating the manner of committing the offence of murder by Accused 1, 3 and 4."
27
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
39. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/ accused Nos.1 to 5, there are no charges under Section 326 IPC against accused No.5 and Section 326 read with 148 IPC against accused Nos.1 and 3. According to the learned counsel, unless the details and particulars of the said charges are specifically put to the accused at the time of framing of charges, accused would not be in a position to defend themselves properly. Even these particulars may not be sufficient in many cases to enable the accused to properly defend themselves. In any case, the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 are not put the accused with sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, and that the charge shall also contain such particulars as to the manner in which the alleged offence was committed.
40. Going by the charge framed, that the accused are alleged to have attacked P.W1 and committed the offence of rioting and at that time, they were armed with deadly weapons and attacked P.W1. In respect of accused Nos.2 and 4, a charge was framed that, they voluntarily caused grievous hurt to P.W1 by means of an iron rod, which is an instrument for stabbing etc., and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Though, charge under Section 326 IPC was framed in respect of 28 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 accused Nos.2 and 4, in respect of the remaining accused i.e. accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, charges under Section 307 and 324 IPC were already framed including accused Nos.2 and 4. However, in respect of accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, there is no charge for the offence under Section 326 IPC.
41. At this stage, this Court comes to a conclusion that though a charge has not been framed at the earliest point of time, it has to be seen as to whether the two provisions that deal with errors or omissions in framing charge, they are Sections 215 and 464 CrPC, which reads as under:
"215. Effect of errors. - No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. - (1) No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may -
(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the 29 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge;
(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:
Provided that if the court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction."
42. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions goes to show that the finding and sentence of the Court cannot be said to be invalid on the ground of absence of framing of charge or on the ground of any error, omission, omission or irregularity in the charge including any mis-joinder of charges. The finding and sentence will be invalid unless the accused was, in fact, misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
43. A perusal of charges that have been framed, it has to be seen as to whether the competent Court that tried the accused, has informed the accused and clearly made them to understand the nature of offence, for which they are being tried. If the case against them is fully and fairly explained to them and a full and fair opportunity was afforded to defend themselves, the same would tantamount to substantial compliance.
30
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009
44. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Dalbir Singh case (1st supra), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under
(Paragraph No.15):
"15. In Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.3 a Constitution Bench examined the question of absence of charge in consideration detail. The observations made in paras 6 and 7, which are of general application, are being reproduced below: (AIR p.121) "6. Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the provisions of the Code, we will pause to observe that the Code is a code of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well-understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice.
If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is „substantial‟ compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the basic principle on which the Code is based.
7. Now here, as in all procedural laws, certain things are regarded as vital. Disregard of a provision of that nature 3 AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291.31
SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 is fatal to the trial and at once invalidates the conviction. Others are not vital and whatever the irregularity they can be cured; and in that event the conviction must stand unless the Court is satisfied that there was prejudice. Some of these matters are dealt with by the Code and wherever that is the case full case full effect must be given to its provisions.
15.1. After analysing the provisions of Sections 225, 232, 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which correspond to Sections 215, 464 (2), 464 and 465 of the 1973 Code, the Court held as under in para 44 of the Report: (AIR P.
128) "44. Now, as we have said, Sections 225, 232, 535 and 537 (a) between them, cover every conceivable type of error and irregularity referable to a charge that can possibly arise, ranging from cases in which there is a conviction with no charge at all from start to finish down to cases in which there is a change but with errors, irregularities and omissions in it. The Code is emphatic that „whatever‟ the irregularity it is not to be regarded as fatal unless there is prejudice.
It is the substance that we must seek. Courts have to administer justice and justice includes the punishment of guilt just as much as the protection of innocence. Neither can be done if the shadow is mistaken for the substance and the goal is lost in a labyrinth of unsubstantial technicalities. Broad vision is required, a nice balancing of the rights of the State and the protection of society in general against protection from harassment to the individual and the risks of unjust conviction.
Every reasonable presumption must be made in favour of an accused person; he must be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The same 32 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 broad principles of justice and fair play must be brought to bear when determining a matter of prejudice as in adjudging guilt. But when all is said and done what we are concerned to see is whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.
If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown the conviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether traceable to the charge or to a want of one.
45. As per Section 222 CrPC, when a charge for a major offence has been framed against the accused and if the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes a minor offence against the accused, there is no illegality in convicting the accused person of such minor offence and in such a case, framing of charge for such minor offence is not necessary. In the case on hand, accused Nos.1 to 5 were charged with an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and considering the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted accused Nos.1 and 3, along with accused Nos.2 and 4, of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 148 IPC, which is a minor offence.
46. This Court has got power to convict the accused of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it and under Section 33 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 222 CrPC is in the nature of a general provision which empowers the Court to convict for a minor offence even though charge has been framed for a major offence. So, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no prejudice caused to the accused, since all the material aspects have been explained to the accused, this Court finds that there is nothing illegal or wrong in convicting the accused of the minor offence.
