Decided on August 14,2002



- (1.)This appeal is against an order of reversal of the judgment of the learned sessions judge, Ongole, acquitting the accused persons of all the charges who were tried for offences punishable under sections 148, 302 read with sections 149, 325 and 326 IPC. The contextual facts depict that on 31st July, 1986 in the evening at about 4 p. m. all the accused formed into unlawful assembly at the field of accused no. 1 situated at a distance of about half a mile from the village of madanur with the common object of killing Balagani Venkateswarlu and, with that common object, accused nos. 2, 8, 9 and 18 attacked Venkateswarlu, the deceased and during that incident PWs. 1 to 20 were also attacked by the accused persons. Subsequently, as a result of injuries suffered, the deceased breathed his last in the hospital in the early hours of 1.8.1986.
(2.)The trial court upon the analysis of the evidence, however, came to the finding that on a probability of there being some doubt about the identity of the accused persons, in particular accused no. A-2, acquitted the accused persons. Against such an order of acquittal, the state government went in appeal before the high Court and the High Court, in a detailed judgment, came to the conclusion that the acquittal order of accused nos. 2, 8, 9 and 18 cannot be sustained. Whereas accused no. 2 was found guilty of offence under section 302 ipc and the High Court convicted and sentenced him imprisonment for life, accused nos. 8, 9 and 18 were found guilty of offence under section 323 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
(3.)The present appeal, however, is directed against such an order of conversion of acquittal to that of conviction and sentence of accused no. 2 only. As the other accused persons (A-8, A-9 and A-18) have already paid the fine, as directed by the High Court, the matter stands concluded so far as they are concerned. Turning attention on to the case of accused no. 2, the High Court has stated thus:
"All the witnesses have stated that A-2 beat the deceased with kattuvapara on the head. It was contended that kattuvapara is a sharp edged weapon and as such the injuries as are found on the deceased could not have been caused with such a weapon. Kattuvapara is a weapon which is used for. removing grass and only one of its edge will be sharp. So, when it is said that A-2 beat the deceased on the head, it is quite probable that the sharp edge would not have come into contact. Then the beat is on the head with a kattuvapara only the blunt portion of it must have come into contact. So, it cannot be said that the injuries as are found on the deceased could not have been caused with kattuvapara. The interned examination disclose that there was fracture of skull bones resulting in epidural haematoma of 6" x 6" over right temporal over right parietal region. There was also damage to the brain and this resulted in the death. So, having regard to the weapon used, the location of the injury and the damage caused to the skull bone and the brain we are of the opinion that A-2 must be said to have intended to cause the death of the deceased. "

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.