Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 119 (ALL)

BAYANABOINA SUBBARAYUDU v. STATE OF A. P.

2003-01-21

RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, S.R.K.PRASAD

body2003
RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2000 was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer SI for one month. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellanljaccused has filed the present appeal. file ://d :\prograrn Files\crirnes\database\aa\aa\ 2003 (2) Crimes 83 . htm 8/5/2006 ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution may be stated as follows : The deceased Kota Bala Narayana Reddy and the accused belong to Jandlavaram village of Mydukur Mandal and there has been illfeelings between the accused and the deceased with regard to collection of Rs. 100/- from each house in the village to erect second electrical transformer at Jandlavaram village to solve the voltage problem. On 9/2/2000 in the early hours, the deceased, P. Ws. 1 to 5 went to the house of the accused for collection of Rs. 100/- from the accused and at that time the accused was not available in the house and his wife asked the deceased and others to come after return of the accused to the house. On the same day evening the accused went to the house of the deceased and started abusing the deceased. P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 in filthly language and in the meanwhile P. W. 6 and one Perugu Subbamma intervened and pacified the matter and since then the accused bore grudge against the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to do away with him. On 11/2/2000 around 7. 30 p. m. while the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 5 and another Valluri Veera Bhadrachari were sitting in front of the house of deceased and discussing about the electricity problem in the village, the accused armed with pestle came there and abused the deceased in filthy language and dealt a blow on the head of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injury on his head and fell down and later the deceased succumbed to the head injury at Kurnool hospital. As a result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injury on his head and fell down and later the deceased succumbed to the head injury at Kurnool hospital. P. W. 1 lodged a complaint with the police Mydukur, which was registered as Cr. No. 19/2000 Ex. P1 is the complaint given by P. W. 1. P. W. 13, who was the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Kurnool conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage with head injury. ( 4 ) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 14 and certain documents produced and proved were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-12. The material objects were marked as M. Os. 1 to 4. In order to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P. W. 14 who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 7 who affixed his signature on inquest report which was marked as Ex. P-2. After the inquest was over, the dead body of the deceased was sent to P. W. 13 who happened to be working as Professor, Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Kurnool for conducting autopsy. On 13/2/2000, P. W. 13 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased from 10. 50 a. m. to 12. 10 p. m. and found the following injuries: a sutured wound present on top of head left front parietal area vertically placed near the knee joint 7 cms. in length with 8 stitches and he removed the sutures and examined and it was a lacerated wound measuring 7xlxl/2. A scalp layer deep with bruised margins. On reflection of scalp layer contusion with thin layer of haemotoma of deeper layer of scalp on frontal parietal region with 16 x 10cm. Sutural fracture of vault of skull with extending 8 cms. on to frontal area, 10 cms. on to left side of skull was found. There was diffused subdural haemotoma was present on brain on left front to temporal area entire surface and also in the midbrain. PW. Sutural fracture of vault of skull with extending 8 cms. on to frontal area, 10 cms. on to left side of skull was found. There was diffused subdural haemotoma was present on brain on left front to temporal area entire surface and also in the midbrain. PW. 13 opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage with head injury and as per his observation, he issued post-mortem report Ex. P-9. He further opined that the injury found on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. Considering the evidence together with the postmortem report, the trial court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal. P. W. 2 happened to be the brother of the deceased, P. Ws. 3 to 5 happened to be neighbours of the deceased. P. W. 6 is the wife of the deceased. P. W. 7 is the eyewitness to the incident. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it is evident that there was some electricity problem in the village and on the advice of P. W. 10, they were collecting Rs. 100/- from each house to be paid to the Electricity Board for erection of second transformer to solve the electricity problem and that the deceased and others went to the house of the accused to collect Rs. 100/- and at that time the accused was absent in the house. They asked the wife of the accused to come to the deceased after his arrival and on the evening of the date of the incident, the accused armed with pestle came to the spot where the deceased and others were sitting and abused the deceased in filthy language and beat him with the pestle on his head. As a result of the beating the deceased died in the hospital. These are the factual circumstances duly proved by the prosecution by the reliable and truthful evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 6 and therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased by giving a blow on the head of the deceased. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to what offence is proved in the present set of facts. 2 to 6 and therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased by giving a blow on the head of the deceased. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to what offence is proved in the present set of facts. From the facts as narrated above, it is evident that there was no such enmity by which the accused wanted to get rid of the deceased and wanted to take revenge, but there was some dispute over collection of Rs. 100/- from each house for the purpose of erecting a second transformer in the village and in that connection the deceased and others went to the house of the accused for collecting Rs. 100/- and that on the evening of the day of the incident the accused abused the deceased in filthy language and beat him with a pestle on the head of the deceased which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. From the material available on record, we have no hesitation in concluding that the accused never intended to cause the death of the deceased but he intended only to cause bodily injury, which was likely to cause death. Therefore, the knowledge on the part of the accused stands proved and accordingly we hold that it is a fit case where the conviction recorded against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC can be converted into 304 Part. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Tholan v. State of Tami) Nadu, wherein the Supreme Court held that though the requisite intention to commit murder could not be attributed to the accused, he wielded a weapon like a knife and therefore he could be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury, which was likely to cause death and in such a situation though he could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC, he would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decision, we hold that it is not a fit case where conviction of the accused can be sustained for the offence under Section 302 IPC but it can be converted into an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decision, we hold that it is not a fit case where conviction of the accused can be sustained for the offence under Section 302 IPC but it can be converted into an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. ( 5 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo R.. for 10 years. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Appeal allowed partly. .