Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the argument that the other witnesses were not reliable because they were interested witnesses. As regards charge under Section 34 IPC, the Trial Court relied on the settled position in law that it is not necessary that there should be a clear positive evidence about the meeting of mind before the occurrence and that if there are more than one accused a common intention to kill can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. The prosecution need not prove the overt act of the accused. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC the Trial Court held that there was clear intention of accused here and that it was clearly established that the accused went to the office of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in a car and the other circumstances clearly establish that there was preparation for committing the offence. As noticed earlier, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under Section 452 IPC for 7 years and under Section 307 IPC for 10 years read with Section 34 IPC.

12. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC, the High Court observed that the incident occurred when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office and not at any private place and hence ipso facto set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

13. During the pendency of this matter, respondent Nos. 4 & 5, namely, Addla Umamaheswara Rao (accused No. 3) and Chintha Lakshmana Rao (accused No. 4) expired. Hence the special leave petition insofar as those respondents has already abated, vide order dated 04.02.2014.

18. We are thus of the view that this is a clear case of intention to commit the murder of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) the appellant and the accused acted in concert and committed an offence under Section 307 IPC. As regards the setting aside of the conviction by the High Court under Section 452 IPC, we find the reasoning completely unacceptable and untenable. The High Court has simply set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC only on the ground that the victim was sitting at the Lorry Workers Union Office and not at any private place. Section 452 of the IPC reads as follows:

20. We thus find that the accused were not entitled to be acquitted for the offences under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

21. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram in Sessions Case No. 234 of 1999. The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha Krishna] are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 452 with Section 34 IPC. The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2- Chintha Krishna] are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default simple imprisonment for a period of three month each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Sentence already undergone, if any, shall be set off.