PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAOversusSTATE OF A. P. & ORS.

                  (2014] 1 S C.R. 1139


        PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO                     A
                            V.
                 STATE OF A. P. & ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2014)

                  FEBRUARY 20, 2014
                                                             8
         [H. L. DATTU AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]

      PENAL CODE, 1860: s.307 rlw s.34, s.452; s.324 -
Attempt to murder - Attack on victim when he was sitting in
worker union office - Accused entered the office and attacked C
victim with cold drink bottles lying there and strangulated him
with telephone wire and hit him iron rod - Trial court found
them guilty uls.307 r/w s.34 and s.452 - High Court modified
conviction u/s.307 rlw s.34 to s.324 holding that accused had
not come to the place of incident with dangerous weapons nor o
caused injuries on the vital part of the body and set aside
conviction u/s.452 on the ground that the victim was sitting at
the Union Office and not at any private place - On appeal by
complainant, held: The plea that the act of strangulating a
person by the throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from E
both sides would not attract s. 307 cannot be accepted - The
first part of s.307 makes any act committed with the intention
or knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act caused
death punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, the
second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment F
for life if hurt is caused thereby - Thus, even if act does not
cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10
years - If it·does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is
punishable with imprisonment for life - s.307 does not require
that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree -
 The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the G
accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a
telephone wire around his neck and telling him that he should
die - Further, the law protects any house from trespass and

                           1139                              H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A further protects persons within the house from being assaulted
  or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own
  house - There is nothing in s. 452 to suggest that the use to
  which the house is put makes any difference - The accused
  were not entitled to be acquitted for the offences u/s. 452 rlw
8 s. 34 - The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
  judgment of the trial court is restored.

         The prosecution case was that PW-1 was the
    President of workers union. The accused were annoyed
    with PW-1 as he had collected donation for marriage of
C   driver's daughter from their locality. On the fateful day,
    when PW-1 was sitting in Union Office, the accused
    persons entered the Office and attacked PW-1. A-1 picked
    up a cold drink bottle from there and hit PW-1 on head
    and thereafter along with A-2 and A-3 tied telephone wire
D   around his neck and pulled it from both sides to
    strangulate him. A-4 then attacked him with iron rod. PW-
    1 was somehow rescued. Charges were framed against
    the accused persons under Sections 307 and 452 IPC r/
    w Section 34 IPC and trial court convicted them under
E   the charged offences. On appeal, the High Court
    accepted that the accused tied a telephone wire around
    the neck of P.W. 1 and pulled it from both sides but
    observed that this act may not actually amount to being
    dangerous. Further observing that no intention could be
F   attributed to the accused to cause the death of P.W. 1
    since the accused had not come to the scene with
    dangerous weapon or caused injuries on the ·vital part of
    the body, the High Court modified the conviction under
    Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC.
G   As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC, the High
    Court observed that the incident occurred when P.W. 1
    was in the Union Office and not at any private place and,
    therefore, ipso facto set aside the conviction and
    sentence under Section 452 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
H   Aggrieved, the complainant filed the instant appeal.
 PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1141
               OF A. P. & ORS.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court                             A

      HELD: 1. It is not possible to accept the contention
in the circumstances of the case that the act of
strangulating a person by the throat by a telephone wire
and pulling it from both sides does not amount to the          8
commission of the offence of attempt to commit murder
under Section 307 IPC. The first part of Section 307 IPC
makes any act committed with the intention or knowledge
that it would amount to murder if the act caused death
punishable with imprisonment up to ten years. The              C
second part makes such an act punishable with
imprisonment for life if hurt is caused thereby. Thus even
if the act does not cause any injury it is punishable with
imprisonment up to 10 years. If it does cause an injury
and therefore hurt, it is punishable with imprisonment for
life. [Para 16] [1149-B-D]                                     D

