CHILAMAKUR NAGIREDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In relation to a land dispute appertaining to the field locally called Rambhatla chanu in survey number 324 within the limits of P. Kottalapalli hamlet of Penakalapadu Gooty taluk of Anantapur District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, a rioting took place and in the occurrence one Manchi Tirupala Reddy was killed. Some others were also injured. Ten persons were put on trial and were convicted for the various offences under the Penal Code by the trial Judge. Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court - One by accused numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 and the other by accused numbers 1, 6 and 9. The High Court allowed the appeals in part and modified the convictions of and the sentence imposed upon the appellants before it. All the ten accused filed a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. This Court granted special leave to appeal in respect of accused Nos. 1, 6 and 9 only, respectively, named Chilamakur Nagireddi, Chilamakur Obulapathi and Boppala Ramireddi (who were petitioners 8, 9 and 10 in the special leave application), and that also limited "to the question of nature of the offences committed by them", and dismissed the special leave petition of the other accused. We, are, therefore, concerned with the limited .question concerning only the three appellants before us. Their conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code simpliciter was under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) We may state and refer to the necessary and bare facts and the relevant evidence for disposal of the short point in this appeal. Accused number 1 has been found to have caused external injury number 1 with a spear on the person of the deceased. the corresponding internal injury being number 3 as deposed to by the Doctor who held the post-mortem examination over the dead body. Accused number 9 caused external injury number 2 with a bana-stick the corresponding internal injury being injury No. 1 and accused number 6 is the author of external injury number 3 caused by a spear resulting in internal injuries numbers 2 and 4. The conviction of none of the appellants for the murder of the deceased has been recorded either with the aid of Section 34 or Section 149 of the Penal Code. As already stated each of them has been convicted under Section 302 simpliciter. The question for consideration is whether such a conviction of any of the appellants is sustainable.

(3.) The High Court in its judgment referred to the evidence of the Doctor and said that the said evidence establishes - "that the fatal injuries ascribed to A-1, A-6 and A-9 by the eye-witnesses resulted in the death of the deceased Tirupala Reddy. External injury No. 1, "a piercing wound conical in shape of 1 1/2" long from above downwards and 2" deep cutting open the abdomen" was ascribed to A-1 by the eye-witnesses; external injury. No. 2 "a contusion of 3" x 1" across the left temple with left black eye and swelling of eye-lids" was attributed to A-9 and external injury No.3 "a piercing wound of 1 1/2" long from above downwards 2" deep from back to front and medial side cutting open into the abdomen over right lower back" was ascribed to A 6. Each of these injuries, in the opinion of the Medical Officer, was fatal by itself. Therefore, there can be no doubt that A-1, A-6 and A-9 are guilty for their individual acts under Section 302, I. P. C. and they are, therefore, convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life."