- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bala Seetharamaiah v. Perike S. Rao And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Six accused were alleged to have trespassed into the banana garden of Vemulapalli Buddah Vara Prasad (“the deceased”) and, harbouring a grudge over prior theft cases involving bamboo poles, fatally assaulted him on 3-11-1990. Eyewitnesses PW 1 and PW 2 reported the incident to PW 3 (ex-Sarpanch), who drafted a report that was lodged with PW 9 (Sub-Inspector). The police charge-sheeted all six, asserting they formed an unlawful assembly that culminated in murder.
The Sessions Court framed three charges: (1) Section 148 IPC (rioting with deadly weapons), (2) Section 302 IPC (murder) simpliciter, and (3) Section 324 IPC (causing hurt) against A-1 and A-2. It convicted A-1 to A-6 under Sections 148 and 302, sentencing them to one year’s rigorous imprisonment (RI) and life imprisonment respectively; A-1 and A-2 also received one year RI under Section 324.
On appeal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that no charge had been framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. It altered the convictions: A-2 was found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment; A-1 and A-3 to A-6 were convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment each. Dissatisfied, the State and the de facto complainant (PW 1) filed the present criminal appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in not convicting all accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC despite the absence of a specific charge to that effect.
- Whether the sentences of two years’ imprisonment imposed on A-1 and A-3 to A-6 under Section 326 IPC should be enhanced.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (de facto complainant)
- The evidence of eyewitnesses PW 1 and PW 2 unequivocally established that all accused jointly murdered the deceased.
- Failure to frame a charge under Section 302/149 IPC was a mere procedural irregularity that caused no prejudice; therefore, conviction could still be recorded under those provisions.
State’s Position
The opinion does not detail any separate submissions by the State.
Respondents’ Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the Sessions Judge had framed only a charge under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and omitted both Section 149 IPC and the factual averments necessary to apprise the accused of a common-object murder allegation. While omission of the statutory provision alone might be curable, complete absence of the underlying allegations was held to be more than a mere irregularity. Because the defect remained uncorrected at trial, the Court ruled it impermissible at the appellate stage to convert the existing convictions under Section 326 IPC into convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC.
Regarding sentence enhancement, the Court observed that the crime occurred in 1990, the High Court decided the appeal in 1996, and the sentences had likely been served. With A-1 reported dead and substantial time elapsed, the Court found no justification to increase the punishment.
Holding and Implications
The appeals were disposed of; the Court declined to substitute convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC or enhance the sentences.
Consequently, the High Court’s modified convictions and sentences stand affirmed. The decision affects only the parties involved and does not establish new precedent, as it turns principally on the absence of a properly framed charge.
Order
1. The Sessions Court of Krishna division at Machilipatnam at Andhra Pradesh tried six accused persons alleging that they caused the death of Vemulapalli Buddah Vara Prasad @ Buddah Prasad. The deceased Buddah Prasad was the owner of a banana garden. The prosecution allegation was that these accused trespassed into his property and took away some bamboo poles used for supporting the plants. Some criminal cases were also filed against these accused alleging that they have committed theft of bamboo poles. According to the prosecution the accused nurtured grudge against the deceased and on 3-11-1990, they attacked deceased Buddah Prasad and caused his death. PW 1 and PW 2 had seen the accused committing the offence. They went and informed the matter to the ex-Sarpanch (PW 3) who prepared a report, then PW 1 and PW 2 went to the police station and gave that report to the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW 9). After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet alleging that the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of Buddah Prasad.
2. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused on three counts. The first charge was under Section 148 IPC alleging that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object, they caused death of Buddah Prasad and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. The second charge was under Section 302 IPC simpliciter against each of the accused. The third charge was framed against A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for having caused injury to Bala Seetharamaiah.
3. The Sessions Court found A-1 to A-6 guilty of offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A-1 to A-6 were also sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, A-1 and A-2 were also punished under Section 324 IPC and each of them was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. Aggrieved by these convictions and sentences, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The Division Bench of the High Court noticed that as regards accused A-1 to A-6, there was no charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the High Court held that A-2, the second accused was guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and he was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment and his conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. The conviction of accused A-1, A-3 to A-6 under Section 302 was set aside and instead they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years each under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court these two criminal appeals are filed, one by the State and the other by the de facto complainant (PW 1).
5. Heard Ms K. Amareswari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Ms T. Anamika, learned counsel for the State and Mr Y. Rajagopal Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1997 submitted that in the face of clear evidence given by eyewitnesses, the acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was unsustainable and the High Court seriously erred in not convicting them for the offence of murder. The counsel submitted that even though specific charge was not framed against these accused persons under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, it is only an irregularity and the accused were not prejudiced by such non-filing of the charge and the High Court should have convicted these accused persons under Sections 302/149 IPC in view of the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that PW 1 and PW 2 gave a detailed evidence as to the manner in which the incident happened. The Sessions Judge as well as the Division Bench accepted the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 who gave evidence to the effect that Buddah Prasad was chased and dragged by these accused persons who caused various injuries to his body, and the counsel contended that all the accused persons should have been convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC as the common object of the unlawful assembly was clearly spelt out from the prosecution evidence adduced in this case.
7. We have carefully considered the evidence and relevant record in this case. The second charge framed against the accused persons was to the following effect:
“That you on the same day and at the same time and place did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Vemulapalli Buddah Vara Prasad @ Buddah Prasad by beating him with paneka kathulu and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance.”
8. Unfortunately, the Sessions Judge did not frame charge against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. It is also important to note that the relevant prosecution allegations so as to bring in the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC also were not incorporated in the charge framed by the Sessions Judge. The accused were not told that they had to face charges of being members of an unlawful assembly and the common object of such assembly was to commit murder of the deceased and in furtherance of that common object murder was committed and thereby they had a constructive liability and thus they committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Of course the mere omission to mention Section 149 may be considered as an irregularity, but failure to mention the nature of the offence committed by them cannot be said to be a mere irregularity. Had this mistake been noticed at the trial stage, the Sessions Judge could have corrected the charge at any time before the delivery of the judgment. In the instant case, the accused were told to face a charge punishable under Section 302 simpliciter and there was no charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Therefore, it is not possible to reverse the conviction of the accused under Section 326 IPC and substitute the conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC as there was no charge framed against them for such offence.
9. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that as A-1, A-3 to A-6 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC in view of the various overt acts committed by them and the sentence was only for a period of two years, they should have been sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period. The incident happened in 1990 and the appeal by the High Court was disposed of in 1996 and these accused must have undergone the period of sentence already imposed on them. The first accused is said to have died recently. At this distance of time, we do not think just and proper to enhance the sentence imposed by the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of accordingly.
Alert