हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें
Case Summary
| Citation | Case – Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, 1956 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | Rawalpenta Venkalu and Bodla Ram Narsaih along with the three others in pursuance of a conspiracy to commit the murder of Md. Moinuddin had set fire to the single room hut in which he was sleeping after locking the door of the room from outside. An old servant, who was sleeping in front of the cottage outside the room occupied by the deceased, was awakened by the noise of the locking of the door from outside. Just at that time, Moinuddin also called out for him from inside and asked him to open the door. The servant replied that he could not do so as he found the door locked from outside. Three other employees of Moinuddin, who were watching his harvest about fifty paces away, were also called out by him. When they came near the cottage, they were assaulted by the culprits. Kasim Khan was beaten severely. The two appellants then set fire to the cottage, and the employees of Moinuddin were kept at bay by the superior force of the accused and their associates. Those employees naturally, therefore, went towards the main habitation in the village shouting for help. When the villagers came, the appellants and others prevented them from going to the rescue of the helpless inmate of the cottage by throwing dust in their eyes, and by the free use of their sticks. Finally deceased died. |
| Issues | Were appellants had caused the murder of Moinuddin? Was the error in the framing of the charge (omission of section 34) sufficient to mislead the accused? |
| Contentions | Error in the framing of charge is not relevant here – “You are charged of the offence that you with the assistance of other present accused, with common intention, on 18-2-53 at Mohiuddinpur village, committed murder, by causing the death of Md. Moinuddin….” It is clear, therefore, that though Section 34 is not added to Section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in pursuance of their common intention to put an end to the life of Moinuddin. Hence the omission to mention Section 34 in the charge has only an academic significance and has not in any way misled the accused. In this case, from the facts, it becomes very clear that there was the intention to cause death. These facts are like locking the door, burning the hut, preventing servants and villagers from saving victim etc. |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | Supreme Court found that there was a clear intention to cause death. So the appeal was dismissed. It means the death sentence of the appellant was confirmed. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
