Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appdllant: SRI C. SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE H()NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE I':OIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOP,AL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1512 t;f 2OL7 JUDGMEN'I': (P?r Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surend.er ) Thisr (lri r inal Appeal is hled by the appellzrnt/ a:cused No.3, aggr e.r:rl by the judgment dated 26. LO.2OlT in S.C.No.55 1 rf 2t)12, on the file of the principal Sessionr,r ,Judge. Khamman, u4-ereby the appellant/accused No.ll was corLvicted for the ofler c,: s punishable under Sections 3011 an d 3rJ,Z read with Section I . ct of IPC.

2. Heald leiirned counsel for the appellant an,1 Sri Arun Kumar D orlltr learned Additional public l)rosecu t.c r for respondent- tit. a tr:. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 2g.0 t-.2OO6, around 07.31 I,.M., the de facto complainant/pW.3 wirnessed the assaulr. of tlrr: deceased, namely y,Srinu, who he bel:rngs to the CPI Pa -tr . 'I h e appellant herein and accused Nos . t, 2 , arrd 4 to 18 att;rcl ed the deceased with knives a.ncl a_xe s The deceased t:-ie,d .c run away with the bleeding injuries, c,rt he collapsed. E.,,en then, the appellant and the r:ther a::<:used 2 chased him and axed him to death' Accused Nos' 12 to 18 attacked PW.16 and threatened him with dire consequences' On the basis of the complaint made by PW'3' a cnme was 4 registered, which is F;x.PI2' After the investigation' the charge sheet was initially laid against accused Nos' 1' 2' and 4 to 18' which is the subject matter of S'C'No'2O7 of 2Ol7 ' The present appellant was found absconding, for which reason the case was split up, and all the other accused were tried'

5. The learned Sessions Judge' vide judgment dated O2.O7 .2012 in S.C.No.2O7 of 2077 , acquitted the accused Nos' l, 2, and4 to 18 mainly on the ground that the evidence of the eye- witnesses could not be considered' as the genesis of the incident was suppressed and the witnesses had come up with a tainted version

6. Questioning the acquittal' the State approached this Court, and this Court, vide CrI'A'M'P'No' 1424 of 2013 in CrI.A(Sr) No.29774 of 2OL3, dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and also on the basis that there was no sufficient reason to entertain the appeal' -)

7. The prose<rr1.ion has not preferred any appeal a6;ain,;t the dismissal of the (lriminal Appeal by the Division llen<:h of this Court

8. Learnerl St_,r;:;ions Judge convicted the appeliar:t hr:t.ein mainly on th: rground that the evidence of the eye-wituesser; is consistent and, i:rs:far as the appellant is concerned, Jris,rvert acts were ptor ed. The learned Sessions Judge u.ent ot to convict the appt:llz.rrt on the basis of the evidences rtf.p.ltr/s. 1 to 6, and the Jurlge cbserved as follows: "43. P! .1 to pW.6 have spoken about the injuries inlli:ted by accused No.3 on the deceased. it is not clea: from the medical evidence whether the injuri,:s inf ir:ted by accused No.3 alone is suffrcient enough t(l d cause the death of the decease Theretbr:, he accused is convicted for the offence under Socl:ir11 302 IpC by invoking Section 149 IpC, but not orr the basis of sole cause of injury. He is convicterl ulrler Section 3O2 r/w 74g IpC, but not under Secii,,r. 302 IpC

44. prr\'.I to pW_6 clearly stated that accusecl No.3 d d n,,, rnfljcr any injury on the pW. 10. pW. l0 also slteiJ<s the same. The fact remain is that accuserl I'lo. I is the part of the unlawful assembh which as;onrlrlies common object was ro kill rlre PW.IO along ,.vith the deceased ald he being the member. < f s u ch assembly, he is a.lso liable to be i I convicted for the offence under Section 3O7 r/w 149 IPC. Points No. 1 ald 2 answered accordintly."

9. Section 149 of IPC reads as follows:

149. Every member of unlaw{ul assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object- If an offence is committed by aly member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is gu ilty of that offence.

10. In a given case, for the Court to invoke Section 149 of IPC and convict a person with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, it is the necessary to establish the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly. An unlawful assembly would be arr assembly of 5 or more persons, and if any member of the ' unlawful assembly commits an offence arrd the members have knowledge about the happening of the offence, then the Court, with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, can convict all the members of the unlawful assembly.

11. The frnding of the learned Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant with the aid of Section 149 of IPC, IS totally .t_ t I 5 erroneous. C)rre person cannot be convicted v.ith tte aid of Section 141t o' PC when it is not established that ther I Ltrrpellant had comm Ltt.r cl al offence with the knowledge rrf t re other members ai16r1lt the happening of the offence. \\her, tht earned Sessions Jurlqr: believed that he was part of an r rlawful assembly, rtnr. when it was clear that the prosecutior: ,lid not prove that t:r: appellant/ accused No.3 had infli< trrd the injuries, lh: c i-Lestion of there being any comrnon objer:t, and consequently, ccnvicting the appellant, does no1 arise.

12. Only il,-h e n the prosecution proves the prlrtic.ipar ion of a member in rn r; nlawful assembly of 5 or more persons, and the common ol jer:t of such unlawful assembly is to corn.lit an offence, in sr: c h an event, the question of crtnvictin::r the rJ members of tl-r -. unlawful assembly arises.

13. Accr>rrling[1., this Criminal Appeal is allowed, settinl; aside the judgnLeni. lated 26.1O.2OI7 in S.C.No.55 I cf 2O12 on the file of thr: Frincipal Sessions Judge, Khammzu.r The appellant,'ar:cr..sed No.3 is acquitted for the aforesaid c,flences. The fine zrrrou:nt paid by the appellant/accused No.3, .f any, shall be re .tl rn:r1. 6 Miscellaneous applications pending' lf any ' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K J .S RINIVASA RAO olNT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J 4 jifl ,"?$[1]:iH'l'3ilI','{l'?'J:1 +ffi il'ffi 5fi :::i:LT:, +ffi ffi;;;r;ent. ce-ntral lail' waransal - Two ccs to the Public "ro;e;ill.' at Hvderabad[OUTI One CC to Sri C sharan xeddy' Advocate IOPUCI di;;;f relangana' High court Buildings 4 6. Two CD CoPies Prpish (+ HIGH COUR.T DATED:2010'312,025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1512 ,of 2017 t4 a' 2W 4 la -... g LiE 5 a) :,;; 13 ,u, \\. " ':. . "ir., - \-],./. ALLOWING l-HE: CRIMINAL APPEAL (N \,- \,'