HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.1109 OF 2002 DATE: 19.08.2010 BETWEEN: Kummari Pentaiah .. Appellant And State of A.P Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.1109 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2002 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.C.No.296 of 2000. The appellant/sole accused was tried for the charge under Section 302 IPC, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows: The deceased-Kummari Venkataiah and the appellant are related to each other, they had land adjacent to each other and there was a boundary dispute existing between them since 10 or 15 years prior to the date of incident. On 09.09.1998 at about 2 P.M. while the appellant and the deceased were working in their respective fields adjoining each other, the appellant beat the deceased with a stone, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury on the head and had fallen down. Thereafter, the persons working in the nearby fields, some of whom are examined as witnesses in this case, closely related to the accused, witnessed the incident, came there, they tried to shift the deceased to the Government Hospital, Chevella, but when they reached the road leading to Chevella, the deceased succumbed to the head injury. Subsequently, basing on the report lodged by PW.1-K.Sathaiah in Chevella Police Station on the same day at 6.00 PM., PW.9-S.I of Police registered F.I.R., PW.10-Inspector of Police investigated into the offence and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused before the trial Court, examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs 1 to 7. On behalf of the accused Exs.D.1 to D3 were marked. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence on record convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. The point for determination in this appeal is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court? I have heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor representing the State. PW.8-the doctor Narsing Rao, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 10.09.1998 found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury on the parietal bone of the head 2 ½ x 2 ½ x 1 inches. The ménages is ruptured and the brain matter is seen. 2. There is clear white liquid following from the nose which could be ceribro sinal fluid.(CSF) In his opinion, the death was caused due to neurogenic shock on account of head injury. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal. PWs.1 to 4 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The accused as well as the deceased are closely related to the eyewitnesses. Therefore, absolutely there is no necessity for them to give false evidence against the accused. Eyewitnesses have stated in their depositions about the dispute regarding the boundary line of land between the deceased and the appellant. They have also spoken about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and their conducting agricultural operations in the fields which are situate in the lands adjacent. They stated that quarrel between the deceased and the appellant was a regular feature and they had also spoken to the fact of quarrel going on between both of them on the date of incident in the fields. Their evidence discloses that the appellant and the deceased were quarreling with each other by standing on either side of the common bund of their respective fields. The evidence of PW.1 discloses that he heard cries of the deceased as ‘chastiro’ then when he ran to the place of occurrence, he found that the appellant throwing stones at the deceased and thereafter, running away from the place of occurrence. His evidence also further discloses that PW.4 ran towards the deceased and having found blood oozing from his head, pressed the injury with one hand and tried to lift him with the other hand. PW.1 also helped Pw.4 in lifting the deceased. PWs.1 to 4 lifted the deceased and brought him from the fields to the road leading to Chevella Hospital, but by the time they reached the road, the deceased died. PW.2 deposed before the trial Court that he did not actually see the appellant beating the deceased, but around 2 PM on hearing shouts of a lady he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw PW.4 trying to lift the deceased. According to this witness, he and PW.1 reached the place of occurrence from different directions at almost same point of time. The evidence of PW.3 indicates that he only saw the deceased after he had fallen with head injury and when the blood was oozing from the head he was treated hostile by the prosecution. PW.4, who is no other than the farm servant of the accused stated in his evidence before the trial Court that on the date of offence both the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling with each other in the fields by standing on either side of the common bund of their respective fields and on hearing some commotion, he ran to the place of occurrence, found the deceased lying in water trench, there was flow of blood from his head region, he pressed the head injury to prevent the flow of blood with his left hand and tried to lift him with his right hand and thereafter, with the help of PW.3, they tried to shift the deceased to Chevella Hospital, but when they reached the road leading to the said hospital, the deceased succumbed to the head injury. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of witnesses insofar as it relates to their witnessing the actual occurrence i.e. causing head injury by the appellant by hurling stone on the deceased is at variance, none of the witnesses had clearly stated about the way in which they happened to see hurling of the stone against the deceased and therefore, their evidence cannot be believed. I am not able to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel. All the above mentioned eyewitnesses are closely related to the accused and the deceased and PW.4 is no other than the farm servant of the appellant. No circumstances were brought on record suggesting any motive for the witnesses to give false evidence against the appellant. There may be minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, but if the entire evidence is considered, it is established that while working in the fields, the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling with each other and suddenly the deceased shouted as ‘chastiro’. PW.1 also claims to have seen the appellant there who caused head injury to the deceased by hurling stone. The said stone was also recovered by the investigating officer in the presence of mediators. The medical evidence goes to show that the head injury might be caused by throwing heavy blunt object. The learned trial Court, in my view, did not commit any error in finding that the appellant caused head injury to the deceased by hurling stone on his head. But the conviction according to me, could have been under Section 304 II IPC, but not under Section 304-I IPC, because the act of hurling of stone by the appellant, is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Therefore, the conviction is altered from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. As regards the sentence, it may be noticed that the appellant and the deceased were closely related to each other. The incident arose out of a quarrel relating to a boundary dispute of the land, apparently not premeditated. Further the incident took place in the year 1998. Considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I consider the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment passed by the learned trial court as severe. In this appeal, I therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine passed by the trial Court. In the result, with the above modification in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the appeal is partly allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 19.08.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.1109 OF 2002 DATE: 19.08.2010