- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Angadi Chennaiah And Others v. State Of A.P .
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Revision Petition by A1, A3, A5 & A9)
Factual and Procedural Background
On 8-12-1979 an offence was alleged in which multiple accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with sticks, spears, axes and similar weapons and attacked P.W. 1 and others. S.H.O. Nagarampalem filed a charge-sheet (Crime No. 262/79, P.S. Nagarampalem) charging the accused under various provisions including Sections 147, 148, 307, 324 and 325 IPC.
The Additional Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Guntur, committed the accused to the Sessions Court by order dated 30-6-1980 in P.R.C No. 9/1980. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, in S.C. No. 100/80, convicted several accused. In particular, the trial court convicted A1 to A5, A9 and A10 under Section 148 IPC and sentenced each to one year rigorous imprisonment (R.I.). The trial court also convicted A1, A3, A5 and A9 on various counts under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries with deadly weapons and imposed sentences (two years R.I. on each such count, with fines).
Some accused (A6, A7, A15) were acquitted at trial. The convicted accused (including A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A9, A10 and A11) appealed to the Sessions Judge (Criminal Appeal No. 301/80). The Additional Sessions Judge (appellate court) in that appeal acquitted A4 and A11, confirmed several convictions under Sections 324 and 148 IPC but reduced the sentences imposed by the trial court (for example, reducing two-year R.I. sentences on Section 324 counts to four months R.I. while maintaining fines; similarly reducing one-year R.I. under Section 148 to four months R.I.). The remaining convictions and sentences as modified by the appellate court were the subject of the present revision petition.
This revision petition was preferred by A1, A3, A5 and A9, challenging the orders passed by the lower appellate court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the convictions and sentences imposed on the revision petitioners (A1, A3, A5 and A9) suffer from incorrectness, impropriety or illegality.
- Whether imposing sentences under both Section 148 IPC (rioting with deadly weapons) and Section 324 IPC (causing grievous/voluntary hurt by dangerous weapon) on the same accused offends Section 71 IPC (i.e., whether those offences are parts of a single offence such that multiple punishments are impermissible).
- Whether the evidence (medical and ocular) supports the prosecution's claim that deadly weapons (axes, spears, iron rods) were used, despite the absence of recovered weapons and the characterization of injuries as lacerations/contusions rather than incised wounds.
- Whether unexplained injuries on some accused (A6, A7 and A15) undermine the prosecution case.
- Whether the sentence of four months R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/- on each count, as fixed by the appellate court, is excessive or otherwise improper.
Arguments of the Parties
Revision Petitioners' Arguments (as recorded)
- The appellate court erred in imposing sentences under both Section 148 IPC and Section 324 IPC on the same accused, which is contrary to Section 71 IPC; in other words, the offences are alleged to be parts of the same offence and multiple punishments are impermissible.
- The prosecution story is false or unreliable because the medical evidence describes only lacerated injuries, contusions and abrasions (no incised wounds), which, the petitioners contend, is inconsistent with the alleged use of axes and other deadly weapons.
- The weapons allegedly used were not recovered or produced in court; therefore, the courts below were wrong to treat the instruments as deadly weapons without recovery.
- The prosecution has not explained injuries found on some accused (A6, A7 and A15), which casts doubt on the entire case.
- The sentence of four months R.I. plus a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count (as imposed by the appellate court) is excessive.
Respondent / Prosecution Arguments
The opinion does not contain a separately set out, detailed account of the prosecution's oral arguments in adversarial form; rather, the court records and relies upon the prosecution evidence (statements of P.Ws and the Medical Officer) as presented at trial and on appeal. The court's analysis refers to that evidence when addressing the petitioners' contentions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In Re Soya Hussainappa (1958 ALT 109) | Held (as stated) that imposition of two separate sentences—one for rioting and the other for a substantive offence when convictions are founded on the common-object provisions (Section 149) — is illegal as it offends Section 71 IPC; conviction under a substantive provision read with Section 149 and again for rioting/related offence was treated as bad. | The court considered this authority but distinguished it from the present facts. It concluded that the Soya Hussainappa reasoning applied to factual situations where the substantive offence and the rioting conviction were effectively overlapping due to reliance on common-object provisions; the present case involved distinct offences (rioting under Section 148 and separate acts causing injury under Section 324) and therefore Section 71 did not bar separate punishments here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by identifying the central legal test under Section 71 IPC. It reproduced Section 71 and its illustration (A gives Z fifty strokes...), explaining the statutory rule that where an offence is truly "made up of parts" the offender must not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences; conversely, if offences are separate and distinct and do not amount to parts of a single offence, separate convictions and punishments may validly be imposed.
