PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on February 20,2014

Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAPRAKASH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-273] [REFERRED]
SWATI BIDHAN BARUAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
KAREGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-582] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KANHA @ OMPRAKASH [LAWS(SC)-2019-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRASAD VEERA POTLURI VS. VIKRAM KAILAS [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-10-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, and acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as "IPC"]. The High Court further modified the conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one -under Section 324 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two months each and also to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused collectively as compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) the victim. Earlier, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows:
A-1 to A-4 under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each.

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court, the present appeal is filed.

(3.)The prosecution case is that the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was the President of Bhimavaram Taluk Lorry Workers Union. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao @ Bandi Srinu and A-2 - Chintha Krishna @ Bandi are brothers. A-4 -Chintha Lakshmana Rao is their cousin. A-3 -Addla -Umamaheswara Rao is the close associate of A-1, A- 2 and A-4. They are all residents of Bhimavaram. About a fortnight prior to the date of incident 20.04.1998, the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and some other Lorry Workers collected Rs. 10,000/- as donations to perform the marriage of the daughter of a poor lorry worker. That incensed the accused who believed that P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) ought not to have collected donations from their locality. On 20.04.1998 at about 8.00 pm when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office near Anakoderu Canal in Undi Road, Bhimavaram, the accused armed with deadly weapons entered the office, abused P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in filthy language and threatened him with death because he had collected donations from their area. They attacked him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao hit him on his head with the cool drink bottle causing a grievous injury and instigated other accused to tie a telephone wire around his neck to kill him. He along with A-2 - Chintha Krishna and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao tied the telephone wire around the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and pulled it from both sides to strangulate him with the intention to kill him. A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on his right cheek with an iron rod. A-2 - Chintha Krishna beat him on the forehead and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on the left eye and on the cheek. On making a hue and cry, P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was rescued by others, who were present. On a complaint, Crime No. 85/98 under Sections 307 and 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered, investigated and a charge sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed and read over to the accused. They did not plead guilty.


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