     2. There is no merit in the contention that the
statement of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life
unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone
due to strangulation means that the accused did not            E
intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause
death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the
second part of Section 307 since the act resulted in injury
No.5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. Section
307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act          F
causes 'hurt'. It does not require that the hurt should be
grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to
cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since
the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone
wire around his neck and telling him he should die. Also,      G
there is no merit in the contention on behalf of the
appellant that there was no intention to cause death
because the victim admitted that the accusecl.were not
armed with weapons. Very few persons would normally
describe the Thums-up bottle and a telephone wire used
                                                               H
    1142    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A as weapons. That the victim honestly admitted that the
  accused did not have any weapons cannot be held
  against him and in favour of the accused. [para 17] [1150-
  F-H; 1151-A-B]

         3. This is a clear case of intention to commit the
8
    murder of P.W. 1 the appellant and the accused acted in
    concert and committed an offence under Section 307 IPC.
    As regards the setting aside of the conviction by the High
    Court under Section 452 IPC, the reasoning is completely
    unacceptable and untenable. The High Court simply set
C   aside the conviction of the accused under Section 452
    IPC r/w Section 34 IPC only on the ground that the victim
    was sitting at the Union Office and not at any private
    place. There is no doubt that the trespass was into a
    house and that the appellant entered the office having
D   prepared to assault the victim and in any case for putting
    him in fear of hurt or of assault. There is nothing in
    Section 452 IPC to suggest that the use to which the
    house is put makes any difference. It is not the
    requirement of Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be
E   an offence the house must be a private place and not an
    office. The law protects any house from trespass, vide
    Section 448 IPC and further protects persons within the
    house from being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt
    or wrongful restraint within their own house. The accused
F   were not entitled to be acquitted for the offences under
    Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment
    of the High Court is set aside and the Judgment of the
    trial court is restored. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21] [1151-8-D, F-
    H; 1152-A-B]
G
        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 466 of 2014.

        From the Judgment and order dated 01.02.2007 of the
    High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 719 of 2003.
H
 PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1143
               OF A. P. & ORS.
    A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Altaf Ahmed, Annam D.N. Rao,             A
A. Venkatesh, Neelam Jain, Sudipto Sircar, D. Mahesh Babu,
Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain, Aditya Jain,
Ramakrishna Rao, D. Bharathi Reddy, G. Pramod Kumar,
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appearing Parties.
                                                                    B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The appellanUdefacto complainant has filed this appeal
against the judgment dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the         c
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra
Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, and
acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred
to as "IPC"]. The High Court further modified the conviction and    0
sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one
under Section 324 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence
of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two months each and
also to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, an amount of      E
Rs. 4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused
collectively as compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva
Ramakrishna Rao) - the victim. Earlier, the Trial Court convicted
the accused as follows:

      A-1 to A-4 under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC         F
for rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 100/- each,
in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3
months each and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC
for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 100/-
each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of     G
3 months each.

    Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the High Court, the
present appeal is filed.

     3. The prosecution case is that the victim P.W. 1              H
    1144     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was the President of
  Shimavaram Taluk Lorry Workers Union. A-1 - Chintha
  Srinivasa Rao @ Sandi Srinu and A-2 - Chintha Krishna @
  Sandi are brothers. A-4 -Chintha Lakshmana Rao is their
  cousin. A-3 -Addia Umamaheswara Rao is the close associate
s of A-1, A-2 and A-4. They are all residents of Shimavaram.
  About a fortnight prior to the date of incident - 20.04.1998, the
  victim P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and some
  other Lorry Workers collected Rs. 10,000/- as donations to
  perform the marriage of the daughter of a poor lorry worker.
c That incensed the accused who believed that P.W. 1
  (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) ought not to have collected
  donations from their locality. On 20.04.1998 at about 8.00 pm
  when P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the
  Lorry Workers Union Office near Anakoderu Canal in Undi
  Road, Shimavaram, the accused armed with deadly weapons
0
  entered the office, abused P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva
  Ramakrishna Rao) in filthy language and threatened him with
  death because he had collected donations from their area. They
  attacked him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao hit him on his head
  with the cool drink bottle causing a grievous injury and instigated
E other accused to tie a telephone wire around his neck to kill
  him. He along with A-2 - Chintha Krishna and A-3 - Addia
  Umamaheswara Rao tied the telephone wire around the neck
  of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) and pulled it
  from both sides to strangulate him with the intention to kill him.
F A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him on his right cheek with
  an iron rod. A-2 - Chintha Krishna beat him on the forehead
  and A-3 - Addia Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 - Chintha
  Lakshmana Rao beat him on the left eye and on the cheek. On
  making a hue and cry, P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna
G Rao) was rescued by others, who were present. On a complaint,
  Crime No. 85/98 under Sections 307 and 452 IPC read with
   Section 34 IPC was registered, investigated and a charge
  sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed
   and read over to the accused. They did not plead guilty.
H
 PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1145
       OF A. P. & ORS. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]
    4. P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P17             A
were marked apart from M.Os. 1 to 5 on behalf of the
prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the
accused.

