THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.202 OF 2007 Between Alamanda Surya Chandra Bhaskara Rao …Appellant-accused And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.202 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY) This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment, dated 10-04-2006, in Sessions Case No.378 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, whereunder and whereby the appellant-accused was convicted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as follows: The accused is a resident of Settipeta village and step son of Alamanda Ammaji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), whereas the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Kotha Munagala village. P.W.2 is the daughter and P.W.6 is the co-daughter-in-law of the deceased. After the death of the mother of the accused, father of the accused married the deceased, who is owning the house. By the side of the house, there is a vacant site. In the vacant site, the deceased was getting constructed bathroom and lavatory through P.W.3. The deceased and P.W.2 were assisting P.W.3. On 14-02-2004 at about 3.00 P.M. the accused came there and questioned the deceased as to why constructions are being made in the site. The deceased replied that she was getting the constructions made in her own site. Then the accused raised voice and directed the deceased to stop constructions. P.W.3 stopped the work. The accused abused the deceased in filthy language, took crowbar lying there and chased the deceased up to pial of the tiled house and hit the deceased with crowbar on her head. After receiving the blow, the deceased fell on folding cot. Then the accused stabbed on her left. P.Ws. 2 and 3 raised cries and the accused ran away from the spot along with crowbar. After the accused left the place, P.W.2 rushed to the deceased and sent a word to her brothers and sisters when a village servant came there at about 5.00 P.M. and she informed about the incident to P.W.1. Then P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 report to police to P.W.8-S.I. of Police, who registered a case under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P21-F.I.R. P.W.7-C.I. of Police, took up investigation, went to scene of offence, examined it in the presence of P.W.1 and other mediators and prepared Ex.P2 mediators report. He seized M.Os. 1 to 3 and 8 from the scene of offence and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and other mediators. Thereafter, he arrested the accused, who gave confessional statement and showed M.O.7. P.W.7 seized M.O.7 under the cover of Ex.P5-mediators report. P.W.5, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries particularly due to skull injury and issued Ex.P16 post-mortem certificate. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the following charges against the accused: Firstly: That you, on or about the 14th day of February, 2004 at about 3.00 P.M., at Ramalayam street, Kothamunagala village of Korukonda Mandal, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Alamanda Ammaji and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Secondly: That you at about the same time, place and date mentioned in charge No.1 committed criminal intimidation by threatening Alamanda Krupavathi and Dandangi Devadasu with dire consequences and chasing them with crowbar and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 (II) IPC. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 21 besides case property, M.Os.1 to 8. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 506 Part II IPC convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused strenuously contended that there is no pre-meditation by the accused to commit the offence, that when the deceased abused the accused and out of anger, he took M.O.7-crow bar and hit the deceased on her head and therefore, the accused cannot be convicted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor sustained conviction stating that P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly stated that the accused hit the deceased with a crowbar on her head causing her death, that P.W.3 who is a mason, has no grouse or enmity against the accused to implicate him falsely in this case, that the ocular testimony is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence, that the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the said conviction and sentence. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is whether the prosecution has proved its case, against the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. P.W.1 who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report to police, stated that on 14-02-2004 on telephonic information about the death of the deceased, he went to Korukonda and found the deceased dead. Then he went to police Station and gave Ex.P1-report. He went to the house of the deceased along with S.I. of Police, where C.I. of police seized M.Os. 1 to 6 and held inquest under Ex.P3-inquest report. On 17-02-2004 Inspector of Police arrested the accused in his presence and in pursuance of confessional statement of the accused, C.I. seized M.O.7-crowbar and he prepared Ex.P7-mediators report. 