Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 6, 2024 acquitted a man of the murder charges, saying the evidence was insufficient to deduce a conclusion that he shared a common intention with the three co-accused to commit the offence. 

The court, however, held him guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as he used stone instead of axe as was done by three co-accused, observing that there was certainly no escape from coming to the conclusion that he should have had the knowledge that the use of a stone to hit the head of the deceased was likely to cause death.

Dealing with the appeal by the four accused, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha though confirmed the judgement of the High Court and the trial court and sentence of life term for three accused persons but modified the conviction and sentence awarded to one of them.

In the case, the wife of one of the four accused had suffered defeat from the sister of the deceased in a Gram Panchayat election in Telangana in 2001, leading to animosity and eventually to the murder. The four accused had attacked the deceased with an axe, a sword, a stone and a knife, thereby inflicting severe bleeding injuries leading to the death of the deceased on the spot. 

Notably, the High Court had in a first round in 2007 acquitted all the four accused. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the High Court confirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence of life term.

Following the appeals by the four accused, the bench said, "We have given our anxious consideration and have scrutinised the evidence of all the eye-witnesses in detail. We are in full agreement with the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court. Their analysis and conclusions are based on correct appreciation of evidence and law. However, there is one aspect which stands out in the analysis of the Trial Court and the High Court, and that pertains to the conclusion on the culpability of A-3 for murder". 

The bench pointed out, "A reading of the judgment and order passed by the Trial as well as the High Court would indicate that neither the prosecution or defence, nor the court, have focussed on the role of A-3 as evidenced by the oral and documentary evidence. There is nothing to attribute A-3 with the intent to murder the deceased. In fact, both the Courts have mechanically drawn an inference against A-3 under Section 34 of the Act merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused".

The court said all the eyewitnesses were clear on this account that A-1 assaulted the deceased with the help of an axe, which was then taken by A-2 and thereafter, by A-4.

"Considering the statements of the eye-witnesses, coupled with the post-mortem report, it is not possible to contend that A-3 would have had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased and as such, he cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that the Trial Court and the High Court had not analysed the evidence as against A-3 as they had proceeded to convict him along with others under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34. 

It noted that the cumulative circumstances in which A-3 was seen participating in the crime clearly indicated that he had no intention to commit murder of the deceased for two clear reasons. Firstly, while every other accused took the axe used by A1 initially and contributed to the assault with this weapon, A-3 did not wield the axe at any point of time. Secondly, A-3 only had a stone in his hand, and in fact, some of the witnesses said that he merely threatened in case they sought to intervene and prevent the assault. 

"Under these circumstances, we hold that A-3 did not share a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased...Even though, A-3 might not have had the common intention to commit the murder, nevertheless, his participation in the assault and the wielding of the stone certainly makes him culpable for the offence that he has committed. While we acquit A-3 of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he is liable for the offence under 304 Part II IPC," the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that in the past, the court has considered factors such as lack of medical evidence to prove whether the act/injury was individually sufficient to cause death, a single blow on head with a hammer and lack of cogent evidence of the eye-witnesses that the accused shared a common intention to commit murder as some factors to commute a sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC. 

The bench, thus, considered the role that A-3 had played and held him guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to 10 years.

Case Title: Velthepu Srinivas And Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) And Anr