HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2284 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.3 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six years and were also convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years and fine of Rs.100/- each. Questioning the same, A.1 and A.3 filed this appeal. Even though A.2 was also convicted and sentenced similarly, A.2 did not join the appellants in this appeal. 2. A.1 and A.2 are sons of A.3’s brother. The deceased Chinna Ramulu and PW.1 are brothers. They are also sons of A.3’s another brother. All of them were doing coolie work. They are natives of Ragampeta village of Mulakapalli Mandal of East Godavari District and all of them went to Khammam District for doing coolie work. Alleging that the deceased and PW.1 collected Rs.300/- towards wages representing all of them, A.1 to A.3 attacked the deceased and PW.1 with stone and stick and caused instantaneous death of the deceased and beat PW.1 and caused injuries to him. Plea of A.1 and A.3 is one of total denial and not guilty. 3. PW.1 who is the informant of the offence to the police and who also received injuries in the same transaction, is the most competent witness to speak to the offence. He is equally related to the deceased as well as the accused. It is his evidence that in October 1998, all of them attended funeral of Eerla Peddulu who is their co- worker and that after the funeral, the accused, the deceased and himself consumed liquor in the house of Peddulu at Mukamamidi village and that since A.1 was staggering in highly intoxicated condition, the deceased Subba Rao took A.1 to canal and dipped head of A.1 in water to reduce intoxication and that A.1 abused the deceased in filthy language for dipping his head in water and picked up quarrel with the deceased and that the deceased slapped A.1 and that thereupon, A.2 picked up a stone and beat the deceased on his head while saying that three days back they wanted to kill him when they refused to distribute Rs.300/- taken from the contractor and that A.1 picked up a bamboo stick available there from fencing of a field and beat the deceased near temporal region and that A.3 caught hold of PW.1. PW.1 further says that A.2 beat him with the same stone on his head and caused bleeding injury and A.1 beat him with the same stick on left upper arm. PW.1 says that the deceased died on the spot and that due to fear the accused may kill him also he wriggled out of the clutches of the accused and ran away and went into house of Sunnam Mallappa who is a person belonging to Koya caste and that Mallappa’s daughter PW.3 hided him under a gunny bag and that when A.1 to A.3 came running to that house and enquired her, she informed them that he ran away towards hillock side. It is his evidence that about three days prior to the incident, he brought Rs.300/- from the Contractor, Adapa Nageswara Rao and that the accused bore grudge against his brother as they did not distribute the said amount of Rs.300/-. He identified M.O.1 as the stone and M.O.2 as the bamboo stick with which A.2 and A.1 dealt blows to the deceased and himself. Ex.P.1 is report given by PW.1 to the police. Version of PW.1 contained in Ex.P.1 is consistent with his evidence in the lower Court. 4. PW.2 is father of the deceased and PW.1. After getting information about death of the deceased, he along with others went to the scene and saw the dead body of the deceased. PW.3 says that scene of the offence is at a distance of about 60 to 70 yards from her house and that the scene is visible from her house. She says that she and her brother saw five persons beating each other at about 4:00 P.M. near cashew-nut garden on road side and that one person held the deceased and one person beat him with stone and another person beat him with stick and that the deceased fell down and that when PW.1 went to rescue of the deceased, the accused beat PW.1 also. She identifies the accused who beat the deceased. But, she stated that she cannot specify which of the accused beat the deceased and which of the accused caught hold of the deceased since she saw the incident from a distance. PW.3 also speaks about PW.1 running to her house and she hiding PW.1 and when the accused came and enquired about PW.1, she informing them about PW.1 running away towards hillock side. PW.4 also saw the incident from a distance of 100 yards. Though he could not say which accused beat the deceased and which accused caught hold of the deceased, PW.4 gave happening of the offence in general terms. PW.4 was getting his cattle grazed. He says that A.1 to A.3 and deceased and PW.1 came from Mukamamidi side and were proceeding towards Jagannadhapuram and that A.1 was staggering in intoxicated condition and that the deceased dipped A.1’s head to reduce intoxication and that quarrel arose between them and that one of the accused held the deceased firmly and one of the accused beat the deceased with a stone and one of the accused beat the deceased with stick and that when PW.1 tried to intervene, the accused beat him also and he ran towards Guttagudem village and that the deceased died on the spot and the accused chased PW.1 to some distance. There is no cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4 worth mentioning. PW.5 met PW.1 after the incident and narrated the incident to PW.5. On advice of PW.5, PW.1 went to the police station and gave report. 5. PW.8 is the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Paloncha, who examined PW.1 and gave Ex.P.8 wound certificate opining that PW.1 was having two simple injuries. PW.8 also conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and gave Ex.P.9 – post-mortem report. He opined that the deceased might have died due to shock and heamorrage due to fracture of skull. PW.1 attributed overt acts to A.1 as well as A.2 against head of the deceased. Therefore, A.1 cannot escape liability under Section 304 Part II IPC along with A.2. But for catching of the deceased by A.3, A.1 and A.2 could not have dealt with blows on the deceased. Therefore, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that A.3 is also liable as he had common intention along with A.1 and A.2 and he facilitated A.1 and A.2 to inflict blows on the deceased. After hitting the deceased to death, the accused pounced on PW.1. But for his timely running away from the scene, the accused would have done him to death. It is PW.3 who saved PW.1 by hiding him or otherwise A.1 to A.3 would have dealt blows to PW.1 also severely. Their intention is clear from the fact of A.1 to A.3 chasing PW.1 to a distance. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution insofar as A.1 and A.3 are concerned for the offences under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC. There are no circumstances to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 30th December, 2011. PNV