    5. The learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the            8
accused as indicated above.

     6. P.W. 3 (Kotipalli Srinivas) and P.W. 5 (Sunkara
Sreenivasa Rao) eye witnesses were declared hostile. P.W. 7
(Marri Sambhasiva) is the circumstantial witness. P.W. 8
(Dirisala Murali) is the photographer. P.W. ·g (Grandhi Sree          C
Rama Murthy) is the panch witness.

   7. P.W. 10 (Dr. B. Swarajya Lakshmi, C.A.S.) is the
medical officer, who examined P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva
Ramakrishna Rao) and found the following injuries:                    o
    "1. Irregular bleeding lacerated injury of 3 cm x Y4 cm x Y4
    cm size present on the left parietal region of the scalp.

    2. A contusion of 3 cm x size present lateral to the left eye
    with overlying abrasion of Y4 cm size red in colour.              E

    3. A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the left eye
    upper eye lid.

    4. A contusion of 4 cm with abrasion of Y4 cm size present
    lateral on the right side of the fore head.                       F

    5. Ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size present below the
    thyroid cartilage on the front, right side and left side of the
    neck, red in colour.
                                                                      G
    6. A contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm size present on the right
    temple.

    7. A contusion of 2 cm x 2 cm size present on the right
    cheek.
                                                                      H
    1146     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A        8. An oblique abrasion of 10 cm x 5 cm size present on
         the ventral aspect of the left arm, red in colour."

        8. The Medical Officer [MO] opined that Injury No. 5
    endangered the life of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna
    Rao). That the other injuries are simple in nature and could have
8
    been caused as alleged.

         9. P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) deposed
    that he collected donations for performing the marriage of the
    daughter of Pasupuleti Satyanarayan, a driver and a poor man.
C   The accused questioned and threatened him about the
    collection of contribution from their territory and warned him that
    they would take away his life. On 20.04: 1998 at about 8.00 PM
    when he was in the Lorry Workers Union Office, the accused
    trespassed into the Union Office and abused him. They told him
D   that he cannot become a leader of their territory and collect
    donations and they would not leave the Office unless they beat
    him. A-1 - Chintha Srinivasa Rao beat him on his head with a
    cool drink (Thums up) bottle and said he should die. He
    directed others to tie a telephone wire around his neck therefore
E   A-2 - Chintha Krishna beat him on the forehead and A-3 - Addia
    Umamaheswara Rao tied a telephone wire around his neck and
    pulled wire. Then A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao beat him with
    the rod on his right cheek along with abuses. A-2 - Chintha
    Krishna also beat him with the rod on his forehead and A-3 -
F   Addia Umamaheswara Rao and A-4 - Chintha Lakshmana Rao
    beat him on the upper side of his eyebrow and his cheek. He
    named others who were present and intervened to rescue him
    stating that but for that he would have been killed. His shirt was
    stained with his blood. They left behind the broken Thums-up
G   bottle, telephone wire and iron rod. He was hospitalized for
    about 20 days. In cross examination his version was not shaken.
    He accepted that the accused were not armed with any weapon
    and said that the Thums-up bottle broke on his head, because
    of the impact. The deposition of other witnesses support the
    version of the injured witness - P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva
H
  PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1147
        OF A. P. & ORS. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]
Ramakrishna Rao). We have not referred to the depositions of       A
witnesses who have been declared hostile since such
declaration is not of much consequences in this case. The other
depositions are in tune with the deposition of PW1, the injured
witness.
                                                                   B
      10. The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and
rejected the argument that the other witnesses were not reliable
because they were interested witnesses. As regards charge
under Section 34 IPC, the Trial Court relied on the settled
position in law that it is not necessary that there should be a    C
clear positive evidence about the meeting of mind before the
occurrence and that if there are more than one accused a
common intention to kill can be inferred from the circumstances
of the case. The prosecution need not prove the overt act of
the accused. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC the
Trial Court held that there was clear intention of accused here    D
and that it was clearly established that the accused went to the
office of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) in a car
and the other circumstances clearly establish that there was
preparation for committing the offence. As noticed earlier, the
Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under Section          E
452 IPC for 7 years and under Section 307 IPC for 10 years
read with Section 34 IPC.

