Holding

The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is altered to conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC, with a ten‑year imprisonment running concurrently.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the conviction of appellant Pogula Komuriah, who was originally found guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Court considered the evidence, including the nature of the weapon (iron rod) and the delay in filing the complaint, and found that the facts did not support a murder conviction but rather culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149. Relying on its earlier decision in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2006, the Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I and imposed a ten‑year imprisonment to run concurrently with other sentences. The Court held that the findings of guilt for other offences and the sentences imposed on those offences required no interference. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence establishes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC in the context of common intention under Section 149.
Whether the nature of the weapon (iron rod versus lathi) distinguishes the present case from the earlier precedent.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint and lack of specific overt acts warrant acquittal of the accused.
Whether the sentences imposed for other offences should be altered or set aside.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 324, s. 448

Subjects

criminal lawmurderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 149 IPCcommon intentionconviction alterationSupreme Courtappealevidence evaluation

Judgment

POGULA KOMURAIAH v. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY 701
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASAYAT, J.]

Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC as was done A
in the case of the two accused. The finding of guilt in
respect of other offence and the sentence imposed do
not warrant any interference. [Para 9] (703-H; 704-A-B]
Kalegura Padma Rao and Anr vs. The State of A.P Rep.
B
by the Public Prosecutor 2007 (2) SCR 781 - relied on.
f CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
" -t No. 94 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in c
Crl. A. No. 1114/2005

S. Sadasiv Reddy and S. Usha Reddy for the Appellant.
Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-,..
~
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, disposing of four Criminal
E
Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal nos. 1114, 1128, 1130 and 1155
of 2005.
3. 16 accused persons were charged for offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448 read with Section 149
.... and Section 302 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section F
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
4. The High Court by the impugned order disposed of the
appeals with the following observations:
"In the result, Crl.A.No. 1114 of 2005 is allowed in G
rf
-1:·' .. ~ part. Crl. A.No.1128 of 2005 is allowed. Crl. A.No.1130 of
2005 is dismissed. Crl. A.No.1155 of 2005 is allowed.
The convictions and sentences imposed by the lower Court
on A-1, A-3, A-7 to A-9, A-12 and A-13 for the offences
under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 148, 448 read
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

~
A with 149, 324 read with 149 of l.P.C., are confirmed. The
convictions and the sentences imposed on A-2, A-4 to A-
6, A-10, A-11 and A-14 to A-16 for all offences are set
aside and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are
not required in any other crime."
8 5. It is to be noted that the appellant was accused no.12
(for short A12) before the Trial Court. It is relevant to note that
~
accused nos. 1 and 3 filed SLP (Crl.) no.5591 of 2006 before ~

this Court which was subsequently converted into Criminal
Appeal no.222 of 2006. By judgment dated 19th February, 2007
c the appeal was partly allowed with the following findings:
".... If the evidence on record is considered on the
touchstone principles set out above the inevitable
conclusion is that the proper conviction would be Section
304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The conviction
D
of the appellants is accordingly altered from Section 302
';,-
read with Section 149 to Section 304 Part I read with
Section 149 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would "'
meet the ends of justice. The findings of the guilt in respect
of other offences and the sentences imposed do not
E warrant interference. The sentence shall run concurrently.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
present appellant stands in the same footing as the appellants
F in Criminal Appeal no.222 of 2006 and the present appeal may
.,.
.

be disposed of on similar terms.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that
the present appelllant was armed with an iron rod, while the
appellants in Criminal Appeal no.222 of 2006 were armed with
G
lathi. Therefore, the similar treatment cannot be given to the f.
present appellant.
8. It is to be noted that the High Court with reference to the
.....-
evidence of PW1 noted as follows:
H
POGULA KOMURAIAH v. THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BY 703
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PASAYAT, J.]

¥ "19. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior A
Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a delay
of five hours in preferring the complaint and there were no
specific overt acts attributed to the accused and omnibus
allegations were made. The medical evidence is not
corroborating with the oral evidence and the deceased B
has no premeditation to kill the deceased and no motive
; was suggested by the prosecution for the commission of
• ... the offence and it was only in respect of the hiring of the
Auto rickshaw by the deceased. He further submitted that
in Ex.P-1 complaint only seven accused were said to be c
attacked and the witnesses mentioned in the inquest report
were not examined. PW-1 attributed overt acts only to A-
12 and A-13 and the remaining accused were said to be
beaten with sticks which is different from the version given
in Ex.P-1. Though PWs. 5 and 6 stated that all the accused
D
attacked, their names were not mentioned in Ex.P-1. the
-f overt acts attributed to the accused during the course of
evidence were not mentioned in the earlier statements
and the whole version is subsequently developed to
strengthen the prosecution. The receipt of injuries by PW-
2 was not corroborated with the evidence of the Doctor E
who examined PW-2. Though the accused were attributed
overt acts of beating the deceased, there were no
corresponding injuries on the deceased and for the alleged
recovery of properties, the recovery panch turned hostile
.,,... F
and did not support the prosecution case and as A-13
was implicated in this case, all the accused are entitled
for benefit of doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.
24. Since there is specific mention about A-1, A-3, A-7 to
A-9, A-12 and A-13 beating the deceased with sticks, we
G
are unable to agree with the argument that the witnesses
~·~ improved the version by attributing overt acts to the
accused in the evidence ... "
9. Above being the position, the findings recorded in
Criminal Appeal no.222 of 2006 by this Court are applicable to H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A the present appeal. Accordingly appellant's conviction is altered
to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC as was done in
the case of the appellants in the aforesaid appeal. Custodial
sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. The findings
of the guilt in respect of other offence and the sentences imposed
B do not warrant any interference. The sentences shall run
concurrently.
10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.