THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Appeal Nos.386 of 2008, 387 of 2008 & 964 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J) Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 are appellants in these three appeals. A-3, who is stated to be Juvenile is facing enquiry before the Juvenile court. The lower court i.e., the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.408 of 2006 passed conviction against A-4 for offence under Section 302 IPC and conviction against A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC; and sentenced all the appellants to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The deceased Chagan Loknadha Reddy is a friend of P.W.3’s son Joseph. P.W.3 has been running ladies hostel at Anjaneyapeta on Amaravathi road of Guntur. It is alleged that A-3 who is son of A-1 pelted stones on ladies hostel on 17.03.2006 as well as on 18.03.2006. After receiving information about the same through P.W.3, the deceased rushed to the hostel at about 10.30 or 11.00 p.m and picked up quarrel. It is alleged that A-1 to A-6 went against the deceased by way of exchange of words and that A-4 stabbed the deceased with knife on his back, left arm, left shoulder and left ear and that when P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached there and tried to rescue the deceased from the other accused, then A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 prevented them from interfering in the quarrel. Ultimately the deceased died after driving his car to a distance of 100 yards after dashing to a tree. The entire case rests on evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. In so far as A-4 is concerned, evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is consistent and corroborative of each other to the effect that it was A-4 who attacked the deceased with knife and caused fatal injuries to him. Except A-4, no other accused person caused any injury to the deceased. In fact, during trial in the lower court, A-4 made two written representations admitting the fact that he attacked the deceased. He gives reason for the same to the effect that the deceased beat him indiscriminately and it resulted in losing control over himself and beating the deceased. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as well as the doctor’s evidence of P.W.9 discloses that the deceased died because of stab injuries due to shock and haemorrhage. It is contended by Sri T.S. Rayalu, Counsel for A-4 that at best the action of A-4 may attract offence under Section 304 IPC and not one under Section 302 IPC as there was no prior intention for him to commit murder of the deceased. No doubt, there was no prior acquaintance between the deceased and A-4. According to the prosecution, A-4 came to rescue of A-3 who pelted stones, when called by A-1 and A-2. There is no evidence much less medical evidence before the lower court to show that A-4 suffered any injuries due to the alleged beating of him by the deceased. Secondly, there was no necessity for A-4 to carry knife with him in that mid night unless he intended to use the same whenever required. Injuries inflicted by A-4 on the deceased are on vital parts and they resulted in the deceased collapsing almost immediately after the offence. Therefore, having regard to all these cumulative facts, we find that the case squarely attracts offence under Section 302 IPC as against A-4. In so far as A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 are concerned, it is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that when they went to rescue of the deceased, these accused either pushed them or stopped them from going to his rescue. It is contended by the Senior Counsel appearing for them that there was absolutely no intention much less common intention for them to kill the deceased and that they might have prevented P.Ws.1 to 3 from interfering in the dispute because P.Ws.1 to 3 may also receive injuries during the quarrel. A-1 is mother of A-3. A-2 is sister of A-1. A-5 is stated to be a previous tenant of A-1. A-6 is stated to be a friend of A-5. Having regard to these relationships among them, it cannot be said that they had any common intention to kill the deceased along with A-4. It is also probable that P.Ws.1 to 3 were prevented from involving themselves in the quarrel by those accused persons because they may also receive injuries in the hands of A-4 who was indiscriminately attacking the deceased with a knife. If really A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 had common intention along with A-4, then they would not have failed to attack the deceased. None of them were attributed with any overt act either against the deceased or his supporters, except stopping or pushing P.Ws.1 to 3 preventing them from interfering in the quarrel between A-4 and the deceased. Having regard to all the circumstances and probabilities, we are of the opinion that there was no intention much less common intention for A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 to join hands with A-4 in order to commit murder of the deceased. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.386 and 387 of 2008 are allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower court against the appellants therein/A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 and acquitting them. They shall be set at liberty at once if they are not required in any other case. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to them. Criminal Appeal No.964 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower court against the appellant/A-4. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA. _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU. 22nd March, 2010. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Appeal Nos.386 of 2008, 387 of 2008 & 964 of 2008 Dated: 22.03.2010 Gk.