      11. The High Court in appeal, referred to the deposition
of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) where he had · F
honestly admitted that accused did not come there armed with
any weapon. The Appellate Court observed that the injuries
were not only simple but were trivial. As regards Injury No. 5, it
observed that though the Medical Officer stated that the injury
was dangerous to life, it is not clear as to how the witness stated G
so, meaning thereby that there was no explanation for the
medical opinion. Even though the High Court noticed that this
injury is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm size around the neck.
The High Court accepted that the accu·sed tied a telephone wire
around the neck of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao)
                                                                   H
      1148    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A and pulled it from both sides but observed that this act may not
  actually amount to being dangerous. It was of the opinion that
  if a knife is used and only a grazing injury is caused but no
  actual stabbing is done on any vital part of the body, it cannot
  be said that the injury is dangerous. Further observing that no
B intention could be attributed to the accused to cause the death
  of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) since the
  accused had not come to the scene with dangerous weapon
  or caused injuries on the vital part of the body, the High Court
  modified the conviction under Section 307 IPC read with
c Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC.
       12. As regards the charge under Section 452 IPC, the High
  Court observed that the incident occurred when P.W. 1
  (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) was in the Lorry Workers
  Union Office and not at any private place and hence ipso facto
D set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC
  read with Section 34 IPC.

       13. During the pendency of this matter, respondent Nos.
  4 & 5, namely, Addia Umamaheswara Rao (accused No. 3) and
E Chintha Lakshmana Rao (accused No. 4) expired. Hence the
  special leave petition insofar as those respondents has already
  abated, vide order dated 04.02.2014.

       14. Shri Altaf Ahmed, senior advocate, appearing for
  respondents 2 to 5 vehemently supported the Judgment of the
F High Court to the extent that it has rightly held that Section 307
  IPC is not attracted and neither was Section 452 IPC. He also
  opposed the conviction under Section 324 IPC on the ground
  that no dangerous weapon or means were used for causing the
  injury which according to the learned counsel was simple in
G nature.

           15. As regards the act of the tying the telephone wire
      around the neck and pulling it on both sides and causing an
      injury thereby, the learned counsel for the accused, heavily
    H relied on a statement in the cross examination of the Medical
 PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1149
       OF A. P. & ORS. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]
Officer that the Injury No. 5 is simple in nature and the further      A
statement that if the strangulation is of high nature the thyroid
bone may be dislocated and ruptured and that there is no
danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid
bone.
                                                                   B
       16. It is not possible to accept this contention in the
circumstances of the case that the act of strangulating a person
by the throat by a telephone wire and pulling it from both sides,
which is proved here, does pot amount to the commission of
the offence of attempt to commit murder under Section 307
IPC. The first part makes any act committed with the intention C
or knowledge that it would amount to murder if the act caused
death punishable with imprisopment up to ten years. The
second part makes such an act punishable with imprisonment
 for life if hurt is caused thereby. Thus even if the act does not
 cause any injury it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 D
 years. If it does cause an injury and therefore hurt, it is
 punishable with imprisonment for life. The Section reads as
 under:                                                       ,

      "307. Attempt to murder.-- Whoever does any act with             E
      such intention or knowledge, and under such
      circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would
      be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment
      of either description for a term which may extend to ten
      years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused   F
      to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either
      to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
      hereinbefore mentioned.

