Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466 OF 2014

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7044 of 2007]

PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal

against the judgment dated 1

st

February, 2007 passed by the

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra

Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, and

acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to

as “IPC”]. The High Court further modified the conviction and

sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one --

under Section 324 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence of

10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two months each and also

1

Page 2 to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, an amount of

Rs. 4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused

collectively as compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva

Ramakrishna Rao) – the victim. Earlier, the Trial Court convicted

the accused as follows:

A-1 to A-4 under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC for

rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months

each and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for

rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 100/-

each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3

months each.

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court, the

present appeal is filed.

3. The prosecution case is that the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti

Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was the President of Bhimavaram Taluk

Lorry Workers Union. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao @ Bandi Srinu

and A-2 - Chintha Krishna @ Bandi are brothers. A-4

-Chintha Lakshmana Rao is their cousin. A-3 -Addla --

Umamaheswara Rao is the close associate of A-1, A-2 and A-4.

They are all residents of Bhimavaram. About a fortnight prior to

Page 3 the date of incident – 20.04.1998, the victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti

Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and some other Lorry Workers collected

Rs. 10,000/- as donations to perform the marriage of the

daughter of a poor lorry worker. That incensed the accused who

believed that P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) ought

not to have collected donations from their locality. On

20.04.1998 at about 8.00 pm when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva

Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers Union Office near

Anakoderu Canal in Undi Road, Bhimavaram, the accused armed

with deadly weapons entered the office, abused P.W. 1

(Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in filthy language and

threatened him with death because he had collected donations

from their area. They attacked him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao

hit him on his head with the cool drink bottle causing a grievous

injury and instigated other accused to tie a telephone wire

around his neck to kill him. He along with A-2 - Chintha Krishna

and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao tied the telephone wire

around the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao)

and pulled it from both sides to strangulate him with the

intention to kill him. A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on

his right cheek with an iron rod. A-2 - Chintha Krishna beat him

on the forehead and A-3 - Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 -

Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on the left eye and on the

3

Page 4 cheek. On making a hue and cry, P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva

Ramakrishna Rao) was rescued by others, who were present. On

a complaint, Crime No. 85/98 under Sections 307 and 452 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC was registered, investigated and a

charge sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were

framed and read over to the accused. They did not plead guilty.

4. P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P17 were

marked apart from M.Os. 1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the

accused as indicated above.

6. P.W. 3 (Kotipalli Srinivas) and P.W. 5 (Sunkara Sreenivasa

Rao) eye witnesses were declared hostile. P.W. 7 (Marri

Sambhasiva) is the circumstantial witness. P.W. 8 (Dirisala

Murali) is the photographer. P.W. 9 (Grandhi Sree Rama Murthy)

is the panch witness.

7. P.W. 10 (Dr. B. Swarajya Lakshmi, C.A.S.) is the medical

officer, who examined P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao)

and found the following injuries:

-

“1. Irregular bleeding lacerated injury of 3 cm x ¼ cm

x ¼ cm size present on the left parietal region of the

scalp.

Page 5 2.A contusion of 3 cm x size present lateral to the left

eye with overlying abrasion of ¼ cm size red in colour.

3.A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the left

eye upper eye lid.

4.A contusion of 4 cm with abrasion of ¼ cm size

present lateral on the right side of the fore head.

5.Ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size present below

the thyroid cartilage on the front, right side and left

side of the neck, red in colour.

6.A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the right

temple.

7.A contusion of 2 cm x 2 cm size present on the right

cheek.

8. An oblique abrasion of 10 cm x 5 cm size present

on the ventral aspect of the left arm, red in colour.”

8. The Medical Officer [MO] opined that Injury No. 5

endangered the life of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao).

That the other injuries are simple in nature and could have been

caused as alleged.

9. P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) deposed that

he collected donations for performing the marriage of the

daughter of Pasupuleti Satyanarayan, a driver and a poor man.

