IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.142 of 2006 DATE: 11.11.2011 Between: Revalle Krishna Reddy …… Appellant And State of A.P through its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, Hyderabad …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.142 OF 2006 JUDGMENT : The appellant/A-1 was convicted by the lower Court under Section 304 Part II I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. 2) The deceased Byramoni Ramulu was working as coolie along with P.W-2 and others. P.W-1 is son of P.W-2. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws 3 to 5 who are said to be eye witnesses and P.Ws 6 to 8 who are said to be neighbours and circumstantial witnesses, turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-9 is wife of the deceased. P.W-10 is brother of P.W-9. P.Ws 9 and 10 were examined for identification of dead body of the deceased. P.W-9 and the deceased were living separately since some time prior to the offence on the alleged ground that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with P.W-2. After the offence, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. P.W-19 who was the then Sub Inspector of police, Bijinepally police station registered case in Crime No.37/2001 under Sections 324, 504/34 I.P.C and issued Ex.P-12 F.I.R. He took up investigation of the offence. After the offence, P.W-1 was sent to Government Civil Hospital, Nagar Kurnool where P.W-18 who is working as civil assistant surgeon examined him and gave Ex.P-11 wound certificate. He found the injuries on P.W-1 to be simple in nature. Subsequently the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where the deceased died by succumbing to the injuries. P.W-13 is the Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. He conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave Ex.P-8 post mortem certificate opining that cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury. He noted the following ante-mortem injuries on dead body of the deceased; “1) A sutured injury 9 cms length over the right frontal read, beginning from mid line 10 cms about the eye brow obliquely placed red in colour. 2) A scalp contusion 20 x 10 cms over the right fronto parito temporal areas anterio posterior direction. 3) A fisher fracture 10 cms length over the right parito temporal obliquely placed. – extra dural blood clot 10 x 5 x 2 cms over the right hemespear with defused subdural and subarchinoid haemorrhages. 4) A contused abrasion 2 x 1 cm over the right middle of the mandible obliquely placed. Reddish brown.” 3) P.Ws 19 to 21 are the investigating officers. P.Ws 11 and 12 are mediators for Ex.P-14 scene of offence observation panchanama. P.Ws 14 and 15 are mediators in Ex.P-15 inquest report. All of them turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-19 altered section of law in this case into section 302 I.P.C after receiving radio message about death of the deceased. Ex.P-13 is alteration memo. P.W-21 Inspector of Police, Nagar Kurnool Circle during the course of further investigation arrested the accused on 09.06.2001 in the presence of mediators P.Ws 16 and 17 and seized M.O-1 stick/cart peg at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his statement. Ex.P-16 is panchanama relating to statement of the accused and recovery of M.O-1. 4) It is evidence of P.W-1 that on the date of incident, he, P.W-2 along with P.Ws 3 to 5 and the deceased went to attend plastering work in the house of one Komati Sudhakar and that at about 11.30 A.M the accused came in that way and that he asked the accused for wages for three days of work done at his house previously along with his mother P.W-2. He says that the accused abused him in filthy language and beat him with chappal and that his mother P.W-2 rescued him from hands of the accused and that in the meanwhile one Narasimha Reddy who is elder brother of the accused came there and beat him with stick on his hand and that when the accused went to beat P.W-2 with stick, the deceased tried to rescue P.W-2 and he received injury on head in the hands of the accused and fell unconscious. In cross-examination, P.W-1 deposed that the accused used to take alcohol. Evidence of P.W-1 is corroborated by contents of Ex.P-1 report. P.W-2 also corroborates evidence of P.W-1 to the effect that when P.W- 1 asked the accused for wages at about 11.30 A.M when they were working at the house of one Komati Sudhakar, for the work which he attended at house of the accused, the accused abused P.W-1 in filthy language and that when P.W-1 asked the accused to talk properly, the accused beat her with chappal on her back and P.W-2 rescued her from the accused and that after a while, the accused came back with stick and the deceased tried to rescue her and sustained injuries in the hands of the accused. She says that the deceased received severe head injury. Both P.Ws 1 and 2 denied the deceased suffering injuries due to fall on stones. 5) P.W-13 deposed in cross-examination that all the injuries of the deceased are possible with single blow. He says that if a person falls from a height on hard surface, these injuries may be possible. P.W-18 deposed in cross- examination that injuries mentioned in Ex.P-11 are not possible if a person falls on hard surface. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there are differences between injuries mentioned in Ex.P-11 certificate issued by P.W-18 and Ex.P-8 post mortem certificate issued by P.W-13. Injuries mentioned in Ex.P-11 are as follows: “1) Contusion (mark of stick) of 3x1 inches size on left upper arm medial side. 2) Contusion of 3 x 1 inches of size in right fore arm.” The said injuries were on P.W-1 and they are injuries suffered by the deceased. 6) It is further contended by the appellant’s counsel that even though there were 4 injuries mentioned in Ex.P-8, evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is only to the effect that the accused dealt a single blow on head of the deceased with stick. P.W-13 clarifies the same to the effect that injuries 1 to 4 mentioned in Ex.P-8 are possible with single blow. Therefore, medical evidence also corroborates evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 to the effect that the deceased received a single blow on his head from the accused with M.O-1 stick. P.W13 says that injury Nos.1 to 3 are possible with M.O-1 stick. 7) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that even though F.I.R was registered under Section 34 I.P.C also, finally the police filed charge sheet only as against the accused alone. Narration of events in Ex.P-1 as well as by P.Ws 1 and 2 discloses that though brother of the accused by name Narasimha Reddy also participated in the transaction of beating P.W-1 with stick on hand, Narasimha Reddy had no participation in beating of the deceased. It is only the accused who beat the deceased with M.O-1 stick on head. Therefore, the police have preferred to delete Narasimha Reddy from the charge sheet. 8) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the offence took place even as per the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 on sudden provocation and that the accused is stated to have dealt only a single blow on the deceased and that at best the offence can be one under Section 325 I.P.C. In pursuance of the blow inflicted by the accused on head of the deceased, the deceased succumbed to the injury while undergoing treatment in hospital. Death is result which followed from the said single injury. This is not a case where the deceased suffered several injuries inflicted by several persons out of which injuries some are fatal in nature and some are not fatal in nature. As per medical evidence of P.W-13, the injuries sustained by the deceased which are possible with a single blow, are fatal injuries. Therefore, the accused cannot avoid liability for causing death of the deceased. Since the accused did not intend to kill or to murder the deceased, the lower Court instead of finding him guilty under Section 302 I.P.C, found him guilty under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. for a lesser offence. Having regard to consequence flowed from the act of the accused by way of death of the deceased, it cannot be said that 5 years imprisonment imposed by the lower Court is in any way excessive or unreasonable. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with finding as to conviction and as to sentence imposed by the lower Court. 9) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 11, 2011 ksh