Singapagu Anjaiah vs State Of A.P

REPORTABLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1166 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.7091 OF 2008)

SINGAPAGU ANJAIAH .... APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH .... RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

C.K. PRASAD, J.

1. The sole petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2006

affirming the judgment and order dated 6.4.2006 passed by

the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

Mahabubnagar in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2003, has

preferred this petition for grant of special leave to appeal. 2

2. Leave granted.

3. Altogether eight persons, including the appellant were

put on trial for various offences punishable under Section 148,

307/149, 302, 302/149 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The appellant, in particular, was charged for offences of

rioting, attempt to commit murder of S. Ramulu (PW.1),

murder of S. Ramalingam and causing hurt to S.

Ramchandriah (PW.5), punishable under Section 148, 307,

302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The trial

court acquitted all the accused persons for the offence under

Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code but sentenced all of

them for offence under Section 148, 324/149 and 302/149

and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the

offence under Section 302/149 and rigorous imprisonment for

nine months for the offence under Section 148 and 324/149 of

the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, conviction of all the

accused except the appellant under Section 302/149 of the

Indian Penal Code was set aside. However, the conviction of 3

other accused under other offences have been maintained to

which we are not concerned in this appeal. Appellant's

conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 324 and 302 of

the Indian Penal Code has been maintained.

5. Sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the order

of conviction and sentence.

6. According to the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 5 and accused

persons are close relatives and they are residents of village

Tirumalairi. There was a dispute between the prosecution

party and the accused persons over a pathway for which an

altercation took place earlier between them and a case bearing

Crime No.15 of 1997 was registered at the Police Station

Balanagar under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. S.

Ramulu (PW.1) and his brothers were prosecuted in the said

case and ultimately they were found guilty and sentenced to

pay a fine of Rs.100/-. According to the prosecution, accused

persons were annoyed on account of their conviction and

waiting for an opportunity to take revenge. 4

7. According to the prosecution, on 9.7.2002 at 7 A.M., S.

Ramulu (PW.1)was on way to his newly constructed house

situated at the end of the village. He noticed one of the

accused and two other persons at the house of S.

Thirumalaiah (PW.6). One of the persons at the house of PW.6

was Bichya Naik who happened to be the Chairman of

Watershed Committee. One of the accused and said Bichya

Naik requested PW.6 to provide chairs for the school to which

S. Ramulu (PW.1) replied that the chairs purchased by the

Sarpanch could be spared for the purpose. The said accused

did not like that and abused PW.1 for which the later

admonished him. At this, according to the prosecution, the

said accused assaulted PW.1. In the meanwhile, according to

the prosecution, the appellant herein came from behind, held

his head and threw him down.

8. According to the prosecution, accused persons assaulted

S. Ramulu (PW.1), S. Narsimha (PW.2), S. Nagaiah (PW.3), S.

Anjaiah (PW.4) and S. Ramchandriah (PW.5, )and all of them

have sustained various injuries on their person. The present 5

appellant, according to these injured persons, hit the deceased

with a crow bar at his head causing serious injury. A report of

the incident was given by PW.1-S.Ramula to PW.11-Rajender

Kulkarni, the Station House Officer of Balanagar Police Station

and on that basis, crime no. 147 of 2002 was registered.

Rajender Kulkarni, Sub-Inspector of Police sent all the injured

to the Government Hospital, Shadnagar but Ramalingam

succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. All the

injured witnesses, namely PW.1 to PW.5 were examined by Dr.

Govind Waghmare (PW.9), Civil Assistant Surgeon who found

several injuries on person of each of those witnesses. Dr.

Govind Waghmare (PW.9) also held autopsy on the dead body

of the deceased S. Ramalingam and he found presence of

bleeding from left ear and laceration into bone deep over the

vertex in the scalp. He further found multiple skull fractures

on the person of the deceased and in his opinion, the death

was caused due to the haematoma of the brain and multiple

skull fractures.