47. Going by the record, all the accused, armed with deadly weapons, inflicted ten (10) injuries over the person of P.W1, out of which, injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are simple in nature, and injury No.9 is grievous in nature. Since, in respect of accused Nos.1 to 5 specific overt acts have been attributed and all the injuries sustained by P.W1 are all non-vital parts and they are simple in nature, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge of the charges under Sections 324 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5 holds good.
48. In respect of the offence under Section 326 read with 148 IPC, it is the evidence of P.W1 that A1 hacked P.W1 with an axe on his left leg below the knee; A2 beat him with an iron rod on his right palm near the thumb and right index finger; A3 beat him with an iron rod on his left elbow joint; A4 beat him below the right 34 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 scapula; A1 hacked on his left middle finger with an axe; A5 beat him with an iron rod on his left arm below the joint and on his right foot. As per the evidence of P.W9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, P.W1 sustained ten (10) injuries and out of which, injury No.9 sustained to his right foot was a fracture injury and the remaining injuries i.e. injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are all simple in nature. The evidence of P.W1 who attributed specific overt acts as against accused Nos.1 to 5 coupled with the evidence of P.W9, goes to show that injury Nos.1 to 8 and 10 are simple in nature inflicted due to the acts of accused Nos.1 to 4 and injury No.9 was sustained by P.W1 due to the blow given by accused No.5. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to attribute accused Nos.1 to 4 to the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 148 IPC and they are entitled for acquittal of the said charge and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 148 IPC is set-aside.
49. Coming to the charge under Section 147 IPC, no case is made out as against accused Nos.1 to 5 that they formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly they inflicted simple and grievous injuries to the person of P.W1. The prosecution failed to establish 35 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC and the conviction and sentence recorded thereunder against accused Nos.1 to 5, are set-aside.
50. In respect of the charge under Section 326 IPC accused No.5 is concerned, P.W1, in his evidence, specifically deposed that A5 beat him with an iron rod on his right foot. The evidence of P.W9 is to the effect that injury No.9 sustained by P.W1 to his right foot was a fracture injury. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 coupled with the evidence of P.W9-Doctor, it can be attributed that A5 is the person who attacked P.W1 with a deadly weapon and caused fracture injury to his right foot and such injury is of grievous in nature. The learned Special Judge rightly convicted the accused No.5 of the charge under Section 326 IPC and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same.
51. Coming to the charge Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act framed against appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5, a perusal of entire evidence of material prosecution witnesses goes to show that prior to the incident, P.W1 and the accused were not having enemical terms and it is due to the petitions made by P.W1 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, T.P.Gudur to allot land to P.W1 36 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 and others, who belonged to Harijan community. Basing on the same, P.W8, Revenue Inspector along with Panchayat Secretary visited the village and inspected the land and found that an extent of Ac.0.72 cents, purchased by the accused, is fit for house sites and out of the said extent, Ac.0.22 cents of land was proposed to allot to seven beneficiaries, among which, P.W1 was one of the beneficiaries, and when pattas were being prepared to issue the same to the beneficiaries, quarrel arose between the beneficiaries and the accused, and during that process, on the date of incident accused beat P.W1, as he was the reason for identifying Ac.0.22 cents of land by the revenue authority out of their Ac.0.72 cents of land and proposing the same to be fit for house sites and for distribution of the same to the houseless beneficiaries. It all would indicate that accused had not beaten P.W1 because he belonged to the scheduled community, but for the reason that due to the petitions made to the Mandal Revenue Officer, their part of land was being surveyed and proposed to issue pattas to the houseless beneficiaries and no intention can be attributed as against appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 that they abused P.W1 by touching his caste, to humiliate him. Except P.Ws 1 and 2, injured and his son, none of the material prosecution witnesses deposed about 37 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 accusation levelled against accused Nos.1 to 5 that they abused P.W1 touching his caste. Even in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no specific abusive words have been deposed by them so as to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the appellants/ accused Nos.1 to 5 are given benefit of doubt in respect of the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said charge in terms of Section 235 (1) CrPC.
52. Learned Special Judge sentenced accused Nos.1 to 5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each for the offence under Section 324 IPC; further, sentenced accused No.5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
53. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that the incident took place in the year 2004. All the material prosecution witnesses and accused belonged to one village. The motive for the 38 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 attack is that P.W1 made petitions to the Mandal Revenue Officer for allotment of the land purchased by the accused for house sites to P.W1 and others. Furthermore, considerable period has elapsed after the incident. In view of the above said mitigating facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge.
54. In the result.-
(a) The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 2008 by the Special Judge for trial of Offences under the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act, Nellore-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in the impugned Judgment against appellant Nos.1 to 4/accused Nos.1 to 4 of the charge under Section 326 read with 148 IPC; against appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 of the charges under Section 147 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act, 1989, are set-aside;
(b) The conviction recorded against appellant No.5/ accused No.5 of the charge under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for the said charge is modified and appellant No.5/accused No.5 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of 39 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1722 of 2009 Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.
(c) The conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge against appellant Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.1 to 5 of the charge under Section 324 IPC is confirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each, is modified, and the appellant Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each.
(d) All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment underwent by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 5 during investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set-off under Section 428 CrPC.
55. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions in the present Criminal Appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY th 18 July, 2025.
DNB