Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karnati Seshaiah A 2 vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 October, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3730 OF 2020
ORDER:
The petitioners/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 in Crime No.107 of 2020 on the file of Durgi Police Station, Guntur District, filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to issue a direction to Station House Officer, Durgi to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with the above crime, apprehending their arrest.
The petitioners 1 to 6 are Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 in Crime No.107 of 2020 on the file of Durgi Police Station, Guntur District, allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 188, 270 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').
The facts of the case are that, the defacto complainant VunnamVenkatramaiah alleged that he had a dispute with Gurazala Srinu (A-1) in respect of drainage. On 25.07.2020 at 8:00 P.M, while the father of the informant Chworya and Gurazala Srinu (A-1) were quarrelling over an issue, he questioned Gurazala Srinu as to why he was quarrelling with his father. It is alleged that Gurazala Srinu (A-1) picked up a rod lying nearby and hit the informant on his forehead resulting in swelling injury. It is further alleged that the relatives of the petitioners 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 along with Karnati Sai, Karnati Venkateswarulu, Karnati Naveen with an intention to kill the informant and his father, came there shouting and carrying sticks and axe and they MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 2 bet the brother of defacto complainant - Vunnam Srinivasa Rao on his head, resulting in bleeding injury. Then, petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and others held his uncle Vunnam Rama Rao by his arms, Karnati Naveen and Karnati Sai armed with an axe shouting that they will kill him and tried to kill him, resulting in bleeding injury on his head. It is alleged that, Petitioner Nos. 2,4 and 6/Accused Nos. 6,8 and 10 and Karnati Venkateswarlu (A-4) who are the relatives of Gurazala Srinu (A-1) came there and bet with hands and legs, resulting in bleeding injuries. Immediately, the injured were shifted to the hospital and on receipt of intimation from the hospital, the police recorded statement of the injured and on the strength of the same, case in Crime No.107 of 2020 was registered on 26.07.2020 on the file of Durgi Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences referred above.
The police also recorded statement of Karnati Padmavati, who was attacked by the informant and his relatives in respect of the same transaction and a case in Crime No.108 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 509, 188, 270r/w 34 I.P.C was registered.
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 along with Gurazala Srinu (A-1) filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2020 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, which ended in dismissal on 18.08.2020. Again, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 filed Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2020 before X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, which was also dismissed on 01.09.2020. Therefore, these petitioners approached this Court for MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 3 grant of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with the above crime for various offences referred above.
The main contention urged before this Court is that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10, did cause no grave injury and they had no intention to kill the informant and his father. It is contended that the incident took place in a sudden provocation and both parties attacked one another and caused injuries on the body of the informant and his father. But, for one reason or the other, the police registered a crime against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 under Section 307 along with other offences, whereas Crime No.108 of 2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 509, 188 and 270 r/w 34 I.P.C, ignoring the attempt made by the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 to kill the informant and his father. Thus, the case and counter case are registered. But, the police, for the reasons best known to them, registered crime against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 for grave offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C also.
During hearing, Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners initially contended that, the three persons did not sustain injuries. But, on direction of this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the wound certificate of the injured persons and upon receipt of the wound certificate and taking advantage of the opinion of the doctor, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the injuries received by the three persons are simple in nature and those injuries are not on vital parts and most of MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 4 them are not bleeding injuries, question of attracting offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C would not arise and thereby, there was no reason to believe that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 committed an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C, and contended that the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor for the State would contend that, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 committed a grave offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C, along with other offences and that the two parties attacked one another. In the attack, the petitioners' group which was armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, axe, etc, caused injuries on the body of three persons, as opined by the doctor. That too, when two rival groups are claiming right over an issue and attacking one another, in the event of enlarging these petitioners on pre-arrest bail, there is every possibility of petitioners interfering with further investigation and creating law and order problem, thereby disturbing public peace and tranquillity and requested to dismiss the petition, basing on the judgment of the Supreme Court on Kuriya and another v. State of Rajasthan1.
It is an undisputed fact that there were two groups in the village and on an issue, both the parties attacked one another, more particularly, when Gurazala Srinu (A-1) was quarrelling with the father of the informant, Gurazala Srinu (A-1) picked up iron rod and caused injury on the head of the informant and on seeing the same, the other accused i.e the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused 1 (2012) 10 SCC 433 MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 5 Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 shouted that they have to kill the informant and his father and caused injuries on the body of informant and his father with axe and other deadly weapons, with an intention to kill them.
Initially Crime No.107 of 2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307,188 and 270 r/w 34 I.P.C. Later, a memo dated 27.07.2020 was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Durgi Police Station, before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, adding additional Sections 324, 147, 148r/w 149 I.P.C, based on the material collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation, in addition to the original penal provisions of Sections 307,188 and 270 r/w 34 I.P.C.