      Attempts by life convicts. - When any person offending
      under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for        G
      life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]

      Illustrations

      (~) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such         H
    1150     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A .     circumstances that, if death ensued A would be guilty of
        murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

        (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of
        tender years, exposes it in a desert place A has committed
        the offence defined by this section, though the death of the
B
        child does not ensue.

        (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A
        has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He
        has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if
c       by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment
        provided by the latter part of [the first paragraph o~ this
        section.

        (d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison
D       and mixes the same with food which remains in A' s
        keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this
        section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's
        servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the
        offence defined in this section."

E       17. There is no merit in the contention that the statement
  of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is
  dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation
  means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge,
  that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case
F clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act
  resulted in injury No.5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5
  cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for
  imprisonment for life if the act causes 'hurt'. It does not require
  that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The
G intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused
  since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone
  wire around his neck and telling him he should die. We also
  do not find any merit in the contention on behalf of the appellant
  that there was no intention to cause death because the victim
H admitted that the accused were not armed with weapons. Very
 PASUPULETI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA RAO v. STATE 1151
       OF A. P. & ORS. [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

few persons would normally describe the Thums-up bottle and             A
a telephone wire used as weapons. That the victim honestly
admitted that the accused did not have any weapons cannot
be held against him and in favour of the accused.

      18. We are thus of the view that this is a clear case of
                                                                        8
intention to commit the murder of P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva
Ramakrishna Rao) the appellant and the accused acted in
concert and committed an offence under Section 307 IPC. As
regards the setting aside of the conviction by the High Court
under Section 452 IPC, we find the reasoning completely                 C
unacceptable and untenable. The High Court has simply set
aside the conviction of the accused under Section 452 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC only on the ground that the victim was
sitting at the Lorry Workers Union Office and not at any private
place. Section 452 of the IPC reads as follows:
                                                                        D
     "452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt,
     assault or wrongful restraint- Whoever commits house-
     trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any
     person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully
     restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of       E
     hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished
     with imprisonment of either description for a term which
     may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

      19. There is no doubt that the trespass was into a house
and that the appellant entered the office having prepared to            F
assault the victim and in any case for putting him in fear of tiurt
or of assault. There is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest
that the use to which the house is put makes any difference. It
is not the requirement of Section 452 IPC that for a trespass
to be an offence the house must be a private place and not an           G
office. The law protects any house from trespass, vide Section
448 IPC and further protects persons within the house from
being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint
within their own house.
                                                                        H
    1152    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A       20. We thus find that the accused were not entitled to be
    acquitted for the offences under Section 452 IPC read with
    Section 34 IPC.

       21. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High
  Court and restore the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31st
8
  July, 2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
  Bhimavaram in Sessions Case No. 234 of 1999. The
  respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-
  Chintha Krishna] are sentenced to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of
C Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a
  period of three months each for the offence under Section 452
  with Section 34 IPC. The respondent Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha
  Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha Krishna] are also sentenced
  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a
D fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default simple imprisonment for a
  period of three month each for the offence under Section 307
  read with Section 34 !PC. Both the sentences shall run
  concurrently. Sentence already undergone, if any, shall be set
  off.
E
          22. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The respondent
    Nos. 2 [A-1-Chintha Srinivasa Rao] and 3 [A-2-Chintha Krishna]
    are directed to surrender before Judicial Magistrate/
    Superintendent of Police concerned forthwith. In case, they
F   failed to do so within one month, steps be taken, in accordance
    with law, to apprehend them.

    D.G.                                         Appeal allowed.