TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also imposed. All the eleven convicted persons filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. All these eleven convicted persons preferred special leave petition in which leave has been granted. During the pendency of the appeal, one more convicted person has died. 3. Chinthalajuturu in Vemula Mandal of Cuddapah District (Andhra Pradesh) is a faction-ridden village. One of these factions is led by Kakarla Gangi Reddy (victim group) that supports Congress Party. The leader of the other faction is Annareddysamba Siva Reddy (accused group) which supports Telugu Desam Party. There were instances of attack between these groups earlier also. One year prior to the present incident, one Yeddula Gangi Reddy of the Congress Party and belonging to victim group was murdered. About a fortnight prior to the incident, one Sirigireddy Prathapa Reddy of accused group was murdered. For the murder of Sirigireddy Prathapa Reddy, the members of victim group figured as accused. It is for this reason that A.M. Annareddy Siva Reddy started residing at Pulivendula. 4. On May 16, 1996 at about 9.00 A.M. Annareddy Siva Reddy (deceased ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case (Crime No. 26/1996) and forwarded a copy of the first information report to the concerned magistrate immediately thereafter. 7. A. Venkateswara Reddy (PW-12) - Inspector of Police, took up investigation and conducted further investigation on May 17, 1996. He conducted inquest of the dead bodies and sent them to Government Hospital, Pulivendula for post-mortem examination. PW-10 conducted autopsy of the dead bodies and issued post-mortem reports Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19. PW-10 also examined the injured PW- 2 and PW-3 and issued injury certificates Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.16. 8. In order to complete the narration of facts, it may be noticed here that during the course of investigation, A-14 and A-15 pleaded alibi. The Investigating Officer took all necessary steps towards investigation and after collecting the necessary evidence and on completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet against A-1 to A-13 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pulivendula who committed them to court of sessions for trial. The accused were charged for the following offences: (i) A-1 to A-13 for rioting under Section 148 IPC; (ii) A-1 to A-13 for wrongful restraint under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed during the trial and, thus, the case abated as against them. 13. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-8 and A-10 to A-13 filed appeal before the High Court. The State preferred separate appeal against that very judgment in so far as acquittal of A-14 and A-15 was concerned. 14. These two appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of the High Court and were dismissed on March 9, 2006. 15. The present appeal now subsists on behalf of A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6 to A-8 and A-10 to A-13 since A-5 has died during the pendency of appeal. 16. Dr. T.V. Raghavendra Reddy (PW-10), Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pulivendla conducted post- mortem examination on the body of Annareddy Siva Reddy (D-1) on May 17, 1996. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P-18), he recorded the following external injuries on the body of D-1: 1. An incised wound in the middle of right upper arm measuring about 7 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm deep. Muscles cut and fracture of bone present. 2. An incised wound 5 cm above wound No. 1 measuring about 7 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm deep. Muscles cut. 3. An incised wound from the lateral part of the left eye below the ear to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtem reports (Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19) leave no manner of doubt that the death of D-1 and D-2 was homicidal. 19. PW-1 is the injured witness. The following injuries were inflicted on him: 1. An incised wound in front of left parietal area and front bone measuring about 7 cm x 1= cm x bone deep. (Depressed fracture of the frontal bone as per the specialist opinion). 2. An incised wound on the left hand above the wrist measuring about 4 cm x 1 cm x muscles deep. Fracture of Ulna bone (As per the specialist opinion). 3. An incised wound on the posterior part of the left parietal area measuring about 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, and cut of the bone. 4. An incised wound by the side of wound No. 3, 2 cm apart measuring about 3 cm x = cm x scalp deep. 5. An incised wound on the left hand above wound No. 2 measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep. 6. An incised wound on the right wrist measuring about 1= cm x = cm skin deep. 7. An incised wound on the anterior part of Right parietal bone measuring about 2 cm x cm x skin deep. 8. An incised wound on the anterior part of the left parietal bone measuring about 3= cm x cm x Sk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention that PW-11 is a chance witness, is noted to be rejected. Pertinently, the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Magistrate without any delay. As a matter of fact, F.I.R. reached the Magistrate at 10.45 P.M. on May 16, 1996 itself. As to whether PW-1 was in a fit and proper condition to give statement or not, could have been assessed by PW-10 under whose treatment PW-1 was at that time and none else. The evidence of PW-7 referred to by the learned senior counsel in no way creates any doubt about the correctness of statement of PW-10 as PW-7 has not stated in definite terms that PW-1 was not in a fit state of condition to give statement at that time. The trial court as well as the High Court did not accept the contention made on behalf of the accused that Ex.P-1 was fabricated. We agree with this view of the trial court and the High Court. 