Case Summary : A Gopaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Author : Darshi Sanghvi

1. EQUIVALENT CITATIONS:

         1978 CriLJ 798

• BENCH

M Rao, Punnayya

INTRODUCTION

The significance of the Indian Penal Code in the efficient administration of justice cannot be stressed enough. It is this set of rules that covers all the substantive aspects of criminal law and gives an apt punishment to the culprits. The present case of A. Gopaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh discusses few of the most prominent Sections of the IPC and the punishments that must be given to the accused therein.

FACTS

P.W.1 is the son of the deceased, and P.W.5 his wife, and P.W.2 the sister of P.W.5. A-1’s sons are A-2 to A-6 and A-7 is A-2’s son. A-1’s sister is the deceased’s mother. Disputes existed between deceased and his family and the accused and his family with regard to the land that was allotted to the deceased’s mother. The deceased was the owner of 6 acres of dry land and 5 acres of wet land at Thatigadda well and the accused too owned double the land around the same well. Both the deceased and the accused prevented water flowing through their land from passing through the other’s land. Resultantly, the accused dug out a separate channel from their well to irrigate their own lands. On 22^nd April 1976, the deceased returned back to his village after getting his married daughter home for the Dasara festival. He then went directly to the thrashing floor of Theerthagadda well. After seeing him, A-2 and A-7 brought A-1, A-3 to 6 and all of them came to the well. On seeing P.W.1 digging the ground near the ridge of the land,          A-2 asked him not to do so and began hitting him. P.W.1 beat him back on the leg with the stick portion of the spade. A-2 called rest of the accused, from which A-4 and A-5 began beating P.W.1 with stones and A-6 and A-7 did the same with P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 ran to save themselves and all the accused encircled the deceased and kept beating him with stones haphazardly. P.W.1 cried for help, the accused ran away and when P.W.5 asked the deceased who beat him, he named Gopaiah and his sons and A-7. The deceased was being carried in a cloth cradle when he died.

ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW

Whether the learned Sessions Judge can be considered to have committed any illegality in convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, without framing a charge.

Whether Section 34 I. P. C, dealing with common intention, can be applied to an offence Under Section 304 Part II of IPC which primarily deals with the commission of the offence with sufficient knowledge that the injuries caused therewith are likely to cause death.

JUDGEMENT

In the light of the evidence in the present case, it can be held that the accused attacked the deceased in furtherance of a common object of beating him, or in furtherance of a common intention to beat him. The grounds under both, Section 149 and Section 34 overlap, the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced is the same with reference to charges under both the aforementioned Sections. Hence, the failure in creating a separate charge under Section 34 shall not result in any prejudice. The learned Sessions Judge has thus, not committed any error in his act of replacing Section 34 for Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Sri Padmanabha Reddy’s contention has force and the incident can be said to be borne out of sudden quarrel. While beating the deceased with stones on the ribs, the accused could have presumed that the injuries are likely to cause death, even though they were unaware that they were causing fractures of the ribs. Thus, the convictions and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against A-1 to A-6 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC are withdrawn, and they are rather convicted for an offence of mischief under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing them for rigorous imprisonment of five years each. Furthermore, the convictions and sentences of A-4, A-5 and A-6 respectively are held to be confirmed under Section 324 of IPC and shall run simultaneously.

It is further held that A-7, aged 16, cannot be considered guilty of any offence with respect to both, the deceased and P.W. 2. The convictions and sentence passed against A-7 are thus set aside and he is acquitted. A-7 is further given liberty, if he is not required in any other case henceforth.