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 1st 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 31st 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