The accused questioned and threatened him about the collection

of contribution from their territory and warned him that they

would take away his life. On 20.04.1998 at about 8.00 PM when

he was in the Lorry Workers Union Office, the accused

5

Page 6 trespassed into the Union Office and abused him. They told him

that he cannot become a leader of their territory and collect

donations and they would not leave the Office unless they beat

him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao beat him on his head with a

cool drink (Thums up) bottle and said he should die. He directed

others to tie a telephone wire around his neck therefore A-2 -

Chintha Krishna beat him on the forehead and A-3 - Addla

Umamaheswara Rao tied a telephone wire around his neck and

pulled wire. Then A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him with

the rod on his right cheek along with abuses. A-2 - Chintha

Krishna also beat him with the rod on his forehead and A-3 -

Addla Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao

beat him on the upper side of his eyebrow and his cheek. He

named others who were present and intervened to rescue him

stating that but for that he would have been killed. His shirt was

stained with his blood. They left behind the broken Thums-up

bottle, telephone wire and iron rod. He was hospitalized for

about 20 days. In cross examination his version was not

shaken. He accepted that the accused were not armed with any

weapon and said that the Thums-up bottle broke on his head,

because of the impact. The deposition of other witnesses

support the version of the injured witness - P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti

Siva Ramakrishna Rao). We have not referred to the

Page 7 depositions of witnesses who have been declared hostile since

such declaration is not of much consequences in this case. The

other depositions are in tune with the deposition of PW1, the

injured witness.

10. The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and

rejected the argument that the other witnesses were not reliable

because they were interested witnesses. As regards charge

under Section 34 IPC, the Trial Court relied on the settled

position in law that it is not necessary that there should be a

clear positive evidence about the meeting of mind before the

occurrence and that if there are more than one accused a

common intention to kill can be inferred from the circumstances

of the case. The prosecution need not prove the overt act of the

accused. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC the Trial

Court held that there was clear intention of accused here and

that it was clearly established that the accused went to the office

of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in a car and the

other circumstances clearly establish that there was preparation

for committing the offence. As noticed earlier, the Trial Court

convicted and sentenced accused under Section 452 IPC for 7

years and under Section 307 IPC for 10 years read with Section

34 IPC.

7

Page 8 11. The High Court in appeal, referred to the deposition of

P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) where he had honestly

admitted that accused did not come there armed with any

weapon. The Appellate Court observed that the injuries were not

only simple but were trivial. As regards Injury No. 5, it observed

that though the Medical Officer stated that the injury was

dangerous to life, it is not clear as to how the witness stated so,

meaning thereby that there was no explanation for the medical

opinion. Even though the High Court noticed that this injury is a

ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size around the neck. The High

Court accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire around

the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and pulled

it from both sides but observed that this act may not actually

amount to being dangerous. It was of the opinion that if a knife

is used and only a grazing injury is caused but no actual stabbing

is done on any vital part of the body, it cannot be said that the

injury is dangerous. Further observing that no intention could be

attributed to the accused to cause the death of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti

Siva Ramakrishna Rao) since the accused had not come to the

scene with dangerous weapon or caused injuries on the vital part

of the body, the High Court modified the conviction under

Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC.

Page 9 12. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC, the High

Court observed that the incident occurred when P.W. 1

(Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers

Union Office and not at any private place and hence ipso facto

set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC.

13. During the pendency of this matter, respondent Nos. 4 &

5, namely, Addla Umamaheswara Rao (accused No. 3) and

Chintha Lakshmana Rao (accused No. 4) expired. Hence the

special leave petition insofar as those respondents has already

abated, vide order dated 04.02.2014.

14. Shri Altaf Ahmed, senior advocate, appearing for

respondents 2 to 5 vehemently supported the Judgment of the

High Court to the extent that it has rightly held that Section 307

IPC is not attracted and neither was Section 452 IPC. He also

opposed the conviction under Section 324 IPC on the ground that

no dangerous weapon or means were used for causing the injury

which according to the learned counsel was simple in nature.