In any view of the matter, the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C also disclosed that, on 25.07.2020 at 8:00 p.m, when father of Vunnam Venkatramaiah by name Chworya and Gurazala Srinu (A-1) were found quarrelling over an issue regarding drainage, when Vunnam Venkatramaiah questioned Gurazala Srinu (A-1), as to why he was quarrelling with his father, Gurazala Srinu (A-1) immediately picked up rod and hit on the forehead of the informant Vunnam Venkatramaiah and caused swelling injuries. The relatives of the petitioners 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 along with Karnati Sai, Karnati Venkateswarulu, Karnati Naveen with an intention to kill the informant and his father, came there shouting and carrying sticks and axe and they bet the brother of defacto complainant - Vunnam Srinivasa Rao on his head, resulting in bleeding injury. Then, Karnati Seshaiah (A-2), Bathula Prasad (A-9) and others held his MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 6 uncle Vunnam Rama Rao by his arms, Karnati Naveen and Karnati Sai came with axe shouting that they will kill him and tried to kill him, the attempt resulted in bleeding injuries on the head of the informant and his father. The statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, coupled with the material on record clearly show that, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 made an attempt to kill Unnam Rama Rao, while causing injuries on the body of other persons. But, whether these acts would attract an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C or not is a question of fact to be decided. Even if the injuries are caused on the body of the victims, with an intention to kill them, irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the offence, if they had an intention to kill them, it would attract an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. However, such intention can be gathered from the circumstance of the case, including the oral evidence of the injured and the direct witnesses to the incident, seat of injury and weapon used in commission of an offence. But, at this stage, it is difficult to conclude that there is no reason to believe that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 had committed the offences referred supra, though the injuries received by the victims are simple in nature.
As seen from the wound certificate of Vunnam Rama Rao dated 22.09.2020 issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Macherla, whom the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 allegedly attempted to kill, he received the following injuries:
MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 7
1. A 7 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm and lacerated injury on anterior part of head
2. 1 x 1 cm and abrasion over upper part of left lung;
3. 1 x 0.5 cm, two abrasions over left foot.
The doctor opined that injuries are simple in nature, caused by blunt object and age of injury is within six hours prior to examination. Similarly, the injuries received by Vunnam Venkata Ramaiah and Vunnam Srinivasa Rao are also certified as simple in nature by the doctor and would have caused with a blunt object. But, lacerated injury would not be caused with a blunt object which is 0.5 cms in depth.
In any view of the matter, it is premature to express any opinion as to the nature of injuries and the intention of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 to kill the informant and his father, since the Court is not expected to express its opinion at the pre-mature stage as to the intention and nature of injuries, examining the material minutely.
Undoubtedly, it is an attack by two rival parties against one another. In such case, the Court cannot conclude at this stage as to who is the aggressor and it is question of fact to be determined at the appropriate stage. Therefore, on examination of entire material on record, though injuries are simple in nature, statement of witnesses recorded by the police during investigation and statement of injured recorded in the hospital disclosed that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 made an attempt to kill the informant and his father. Whether the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 made an attempt to kill the informant and his father or not cannot be decided at this stage.
MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 8 Learned Public Prosecutor for the State placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court on Kuriya and another v. State of Rajasthan (referred supra), where, the Apex Court held that, "It is difficult to state any hard and fast rule which can be applied universally to all cases. It will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the given case whether the person involved in the commission of the crime with a common intention can be held guilty of the main offence committed by them together. The provisions of Section 34 IPC come to the aid of law while dealing with the cases of criminal act and common intention. Its basic essentials are: that the criminal act is committed by several persons, such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all and each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone". This judgment is pertaining to Section 34 I.P.C.
When a particular person caused an injury on the body of the informant and his father, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 are also liable along with the persons who caused injury for the same act, though done by him in furtherance of common intention. Such common intention cannot be decided at this stage and it varies from case to case and circumstance.
On overall consideration of entire material on record, I find that there is prima facie, reason to believe that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,9 and 10, had involved in commission of such crime which was during the attack by one group against the other in the village. When the Trial Court concluded that there is a reason to believe that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6/Accused Nos.
MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 9 2,6,7,8,9 and 10 had committed the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C, this Court normally will not exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant pre- arrest bail.
Grant of pre-arrest bail is not a matter of course and it is a matter of exception, unless the Court thinks that there are exceptional circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that on the basis of plea, the accused had not committed an offence, the Court cannot grant pre-arrest bail. For grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the Apex Court laid down 10 guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (referred supra) which are as follows:
i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
MSM,J CrlP No.3730 of 2020 10 x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
(Emphasis supplied) It is evident from the record that there is a group rivalry between two groups in the village and they attacked one another, thereby, crime was registered. If, these petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is every possibility of tampering evidence and creating law and order problem in the village.
Therefore, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, the Court has to assess the circumstances, stage of investigation, gravity of the offences and the role played by the accused, enumerated in the above judgment. If, the same principle is applied to the present facts of the case, in view of the seriousness of the issue and attack by one group against the other, causing such injury on the body of the members of two groups, I am unable to exercise power under Section 438 Cr.P.C to direct the Station House Officer, Durgi Police Station, Guntur District, to release these petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the above crime. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated:01.10.2020 SP