11. P.W.2 who is no other than the daughter of the deceased and step sister of the accused, stated that on 14-02-2004 in the vacant site, her mother was getting constructed the bath room and lavatory through mason. Herself and the deceased were assisting the mason. At about 3.00 P.M., the accused came there and questioned the deceased as to why constructions are being made in the site. The deceased stated that constructions were made in her own site. Then the accused raised voice and directed the deceased to stop constructions. The mason stopped the work. Then the accused abused the deceased in filthy language, took M.O.7-crowbar lying there and chased the deceased up to pial of the tiled house and hit the deceased on her head. After receiving the blow, the deceased fell on folding cot. Again the accused stabbed with M.O.7 on the left cheek of the deceased twice, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. Herself and the mason raised alarm. The accused made her and the mason to ran away from that place. On hearing their cries, public gathered there and on seeing them, the accused ran away along with M.O.7 towards Patha Munagala. 12. P.W.3 who is a mason, while corroborating the evidence of P.W.2, stated that the accused visited the vacant site and asked the deceased to stop the work. The deceased questioned the accused as to what objection he can have when she was getting the constructions made in her own site. Then the accused was abused by the deceased. Out of anger, the accused picked up M.O.7-crowbar from that place, chased the deceased near the pial in front of her house and hit the deceased on her head, as a result, the deceased fell down on the folding cot. Thereafter, the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.7 on her head. Himself and P.W.2 witnessed the incident. They raised cries and on hearing the cries, public gathered. Then the accused ran away along with M.O.7. P.Ws. 2 and 3 admitted that they were examined by the police on the next day. 13. P.W.4 is the photographer who took photographs under Exs.P11 to P15. 14. P.W.5 who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found four external injuries. He opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries particularly due to skull injury and the injuries are possible with a weapon like M.O.7. The injuries are sufficient to cause the death of an individual in normal course and he issued Ex.P16 postmortem certificate. 15. P.W.6 who is the co-daughter-in-law of the deceased stated that on the date of incident, while she was sleeping in her portion, she heard voice from out side. Then she came out of the portion and saw P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the deceased and the accused was going away with crowbar. The deceased was lying dead with bleeding injuries. Previously, the accused was indulging in property disputes with the deceased. 16. P.W.7, who is the Inspector of Police, stated that he took up investigation in this case, examined the scene of offence where the dead body of the deceased was found, prepared rough sketch, seized M.Os 1 to 3 and 8, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, who opined that the deceased died due to head injury, subjected the dead body to postmortem examination, arrested the accused and in pursuance of his confessional statement, M.O.7-crowbar was seized, sent the material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and after receipt of postmortem certificate, filed the charge sheet. 17. P.W.7 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police stated that on the date of incident at about 7.30 P.M., P.W.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report, basing on which, he registered a case and issued Ex.P21 FIR and informed P.W.7 about the registration of the case, who instructed him to go to the scene of offence and post a guard. 18. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is consistent that the accused is the step son of the deceased and due to property disputes between the accused and the deceased, the accused filed civil suit O.S.No.770 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry against P.W.2 and her family members for partition of the lands and house. P.W.2 who is unmarried as on the date of incident was residing with the deceased. P.W.3 is an independent witness, who was constructing bathroom and lavatory was present at the time of the incident. From the evidence of P.W. 2, it is clear that on the date of incident, the accused came to the house of the deceased and asked her to stop the constructions. When she questioned as to why she has to stop the constructions as she was constructing in her own site, the accused took M.O.7 lying there and chased the deceased up to the pial and hit her on her head. Then she fell down on the folding cot. Again, the accused gave blows, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. Simply because P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased, her evidence cannot be disbelieved on that ground. If her evidence is found to be true and trust worthy, law does not require any corroboration. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.3, who is a mason and an independent witness admittedly present at the time of incident by constructing bath room and lavatory in the vacant site. P.W.3 has no grouse or enmity against the accused to foist a false case. Further, the ocular testimony is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence. Though in a bit of anger, the accused attacked the deceased, but the manner in which the accused inflicted injuries on the deceased, is sufficient to convict the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the case of the accused does not fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC so as to convict him under Section 304 Part I IPC. The prosecution clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted the accused and we do not take any different view than the one taken by the trial Court. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 10-04-2006, in Sessions Case No.378 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:29-06-2010 Hsd