Overt Act must be corroborated with medical evidences , S. 149 IPC : SC


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

Case Title: Duddu Lazar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Suresh Reddy, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi

 Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.728 & 653 OF 2016

 Date: 12.03.2024

 Advocate for the Appellant: Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy

 Advocate for the State: Sri Y.Nagi Reddy  

 Brief facts:

The factual matrix of the case is that all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and went to the house of P.Daveedu (deceased) and attacked him which led to his death. The case was registered for the offenses under Sections 148, 302, and 307 read with 149 IPC. The Additional Session Judge convicted all the accused persons. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.

 Contentions of the Accused:

The Accused contended that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses suffer from major contradictions. It was contended that no corroboration exists between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Also, only two injuries were found on the body of the deceased, and out of two, only one injury was found to be fatal, which was attributed to A-4. Furthermore, it was alleged that A6 to A11 pelted stones, however, no stone injuries were found.

 Observations of the court:

The Hon’ble Court observed that the Court must consider the circumstances surrounding the occurrence, and the conduct of members of unlawful assembly, including the use and carrying of weapons, in order to determine the presence of a common object.

It was furthermore observed that except for an allegation that A6 to A11 pelted stones, nothing has been made out during the course of evidence connecting them for the offense under Section 149 IPC. Also, so far as A1, A3, and A5 are concerned, the overt-act attributed to them has not been corroborated by the medical evidence.

Based on these considerations, the court set aside the conviction against the A9 and A11 and held A2 and A12 were found guilty of the offense under Section 307 IPC and convicted under Section 235 (2) CrPC.

 The decision of the court:

With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal appeal.