Applying that principle, the court analysed the factual matrix: the accused were members of an unlawful assembly that used force (rioting under Section 148). If, in the course of that rioting, an individual member of the assembly individually attacks and causes injury to particular persons, that individual act (e.g., causing hurt with a deadly weapon punishable under Section 324) constitutes a separate offence distinct from the collective offence of rioting. The court concluded that the offences in this case (rioting with deadly weapons under Section 148 and causing injuries with deadly weapons under Section 324) are not parts of a single offence for the purposes of Section 71.
The court considered the decision in Re Soya Hussainappa (1958 ALT 109), where a different outcome was reached because convictions were structured such that rioting and a substantive offence were overlapping through reliance on common-object provisions (Section 149). The court here distinguished that decision: the facts differ because the present convictions under Section 148 and Section 324 do not constitute the kind of duplicative punishment condemned in Soya Hussainappa.
On the evidentiary challenges, the court addressed the following contentions raised by petitioners and responded:
- On the nature of injuries: Although the Medical Officer (P.W.8) described a head injury as lacerated rather than incised, he stated that such an injury could be caused by an axe. The court observed that an axe striking the human skull commonly produces laceration rather than a neat incision; thus the absence of incised wounds does not negate the possibility of lethal or dangerous weapons having been used.
- On non-recovery of weapons: The court relied on the testimony of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 who identified the weapons used (axe, spear-headed stick, iron rods). The court accepted that these instruments are deadly weapons capable of causing death or grievous hurt and found no error in the lower courts treating them as such despite non-recovery.
- On injuries to some accused (A6, A7, A15): The court observed that in a riot involving many persons, it is plausible that some members of the same side may sustain injuries (either from their own people, in confused exchange, or from attempts at resistance). Therefore, unexplained injuries on those accused did not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case and did not justify rejecting the entirety of the prosecution's narrative.
- On sentence quantum: The petitioners argued that a sentence of four months R.I. and fine of Rs. 50/- on each count (as fixed by the appellate court) was excessive. The court disagreed with that contention; rather, given the use of axes, spears and iron rods at night in an attack, the appellate court's reduction to four months was not excessive and in the view of the revisional court was lenient rather than harsh.
After addressing the legal and factual objections raised by the petitioners, the court concluded that the appellate court's decisions as to conviction and sentence did not suffer from incorrectness, impropriety or illegality.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision petition fails and is dismissed. In the court's words, the judgment of the lower appellate court, insofar as it concerns these revision petitioners (A1, A3, A5 and A9), does not suffer from incorrectness, impropriety or illegality.
Implications:
- The convictions and the modified sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge (appellate court) stand as between the parties. The appellate court's confirmations of convictions under Section 148 and Section 324 IPC and its reductions of sentence (for example, two years R.I. reduced to four months R.I. on certain counts) remain effective.
- The court held that offences of rioting under Section 148 IPC and causing injuries by deadly weapons under Section 324 IPC are, on these facts, distinct offences rather than parts of a single offence under Section 71 IPC; therefore separate punishments were permissible in this case.
- No broader rule of law contrary to the positions discussed was laid down by this opinion; the court distinguished the earlier authority it cited (Re Soya Hussainappa) on facts and applied established statutory interpretation of Section 71 IPC. The opinion does not purport to establish a novel precedent beyond its application to these facts.
Disposition: Revision dismissed.