9. The police, after usual investigations, submitted the

charge-sheet and all the accused persons including the 6

appellant were put on trial. They denied to have committed

the offence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in

support of its case, examined altogether 12 witnesses besides

various documentary evidences were produced. The Trial

Court as well as the Appellate Court relying on the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the

appellant as above.

10. Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that even if the

case of the prosecution is accepted in its entirety, no offence

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

According to him, the allegation proved utmost makes out the

case under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and

accordingly he submitted that conviction under Section 302 be

altered to that of 304 Part II and appellant be sentenced to

the period already undergone by him. In support of the

submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this

Court in the case of Gurmail Singh & others vs. State of 7

Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185 and our attention has been drawn

to the following passage from para 7 of the judgment :

"7......We are of the opinion that in the facts found by the High court, it could not be said that accused 1 Gurmail Singh intended to cause that particular bodily injury which in fact was found to have been caused. May be, the injury inflicted may have been found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. What ought to be found is that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. It is difficult to say with confidence in the present case keeping in view the facts found by the High court that accused 1 Gurmail Singh intended to cause that very injury which was found to be fatal."

11. Reliance has also been placed a decision of this Court in

Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342 and our

attention was drawn to para 8 of the judgment which reads as

follows :

"8. The next question is what offence the appellant is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife. The incident occurred around 1.45 noon. The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Therefore, the 8

appellant is shown to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and a sentence of imprisonment for five year will meet the ends of justice."

12. Yet another decision relied on is in the case of Gurmukh

Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 and our

attention was drawn to para 21 and 22 of the judgment which

read as follows :

"21. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment. Only the appellant Gurmukh Singh inflicted a single lathi-blow. The other accused have not indulged in any overt act. There was no intention or premeditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On consideration of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, we are clearly of the view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under Section 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be convicted is Section 304 Part II IPC.

22. Before we part with the case, we would like to clearly observe that we are not laying down that in no case of single blow or injury, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Part II IPC."

9 13. Smt. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appeared on

behalf of the State.

14. We do not find any substance in the submission of Shri

Ramanujam and the decisions relied on are clearly

distinguishable.

15. In view of the submissions made, we do not deem it

expedient to narrate the entire evidence on record. Suffice it

to say that all the injured witnesses namely P.W. 1 to 5 have

consistently stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased

with a crow bar on his head. According to the autopsy

surgeon, Dr. Govind Waghmare, death had occurred due to

laceration over the vertex of the scalp and multiple skull

fractures.

16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of the

accused, its intention has to be gathered from the weapon

used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the 10

nature of the injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen

a crow bar as the weapon of offence. He has further chosen a

vital part of the body i.e. head for causing the injury which

had caused multiple fractures of skull. This clearly shows the

force with which the appellant had used the weapon. The

cumulative effect of all these factors irresistibly lead to one

and the only conclusion that the appellant intended to cause

death of the deceased.

17. Now referring to the decision of this Court in the case of

Gurmail Singh (Supra), the same is clearly distinguishable.

In the said case, on fact, it was found that the accused did not

intend to cause the injury which in fact was found to have

been caused and in the said background, it was held that the

accused did not intend to cause death, which is not the

situation here.

18. In the case of Jagtar Singh (Supra), the incident was

preceded by a sudden and chance quarrel and in that 11

background, the Court held the allegation proved to be under

Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

19. In the case of Gurmukh Singh (Supra), the injury found

on the deceased was only depression of skull bone and the

occurrence had taken place in the spur of the moment. In the

background of the aforesaid facts, infliction of single lathi

blow was not found enough to infer the intention of the

accused to cause death of the deceased. Here, as pointed out

above, the three important factors enumerated above, clearly

lead to the conclusion that appellant intended to cause death.

20. Hence, all these decisions are clearly distinguishable.

21. In the present case, as pointed out above, weapon used,

the part of the body chosen for assault and the intensity with

which the appellant assaulted the deceased clearly go to show

that he intended to cause the death of the deceased. 12

22. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed

accordingly.

........................................J. ( G.S. SINGHVI )

........................................J. ( C.K. PRASAD )

New Delhi, July 6, 2010.