Supreme Court alters conviction in a murder case based on individual roles: Kaparapu Apparao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 09, 2008

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: B.N. Agrawal, J. and Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

In a case of multiple accused convicted for murder, can the nature of individual participation alter the conviction? The Supreme Court addressed this question in Kaparapu Apparao & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, focusing on whether all accused shared a common intention and whether the injuries inflicted by each were fatal. The Court modified the conviction of some accused from murder to a lesser offense, emphasizing the significance of individual roles and the nature of injuries inflicted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.

Case Background

The case originated from a trial where Kaparapu Apparao [A-1], Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3], and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4], along with seven other accused, were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000 each, with a default imprisonment of six months.

The accused were charged with murder, and the Trial Court found them guilty based on the evidence presented. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, the convicts appealed to the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

On appeal, the High Court found that there was no common intention among all the accused. Consequently, it acquitted Peddada Demudu S/o Somulu [A-5], Kandrakota Sathibabu [A-6], Vulamparthi Raju [A-7], Peddada Nookaraju [A-8], Peddada Demudu @ Yerra Demudu [A-9], Chandada Apparao [A-10], and Paddada Arjuna Rao @ Arjun [A-11] of the charges.

For the remaining appellants (Kaparapu Apparao [A-1], Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3], and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4]), the High Court converted their conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 302 IPC, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework primarily involves the interpretation and application of Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 302, IPC: Deals with the punishment for murder, stating that “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: Explains the concept of common intention, stating that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

The source document does not explicitly detail the arguments presented by each side. However, it can be inferred that the arguments revolved around the nature of the offense, the extent of individual participation, and the presence (or absence) of common intention.

• Appellants’ Arguments: The appellants likely argued that the High Court erred in convicting them under Section 302 IPC, contending that there was no common intention and that the injuries inflicted by them were not fatal.
• Respondent’s Arguments: The State likely argued that the appellants were indeed guilty of murder, either through common intention or individual acts, and that the High Court’s conviction was justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. What should be the nature of the offense committed by each of the accused, considering the medical evidence and the finding that there was no common intention?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, upholding the conviction of Kaparapu Apparao [A-1] under Section 302 IPC while altering the conviction of Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3], and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4] to Section 324 IPC.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The source document does not specify the citation of authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the medical evidence presented by Dr. S. Narsingaraju [PW-8]. The doctor’s testimony indicated that only one injury, inflicted by Kaparapu Apparao [A-1], was fatal. This singular piece of evidence weighed heavily in the decision to uphold A-1’s conviction under Section 302 IPC. For the other accused, the absence of evidence indicating grievous or fatal injuries led the Court to alter their convictions.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Individual Culpability: In cases involving multiple accused, courts will examine the specific role and actions of each individual to determine the appropriate conviction.
• Medical Evidence: Medical evidence plays a crucial role in determining the nature and severity of injuries, directly impacting the conviction.
• Common Intention: The absence of common intention can lead to a modification of charges, emphasizing individual responsibility rather than collective liability.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Gantyada Ramulu [A-2], Peddada Demudu [A-3], and Gantyada Nookaraju [A-4] be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case, as they had already served more than three years in jail.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of common intention, each accused is responsible for their individual acts, and the conviction should be based on the nature and severity of the injuries inflicted by them. This reaffirms the principle of individual culpability in criminal law.

Conclusion

In Kaparapu Apparao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the convictions of some accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 324 IPC, emphasizing the importance of individual culpability and the nature of injuries inflicted. The judgment underscores the necessity of examining medical evidence and establishing common intention in cases involving multiple accused.