SABBITA SATYAYATHI Vs. BANDLA SRINIVASARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the wife of the deceased, who is said to have been murdered by respondents 1, 2 and others on January 9, 1992 at about 6.30 p.m. The appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the respondents 1 and 2 herein of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and convicting them instead under Sections 326 and 324, I.P.C. respectively. The aforesaid respondents shall be referred to hereinafter as A-1 and A-2. According to the appellant, the facts proved by the prosecution clearly established an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and therefore, the High Court was not justified in acquitting them of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and convicting them under Section 324, I.P.C. respectively.

(2.) The occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal is alleged to have taken place at about 6.30 p.m. on January 9, 1992. The case of the prosecution was that six persons including A-1 and A-2 way laid the deceased and assaulted him with knife, iron rods and sticks as a result of which, he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. All the six accused A-1 to A-6 were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru charged of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 130 of 1992. A-1, A-2 and A-6 are brothers while accused A-3 to A-5 are alleged to be their associates. The trial Court by its judgment and order of November 21, 1994 acquitted A-3 to A-6 of the charges levelled against them and found only A-1 and A-2 (respondents herein) guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for which it sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

(3.) A-1 and A-2 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad being Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1995. The High Court by its judgment and order of July 3, 1996 acquitted A-1 and A-2 of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. but found them guilty of lesser offences. A-1 was found guilty of the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment while A-2 was found guilty of the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment of the High Court has been challenged by the wife of the deceased to seek the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 302, I.P.C. thereby seeking enhancement of their sentence. A-1 and A-2 (respondents) on the other hand contend that the evidence on record is highly suspicious and doubtful and does not justify their conviction at all. Since an appeal has been preferred for enhancement of their sentence, they contend that this Court should consider the evidence on record and direct their acquittal since the evidence on record is unworthy of belief and does not prove the case of the prosecution.