Mr. Ballodi Appanna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.137 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.118 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, filed this Criminal Appeal against judgment, dated 21.10.2011, wherein the accused was convicted for an offence under Section-302 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of one K.Ramu on 17.10.2010 in the house of Killo Champa at Kantabansguda Village, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

2.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: All the prosecution witnesses are residents of neighbouring Villages of Araku Valley Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. P.W-1 is the informant and wife of the deceased. P.W.3 is not only the cousin of the deceased but also an eye-witness to the incident along with P.Ws.4 and 5. On the night of 17.10.2010, the deceased and P.W-4 were going to Araku Valley to purchase spices. While so, at about 8 pm., when they reached the house of P.W-3, they noticed P.W-3 weeping with injuries. On enquiry, she informed to the deceased that she was

beaten by the accused. On that, the deceased gave Rs.10/- to her. Later, the deceased and P.W-3 went to Bazaar at Araku Valley. The deceased saw the accused at Kancharla Nagaraju's tea stall and he grew wild against him for beating P.W-3. The deceased slapped the accused, but P.W-4 interfered and separated them. Later, the accused left that place. The deceased and P.W-4 went to the wine shop of Sanku Anjaneyulu and consumed liquor. After that, at about 10 pm., while they were returning to the house and when they reached the house of P.W-3, they noticed the accused beating P.Ws.3 and 5. Then, the deceased interfered and slapped the accused for his rude behaviour. An altercation took place between them. P.W-4 tried to separate them, but in vain.

The accused, who was armed with an iron pipe rod, was said to have beat the deceased on the head. As a result, the deceased sustained severe head injuries. On seeing the same, P.Ws.4 and 5 ran away from the scene of offence due to fear. Later, the accused caught hold of the hands of the deceased, dragged him up to Anganwadi and left him there. 3.

On 18.10.2010, at 9 am., P.W-1 lodged a report in Araku Valley Police Station before P.W-12 which came to be registered as a case in Crime No.79 of 2010 under Section-302 IPC and investigated into it. P.W-13-the Inspector of Police, Araku Circle took up further investigation in this case. During the course of

investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared as rough sketch of the scene and an Observation Report of the scene of offenceEx.P-13. He collected the Material Objects and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W-8 and 15 and sent the dead body of the deceased to P.W-11 for autopsy. The scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased were photographed through P.W-7. Exs.P-2 to P-10 are the bunch of photographs. P.W-11 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued the Post-mortem report, which is marked as Ex.P-17. According to him, the deceased died due to blunt injuries on the head causing intracerebral haemorrhage and on the chest associated with pulmonary haemorrhage. L.

W-18-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 under Section-164 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, P.W-13 arrested the accused on 21.10.2010 in the presence of L.W.16 and P.W-9 and recorded his confession. The confession of the accused lead to the recovery of the iron pipe and blood stained red coloured half hands shirt of the accused.

4.

L.W-19-the Assistant Director, RFSL, Visakhapatnam, who analysed the Material Objects, issued the RFSL report which is marked as Ex.P-18.

5.

P.W-10-the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Araku Valley examined P.W-3 and issued Wound CertificateEx.P-16, in which he opined that injuries sustained by P.W-3 are simple in nature.

6.

After the completion of the investigation and after collecting all the relevant documents, P.W-13 filed the charge sheet which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Araku. 7.

On appearance of the appellant, copies of the documents were furnished to him. Since the offence under Section-302 I.P.C. is triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.118 of 2011 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 8.

A charge under Section-302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.

As the plea of the accused was one of denial, he was made to stand trial, during which, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 10.

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating material appearing against the accused through

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to him during his examination under Section-313 Cr.P.C., to which he denied. 11.

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra.

12.

At the hearing, Mr. D.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 being interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be accepted. He, however, pleads that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, no offence under Section-302 IPC is made out.

13.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh fairly states across the Bar that when P.W-3 and the accused were quarelling, the deceased interfered and then, the accused dealt a blow on the head of the deceased, causing bleeding injury leading to his death. 14.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties with reference to the record. 15.

P.W-4 in his evidence deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e., on 17.10.2010 at about 8.30 pm., he went to the house of the deceased for purchase of beef. The deceased asked him to accompany him to bazaar and stated that on the return,

he would give beef. Accordingly, both of them proceeded. On the way, they noticed P.W-3 weeping. When the deceased questioned her as to the reason for her weeping, she informed that the accused beat her. The deceased solaced her by saying that if he meets the accused on the way, he would chastise him not to beat her and so saying, they went to bazaar. P.W-4 further deposed that on the way, when himself and the deceased met the accused, the deceased caught hold of the shirt of the accused, slapped him on the face three or four times and warned him not to beat P.W-3, who is an old lady. However, P.W-4 intervened and dragged the deceased asking him not to interfere in the family affairs of P.W-3. While they were going back, they noticed the accused beating P.W-3, who is aged about 60 years. At that point of time, the deceased interfered and questioned as to why he is beating an old lady. Then, the accused beat the deceased with an iron rod on the head leading to his death.

16.

P.W-1 in her evidence stated that she cannot say with what weapon the accused beat the deceased. However, P.W-4 stated that the accused beat the deceased with an iron rod. 17.

There is no evidence on record to know as to whether the pipe used by the accused for beating the deceased was a hollow pipe or a heavy pipe.

18.

Be that as it may, the evidence on record discloses that there was neither any motive nor enmity between the accused and the deceased. But, however, the incident happened when the deceased interfered in a quarrel between the accused and P.W-3, an old lady aged about 60 years. In that quarrel, the accused is said to have given a blow on the head of the deceased which led to his death. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention to cause the death of the deceased. 19.

Under these circumstances, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section-302 I.P.C.? 20.

Having regard to the manner in which the incident took place and in the absence of any prior animosity or disputes between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident and on the intervention of the deceased to protect P.W-3 from the accused, the accused is said to have given a blow, it can be said that the accused had no knowledge that such a blow will lead to the death of the deceased.

21.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the act of the appellant/accused would fall under Part-II of Section-304 I.P.C and his conviction by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in Sessions Case No.118 of 2011, vide judgment, dated

21.10.2011, is accordingly, altered to the one punishable under Section-304-II I.P.C. instead of under Section-302 I.P.C. 22.

With regard to the sentence, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 1⁄2 years. 23.

The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________ JUSTICE K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI 08th November, 2017 dr