23. PW-1 in his testimony before the court has given account of the incident. He testified that A-1, A-2, A-10 and A-12 were armed with axes and remaining eleven accused were armed with eathapululu (sickle). A-1 to A-9 hacked D-1 with their weapons. A-3, A-6, A-7, A-10 to A-13 hacked D-2 with their respective weapons. A-1, A-3, A-6, A-7 and A-10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red a grave injury on his head. Two of their family members died. Why should he and PW-3 let real culprits go scot-free ? It is most unlikely that they would have spared the actual assailants and falsely implicated these appellants merely because there is political rivalry between them. The omissions and discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are only minor and do not shake their trustworthiness. It is true that neither PW-1 nor PW-3 assigned specific injuries or specific overt acts attributed to the accused individually but looking to the nature of the incident where large number of persons attacked D-1, D-2 PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it would not have been possible for PW-1 or PW-3 to attribute specific injury individually to each accused. How could it be possible for any person to recount with meticulous exactitude the various individual acts done by each assailant ? Had they stated so, their testimony would have been criticized as highly improbable and unnatural. The testimony of eye-witnesses carries with it the criticism of being tutored if they give graphic details of the incident and their evidence would be assailed as unspecific, vague and general if they fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se some injury but not to cause the fatal injuries. In support of this contention of his, the learned senior counsel relied upon Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 725; Bhajan Singh And Ors. v. The State of Punjab 1979 CriLJ 7 and Ram Anjore and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1975 CriLJ 249. 29. Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the State in his reply submitted that in the complaint (Ex.P-1), the names of all the accused persons, weapons wielded by them and their participation have been clearly mentioned. In their deposition, PW-1 and PW-3 have also stated which of the accused attacked D-1, D-2 and injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and, therefore, non-attributing the injuries specifically to the individual accused does not materially affect the prosecution case. He would urge that the accused- appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 IPC simpliciter which would show that the accused formed unlawful assembly. The learned Counsel invited our attention to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that in the present case, neither in the grounds of appeal before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nanak Chand, this Court stated: ...There is a clear distinction between the provisions of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the two Sections are not to be confused . The principal element in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is the common intention to commit a crime. In furtherance of the common intention several acts may be done by several persons resulting in the commission of that crime. In such a situation section 34 provides that each one of them would be liable for that crime in the same manner as if all the acts resulting in that crime had been done by him alone. There is no question of common intention in Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. An offence may be committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and the other members will be liable for that offence although there was no common intention between that person and other members of the unlawful assembly to commit that offence provided the conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled. Thus if the offence committed by that person is in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Such knowledge can reasonably be intended from the nature of the assembly, arms or behaviour, at or before the scene of action. If such knowledge may not reasonably be attributed to the other members of the assembly then their liability for the offence committed during the occurrence does not arise. Tested on this touchstone, we may safely say that in the present case when the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly which was armed with lathis and guns and a declaration had been made that in the event there is any resistance to the taking away of the paddy which is stated to have been the original object, they were willing to take the life of the deceased and take away the paddy. If that is the position, it is futile to contend for the appellants that their conviction is in any way bad. 34. Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads: 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge No. 4. That you A-1 to A-5 and A-6 to A-9, on or about the same day, time, place and during the course of the same transaction as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Annareddi Sivaraeddi (deceased No. 1) and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Charge No. 5. That you A-3, A-6 to A-8, A-10 to A-13 on or about the same day, time, place and during the course of the same transaction as mentioned in the charge No. 1 above, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Yerramireddi Pullareddi (deceased No. 2) and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Charge No. 6. That you A-1, A-3, A-6 to A-8, A-10, A-12 and A-13 on or about the same day, time, place and during the course of the same transaction as mentioned in charge No. 1 above, did an act to wit to murder with such intention and under such circumstances, that if by that act you had caused the death of Annareddi Bala Gangi Reddi (LW-1) you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused hurt to the said Annareddi Bala Gan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed: 29. We do not agree with either view. In our opinion, the cases contemplated by Section 237 are just as much a departure from Section 233 as are those envisaged in Sections 225, 226, 227, 228, 535 and 537. Sections 236, 237 and 238 deal with joinder of charges and so does Section 233. The first condition is that there shall be a separate charge for each offence and the second is that each charge must be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235 and 236. It is to be observed that the exceptions are confined to the rule about joinder of charges and that no exception is made to that part of the rule that requires separate charges for each offence. It will be seen that though Sections 234, 235 and 236 are expressly mentioned, Section 237 is not referred to, nor is Section 238. Therefore, so far as Section 233 is concerned, there can be no doubt that it requires a separate charge for each offence and does not envisage a situation in which there is either no charge at all or where, there being a charge for some other offence of which the accused is acquitted, he can be convicted instead of something else for which he was not charged. We are un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also bound to have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 77. The sections referred to indicate that in the generality of cases the omission to frame a charge is not per se fatal. We are unable, therefore, to accept as sound the very broad proposition advanced for the appellants by Mr Umrigar that where there is no charge, the conviction would be illegal, prejudice or no prejudice. On the other hand, it is suggested that the wording of Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficiently wide to cover every case of no charge. It is said that it applies also to the case of a trial in which there has been no charge of any kind even from the very outset. We are unable to agree that Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be construed in such an unlimited sense. It may be noticed that this group of sections relating to absence of a charge, namely, Sections 225, 226 and 232 and the powers exercisable thereunder, are with reference to a trial which has already commenced or taken place. They would, therefore, normally relate to errors of omissions which occur in a trial that has v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to who was primarily responsible for the act which brought about the offence and such evidence is of course relevant. 79. After all, in our considering whether the defect is illegal or merely irregular, we shall have to take into account several factors, such as the form and the language of the mandatory provisions, the scheme and the object to be achieved, the nature of the violation, etc. Dealing with the question whether a provision in a statute is mandatory or directory, Lord Penzance observed in Howard v. Bodington. "There may be many provisions in Acts of Parliament which, although they are not strictly obeyed, yet do not appear to the court to be of that material importance to the subject-matter to which they refer, as that the legislature could have intended that the non-observance of them should be followed by a total failure of the whole proceedings. On the other hand, there are some provisions in respect of which the court would take an opposite view, and would feel that they are matters which must be strictly obeyed, otherwise the whole proceedings that subsequently follow must come to an end. These words c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was not framed or that charge was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice. Because of a mere defect in language or in the narration or in form of the charge, the conviction would not be rendered bad if accused has not been adversely affected thereby. If the ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit, conviction in regard thereto can be sustained irrespective of the fact that the said section has not been mentioned. A fair trial to the accused is a sine quo non in our criminal justice system but at the same time procedural law contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by introduction of hyper-technicalities. Every case must depend on its own merits and no straightjacket formula can be applied; the essential and important aspect to be kept in mind is: has omission to frame a specific charge resulted in prejudice to the accused. 43. Coming now to the facts of the present case; all the accused were put to notice under charge No. 1 that on May 16, 1996 in the morning near Gollalaguduru Harijanawada, they were members of an unlawful assembly armed with....