1. This Revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 301/80 dated 21-4-1982 modifying the judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C No. 100/80. The revision petitioners are A1, A3, A5 and A9. The facts that led to this revision petition are as follows:
2. S.H.O Nagarampalem, filed a charge-sheet against these appellants and 14 others, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 325, etc. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that on 8-12-1979, all these accused formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like sticks, spears, axes, etc. and attacked P.W 1 and his party people causing ??? on P.W 1 and others. The case was registered as Crime No. 262/79 P.S Nagarampalem. The learned Magistrate i.e, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Guntur, committed the accused to take the trial under various sections of the Code to the Court of the Sessions in his order dated: 30-6-1980 in P.R.C No. 9/1980. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge tried the accused for various offences in S.C No. 100/80 and found the accused 1 to 5, A9 and A10 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and while convicting them thereunder, sentenced each one of them to suffer R.I for one year. He further found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC on three counts-causing injuries with a deadly weapon (axe) on the person of P.Ws 1, 3 and 4. While convicting thereunder the Court sentenced him to suffer R I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default, to suffer R I for one month for the offence under Section 324 on each count. He found A3 further guilty of the offence under Sec. 324 I.P.C on three counts for causing injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and similarly sentenced him as in the case of A1. He found A9 also guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC on two counts for causing injuries on the persons of PWs. 2 and 3 and sentenced him to undergo two years' R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- under each count. He found A5 guilty under Sec. 324 IPC on two counts for causing injuries to P.Ws 1 and 2 and while convicting him thereunder, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, to suffer R I for one month. He also found similarly some other accused guilty of various offences on various counts and sentenced each one of them to various periods of imprisonment and fines. He however acquitted A6, A7, and A15. The accused who were found guilty and convicted, i.e, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A9, A10 and A11 preferred appeals against their convictions and sentences to the Sessions Judge at Guntur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 301/80. The learned Sessions Judge in the appellate Court Page: 317acquitted A4 and A11 of all the charges. The convictions of A1, A2, A5 and A10 under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing injuries to P.W 1 by a deadly weapon was confirmed. However, the sentence of R I for two years imposed by the Court of first instance on each counts was reduced to four months R.I, while maintaining the fine imposed. The convictions of A2, A4, A5 and A9 under Section 324 I.P.C for causing injuries to P.W 2 by means of a deadly weapon were also confirmed but the sentence of two years R I awarded by the trial Court was reduced to four months R.I-while maintaining the fine. The conviction of A1, A3 and A9 under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to P.W 3 by means of a deadly weapon was confirmed. But, the sentence of two years R I awarded by the lower Court was altered to four months R.I while maintaining the fine. The convictions of A1 to A3, A5, A9 and A10 under Section 148 I.P.C were confirmed and the sentence of one year R I imposed by the trial Court was altered to four months R.I The rest of the charges on which the trial Court found these accused guilty were set aside.
3. In this Revision Petition, preferred by A1, A3, A5 and A9 only, the orders passed by the lower appellate Court are questioned.
4. The point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the convictions and sentences against these revision petitioners suffer from incorrectness, impropriety or illegality?
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urged that the lower Court erred in imposing the sentences both under section 148 IPC and also under Section 324 I.P.C Such sentence under both the sections of law is opposed to Section 71 I.P.C Let us see Section 71 IPC. The same is as follows:
“Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or them selves constitute an offence, constitute when combined, a different offence.
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.”
6. Here, the allegation against the accused is, these four revision petitioners and many others, numbering more than 5, armed with deadly weapons, caused injuries on the persons of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, and some others. The offence under Section 148 is rioting, armed with deadly weapons. Rioting is defined as follows:
“146. Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.”
7. These four revision petitioners are found to be guilty under Section 148 I.P.C by the two lower Courts. That means, these four revision petitioners, are members of the unlawful assembly, which assembly used force. If one of them attacks individual members and causes injuries, surely that constitutes another offence, which are distinct and separate from the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C In other words, the offence of rioting with deadly weapons and the offence of causing simple injuries with deadly weapons on individual persons punishable under Section 324 IPC cannot be said to be an offence made up of parts of a single offence. The offence made up of parts is well stated by illustration a, to Section 71 IPC. The illustration is as follows:
“A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating and also by each of the blows which make up the whole beating. If A were liable to punishment for every Page: 318blow, he might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.”
