Shaik China Brahmam vs State Of A.P

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Shaik Khasim Saida (A-1) had borrowed Rs.300/- from the deceased Shaik Masthan Vali some time back, but he did not repay the amount due to which their relations became strained. At about 4.00 p.m. on 6.4.1999, the deceased Shaik Masthan Vali and his cousin Shaik Baba Vali (PW.1) were returning to the village from northern side of Chandravanka rivulet after attending the call of nature. Both the accused suddenly appeared on the spot. A-1 stabbed the deceased Shaik Masthan Vali repeatedly with a knife which he has carrying and A-2 caused injuries to the deceased with iron pipe. After receiving injuries the deceased fell down dead on the spot. PW.1 Shaik Baba Vali lodged an FIR at P.S. Macherla at 6.30 p.m. on the same day. On the basis of the FIR a crime was registered as Case Crime No.55 of 1999 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC at the police station.

3. After the case had been registered at the police station, PW.8 K. Babu Rao, Inspector of Police, P.S. Macherla commenced investigation of the case. He arrested A-1 and A-2 and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a site plan. After recording statement of witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against both the accused A-1 and A-2. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined nine witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, by the judgment and order dated 24.9.2002 acquitted both the accused A-1 and A-2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the State filed appeal in the High Court, which was allowed and accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/- each. The present appeal has been filed only by Shaik China Brahmam (A-2). It appears that Shaik Khasim Saida (A-1) has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence.

6. PW.2 Sk. Masthan Bee is the wife of the deceased Shaik Masthan Vali. She deposed that her house is by the side of Chennakesava Swamy Temple in Macherla and the house of PW.1 Shaik Baba Vali was near her house and the houses of the accused were situate at some distance. She further deposed that PW.1 Shaik Baba Vali came to her house and informed that A-1 and A-2 had killed her husband. There was some dispute between her husband and the accused on account of borrowing of Rs.300/- and two days prior to the incident an altercation had taken place between them at the tea stall of Achari, which she had also seen. At that time A-1 had said loudly that he would kill her husband. After learning about the incident from PW.1 she rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the dead body of her husband lying there. She denied the defence suggestion that A-1 had not loudly said two days back that he would kill her husband or that PW.1 had not informed her that A-1 and A-2 had killed her husband.

1. This clearly shows that A-2 shared the common intention with A-1 to cause injuries to the deceased. The essential conditions for the application of Section 34 IPC are common intention to commit an offence and participation by all the accused in doing act or acts in furtherance of that common intention. If these two ingredients are established, all the accused shall be liable for the said offence. We have no doubt that in the present case both the ingredients are fully established and, therefore, A-2 is also liable for commission of the offence. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that A-2 is guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court rightly convicted and sentenced him for the said offence.

13. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.