APHC010269862012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2528/2012 Between: 1. GUMMISETTY NAGARAJU & ANOTHER, S/O G.VENKATA RAMANA R/O MADHAVANAGAR, THIRUPATHI N/O PEDDA KALAVA GADDA, P.T.M., VILLAGE AND MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. VELAGA RAMANJULU MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH, S/O V.RAMANJULU R/O BEHING GANESH TEMPLE KRISHNA NAGAR MADANPALLI TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High court of AP., Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Crl.Revision by setting aside the Judgment dt 03.12.2012 made in Crl.A.No.117/2011 on the file of the court of the Special Sessions Judge- Cum-IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District against the Judgment, dt 13-05-2011 made in the SC No. 182 / 2011 on the fiel of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3768 OF 2012 -2- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order passed in Judgment dt 13.05.2011 made in SC No. 182 /2011 on the file of the court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge , Tirupathi Chittoor district and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3798 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the the appellant on bail by suspending the Judgment dt. 3-12-2012 made in CrlA.No.117/2011 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge Cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirpathi, Chittoor District against the Judgment dt. 13-05-2011 made in SC.No.182/2011 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati , Chittoor District. and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2528 OF 2012 ORDER: 1. Both the petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 as well as Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) by learned trial court vide judgment dt.13.05.2011 in S.C. No.182 of 2011 and the conviction was confirmed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dt.03.12.2012 in Crl.A. No.117 of 2011. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: a) On 09.01.2011 A.2 and P.W.4 met A.1 at Jelsa wine shop in Tirupati, where they drank together till 10.00 P.M., when A.1 started commenting on P.W.4. A quarrel broke out and A.1 and A.2 assaulted P.W.4. Later, A.1 took a Jacky from his Tata Sumo and beat P.W.4 on the head several times, causing severe bleeding injuries, for which P.W.4fell unconscious. The said incident was witnessed by L.Ws.2 to 4 at the scene of offence, caught hold A.1 and A.2 and handed over them to police. On the report of L.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2011 and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet. -4- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 3. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: a) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that conviction under Section 326 as well as Section 307 of I.P.C. cannot simultaneously run together. He further submits that there are no ingredients to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the present petitioners. There are no intention to kill P.W.4. Rather, the facts suggest that both the petitioners and P.W.4 were friends and were consuming liquor together at a wine shop at the relevant point of time. The alleged incident occurred due to intoxication of all the persons involved, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not maintainable in this case. b) In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Proof of intention or knowledge - Mere fact that injury inflicted did not cut a vital organ is not sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307 - Prosecution must prove intention or knowledge of the kind referred to in Section 300 - State of mind to be deduced from surrounding circumstances - Absence of motive to kill, lack of prior enmity, broad daylight incident in a public place where others were present, and infliction of injury only to free an accomplice's hand, are relevant circumstances to consider intention - In 1(1965) AIR (SC) 843 -5- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 circumstances where vital organ was not injured and size of weapon is not known, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the appellant had the requisite intention or knowledge for Section 307 - Offence found to fall under Section 324 in the circumstances.” c) He also cited another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Bhama Patil and Others2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 307- Attempt to murder - Nature of injury - Conviction under Section 307 does not require infliction of injury capable of causing death Intention of the accused is paramount and can be inferred from circumstances, independent of the actual injury attempt need not be the final act towards the commission of an offence, an intent coupled with an overt act is sufficient - High Court's acquittal based on simplicity of injuries was erroneous- conviction under Section 307 can be sustained even if injuries are simple hurt.” d) On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks necessary orders to set aside the order of conviction against the present petitioners. 4. 4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE: a) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the facts suggest while the present petitioners along with P.W.4 were inside the wine shop, a dispute arose between them. Thereafter, they came out of the shop. At that time, A.1 took out heavy iron rod from his car and beat P.W.4. The nature of the assault also 2(1983) AICLR 166 -6- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 proves the intention of the accused persons to kill P.W.4. Thereby, the order of conviction under Section 307 IPC is made out. 5. Heard Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT: a) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted fact that on 09.01.2011, L.W.5 (P.W.4) along with A.1 and A.2 were consuming liquor at Jelsa Wine Shop upto 10.00 P.M. Thereafter, while they came out of the wine shop, an altercation started between them. Thereby A.1 took out a jacky (iron rod) from his Tata Sumo car and started beating P.W.4 indiscriminately, thereby P.W.4 sustained severe bleeding injuries and fell unconscious on the road. b) The petitioners were caught hold on the spot by L.Ws.2 to 4 and thereafter L.W.1 lodged a report with the police. A crime was registered under Sections 307 and 326 IPC and charges were framed by learned trial court under Sections 307, 326, and 323 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that though charges were framed -7- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 under Sections 307, 326, and 323 of I.P.C., the defence counsel never raised any objection regarding framing of charges under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C. together at the time of framing of charge. c) After hearing the parties and evaluating the evidences, learned trial court convicted A.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C. and A.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. d) The sole issue in the instant criminal revision is, whether punishment imposed against the petitioners under Section 307 of I.P.C. is maintainable? e) To understand the issue properly, the provision under Section 307 of I.P.C. is set out hereunder. “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” f) Section 307 of I.P.C. defines the offence of attempt to murder. The provision itself is clear; to constitute such an offence, there must have been an attempt to commit murder and the assailant must have caused injury with the knowledge that such injury -8- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 could result in death. The peculiar facts of this case suggest that both the petitioners and P.W.4 were friends and had consumed liquor together for about four hours in a wine shop. The dispute between the parties suddenly erupted due to intoxication and admittedly, petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 assaulted P.W.4 indiscriminately with an iron rod, due to which P.W.4 must have sustained injuries on the vital parts of the body, but the nature of those injuries does not suggest that the petitioners had any intention to kill P.W.4 at any point of time. Moreover, the prosecution has not placed any evidence regarding prior enmity between the petitioners and P.W.4 and ploy of the petitioners to kill P.W.4. g) Considering these aspects, it is quite clear that punishment under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not maintainable in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically guided time and again that injury and nature of injury is not sine qua non to prove an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the punishment of the petitioners under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not maintainable whereas, the conviction under Section 326 of I.P.C. against A.1 appears to be correct. -9- CRL.R.C. No.2528 OF 2012 7. Thus, instant criminal revision case is considered and allowed in part. Petitioner No. 2/A.2 is acquitted from this case and petitioner No.1/A.1 is directed to appear before learned trial court within eight weeks from the date of passing of this order, to serve out remaining portion of the sentence under Sections 326 of I.P.C. as directed by the trial court. Failing which, learned trial court shall issue non- bailable arrest warrant against petitioner No.1/A.1 to comply the order. 8. The order suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the criminal revision case stands vacated. 9. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.30.04.2026 BV