Rawalpenta Venkalu vs State of Hyderabad
AIR 1956 SC 171
Case Summary
[Murder]
[Common Intention]
Facts
On the night of February 18-19, 1953, the appellants (Rawalpenta Venkalu and Bodla Ram Narsiah) set fire to a single-room hut where the deceased, Md. Moinuddin, was sleeping. The door was locked from the outside to prevent escape.
The appellants, in furtherance of a conspiracy, deliberately set the hut on fire after consuming wine. When Moinuddin’s employees and villagers attempted to extinguish the fire and rescue him, they were violently prevented by the appellants and their associates. Moinuddin was burnt alive. Evidence included confessional statements of the accused, testimony of eyewitnesses, and physical evidence (e.g., burnt matches and an empty matchbox).
A longstanding land dispute existed between Moinuddin and Narsiah's family, substantiated by oral and documentary evidence
Issues
Did the act of setting fire to the cottage with the intent to kill constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
Could the accused be convicted of murder without an explicit charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC?
Key Legal Provisions
Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder. [Section 103(1) of BNS]
Section 34 IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. [Section 3(5) of BNS]
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that:
The appellants’ actions showed a clear intention to kill, as evidenced by locking the door, preventing rescue efforts, and setting the hut on fire.
The appellants acted in furtherance of a common intention, making them liable under Section 302 IPC despite the absence of explicit charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court upheld the convictions and death sentences, holding the appellants guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Comments