8. Thus, the illustration makes it clear that where only an offence is made up of many parts, then and then only, the offender shall not be punished for more than one such offence. When the offences are separate and distinct and do not constitute parts of one offence, the accused can be convicted separately for each one of the offences. Therefore, in my opinion, the fact of this case do not attract Section 71 I.P.C However, the learned Counsel brought to my notice a decision reported In Re Soya Hussainappa (1958 ALT 109), in which Justice Basi Reddy observed that the imposition of two separate sentences, one for rioting and the other for a substantive offence, read with Section 149 I.P.C is illegal, as it offends the provisions of Section 71 I.P.C There the accused were sought to be convicted for the offence under Sec. 332 read with Section 149 I.P.C The accused there were sought to be convicted once for the offence under Section 147 and again they were sought to be convicted for the act of one member with the aid of Section 149, which again speaks for the common object of the assembly. Such conviction was termed as bad. If any member of that assembly in that case (above cited one) is sought to be sentenced under Section 332, then that would have been a correct sentence. Since the Court sought to convict the accused in that case under Section 332 read with Section 149, His Lordship termed it as bad under law, since Section 146 and 149 I.P.C speak of common object and unlawful assembly. Therefore, the facts of this case differ from the facts with which Basi Reddy J. was dealing in the above quoted decision.
9. The learned counsel also cited some other decisions of some other High Courts which can be distinguished as in the case of the above cited decision. Therefore, in my opinion this argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the sentence both under Section 148 and 324 I P.C is opposed to Section 71 I.P.C is not acceptable.
10. The learned counsel then submitted that the prosecution story must be a false one, since, even though it is alleged that the accused were armed with deadly weapons, all the injuries received by the various complainants are only lacerated injuries contusions and abrasions and there are no incised, injuries. This is not correct. For instance, P.W 1 is having head injuries on his person said to have been caused by an axe by A1. Even though the Medical Officer, PW. 8, described this injury on the head as lacerated, at the same time, he deposed that the same can be caused by an axe. It is common knowledge that when axe is used on a hard surface like the head, it is possible to cause laceration rather than a cut injury. Again, sometimes, if a stick is used on the head, there is the possibility of causing an incised injury. Therefore, simply because no incised injuries are found on the persons of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3, etc. it cannot be said that the accused have not used axes, etc. Therefore, this argument has also got no substance.
11. It is then argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the weapons used by the accused were not recovered and they were not produced before the Court. That in the absence of the weapons, the two lower Courts are wrong in inferring that the weapons used are deadly weapons. P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 have deposed specifically that A1 used axe. Axe is a deadly weapon. It is also there in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 that A3 used a stick having a spear head. Therefore, it cannot be said that the spear is not a deadly weapon. A5 and A9 used iron rods. It cannot be said that iron rods are not deadly weapons in the sense that they could not cause death when aimed at the head. Therefore, when the two lower Courts found that the weapons used by A1 to A3, A5 and A9 are deadly weapons, being axes, spears and iron rods, the conclusions of the two lower Courts that they are deadly weapons cannot be said to be wrong. It is then ??? by the learned counsel for the petitioner that A6, A7, and A15 have got injuries on their Page: 319persons and the prosecution has not explained those injuries. Therefore, the prosecution story must be false. It is true there is evidence that A6, A7, and A15 have sustained some injuries. But, when as many as 18 persons attack a number of people of the opposite party and when it is a rioting the possibilities of some of the accused persons receiving simple injuries on their own persons in the hands of their own people cannot be ruled out. Again, even if one of the persons that was attacked turns round and inflicts injuries, it is not possible for the prosecution to explain which person among the victims has caused those injuries to the accused. Therefore, simply because A6, A7 and A15 were found to have sustained some simple injuries, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the ground that the injuries on these accused has not been explained by the prosecution.
12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sentence of four months R.I and a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count is excessive. When the accused could use axes spears and iron rods, at dead of night and attack people, the sentence is not at all excessive. On the other hand, the lower appellate Court has wrongly reduced the sentence, and the sentence of four months R.I and a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count is rather a lenient sentence for the offence that was committed by the accused. For all these reasons, I do not think that the judgment of the lower Court, as far as these revision petitioners are concerned, suffer from incorrectness, impropriety or illegality.
13. In the result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed.
Alert