JASTI PUNNARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the punishments prescribed under S. 307, I.P.C. are unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) In the affidavit field in support of the petition it is stated by the petitioner that a case under S. 307; IPC was registered by the State of Andhra Pradesh the Ist respondent, in Crime No. 1/83 of the Kanchikancehrla Police Station in connection with an accident which is alleged to have taken place on 3-1-1983 at 10 p.m. in the Poonavaram village. In the said case the petitioner Jasti Punnarao has been implicated as an accused. Charge-sheet has also been filed and the matter is pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in SC 115 of 1983. Under Section 307, IPC two types of punishments are prescribed, the Ist being imprisonment for life or alternatively ten years R.I. and fine. No definite guidelines are prescribed by the code as to when either of the sentences can be imposed, which leaves unfettered discretion with the Presiding Officer.

(3.) The petitioner further stated that the Code of Criminal Procedure by S. 9 provides for the appointment of Sessions Judges, Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. The difference between the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge as prescribed under S. 28 of the Code is that while Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge can pass any sentence authorised by law, the Assistant Sessions Judge cannot pass any sentence exceeding imprisonment for ten years. By virtue of the powers conferred by the Code, the Session Judge would distribute the work among the Additional and Assistant Sessions Judge. There are no definite rules regarding the distribution of work. In such a case, it is just a chance whether a case in which the charge-sheet under S. 307, IPC is to be posted before the Additional Sessions Judge or the Sessions Judge or before the Assistant Sessions Judge. Sometimes such cases are posted before Assistant Sessions Judges and at times before the Additional Sessions Judges. Such being the situation, an accused person like the petitioner is left to the vagaries of chance, since it is the chance that decides that he should face the trial before a Judge who has power to impose the penalty of life imprisonment or before a Judge who can only impose a penalty of 10 years imprisonment and fine for the same offence. Both the punishments, however, are sanctioned by the IPC for the offence under S. 307. It is further stated that since his case is posted before the Additional Sessions Judge but not before an Assistant Sessions Judge, leaves him exposed to a larger punishment if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that he is guilty. The prescription of different punishments for the same offence is discriminatory and violative of his fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He has no other alternative remedy except to file the present writ petition.