15. As regards the act of the tying the telephone wire around

the neck and pulling it on both sides and causing an injury

thereby, the learned counsel for the accused, heavily relied on a

statement in the cross examination of the Medical Officer that

9

Page 10 the Injury No. 5 is simple in nature and the further statement

that if the strangulation is of high nature the thyroid bone may

be dislocated and ruptured and that there is no danger to life

unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone.

16. It is not possible to accept this contention in the

circumstances of the case that the act of strangulating a person

by the throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from both sides,

which is proved here, does not amount to the commission of the

offence of attempt to commit murder under Section 307 IPC. The

first part makes any act committed with the intention or

knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act caused

death punishable with imprisonment up to ten years. The

second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment for

life if hurt is caused thereby. Thus even if the act does not

cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10

years. If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is

punishable with imprisonment for life. The Section reads as

under:

-

“307. Attempt to murder .-- 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

Page 11 liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such

punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life convicts. - When any

person offending under this section is under

sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if

hurt is caused, be punished with death.]

Illustrations

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under

such circumstances that, if death ensued A would

be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment

under this section.

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a

child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place

A has committed the offence defined by this

section, though the death of the child does not

ensue.

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and

loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A

fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence

defined in this section, and, if by such firing he

wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided

by the latter part of [the first paragraph of] this

section.

(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases

poison and mixes the same with food which

remains in A' s keeping; A has not yet committed

the offence in this section. A places the food on

Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it

on Z's table. A has committed the offence

defined in this section.”

-

17. There is no merit in the contention that the statement of

Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is

dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation

means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge,

11

Page 12 that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case

clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act

resulted in injury No.5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5

cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for

imprisonment for life if the act causes ‘hurt’. It does not require

that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The

intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused

since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire

around his neck and telling him he should die. We also do not

find any merit in the contention on behalf of the appellant that

there was no intention to cause death because the victim

admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very

few persons would normally describe the Thums-up bottle and a

telephone wire used as weapons. That the victim honestly

admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot be

held against him and in favour of the accused.

18. We are thus of the view that this is a clear case of

intention to commit the murder of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva

Ramakrishna Rao) the appellant and the accused acted in

concert and committed an offence under Section 307 IPC. As

regards the setting aside of the conviction by the High Court

under Section 452 IPC, we find the reasoning completely

unacceptable and untenable. The High Court has simply set

Page 13 aside the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC read

with Section 34 IPC only on the ground that the victim was

sitting at the Lorry Workers Union Office and not at any private

place. Section 452 of the IPC reads as follows:

“452. House-trespass after preparation for

hurt, assault or wrongful restraint .- Whoever

commits house-trespass, having made preparation

for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any

person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or

for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault,

or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to seven years, and shall also

be liable to fine.”

19. There is no doubt that the trespass was into a house and

that the appellant entered the office having prepared to assault

the victim and in any case for putting him in fear of hurt or of

assault. There is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest that the

use to which the house is put makes any difference. It is not the

requirement of Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be an

offence the house must be a private place and not an office. The

law protects any house from trespass, vide Section 448 IPC and

further protects persons within the house from being assaulted

or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own

house.

13

Page 14 20. We thus find that the accused were not entitled to be

acquitted for the offences under Section 452 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC.

21. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court

and restore the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31

st

July, 2003

passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram in

Sessions Case No. 234 of 1999. The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-

Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha Krishna] are

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for

the offence under Section 452 with Section 34 IPC. The

respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-

Chintha Krishna] are also sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each,

in default simple imprisonment for a period of three month each

for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Sentence already

undergone, if any, shall be set off.

22. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The respondent Nos. 2

[A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha Krishna] are

directed to surrender before Judicial Magistrate/Superintendent

of Police concerned forthwith. In case, they failed to do so within

Page 15 one month, steps be taken, in accordance with law, to apprehend

them.

.....................………………..J.

[H.L. Dattu]

…..............………………………J.

[S.A. Bobde]

New Delhi,

February 20, 2014

15