THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 948 of 2004 Date: 28th July, 2011 Between: Gundapu Pochaiah … Appellant / Accused And: The State of A.P. (through Public Prosecutor) … Respondent / Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 948 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar District in S.C.No.635 of 2001 on 11.12.2001. The appellant herein was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC alleging that the deceased Anantha was married to the accused about four years ago and thereafter they lived happily for two years and they shifted to Mallampalli village for their livelihood by doing coolie work. On 01.01.2001 when the deceased was attending to the coolie work of supplying concrete material for construction of Government School building, the accused came there in a highly intoxicated condition at about 3.00 P.M. and forced the deceased to serve food to him. When the deceased replied that she will come after completing the work, the accused got angry and picked up a stick from the scene and beat her on the left side neck, due to which she fell down and again the accused beat her on left side of head which resulted in massive bleeding leading to instantaneous death. PWs.3, 4 and 5 are the eye-witnesses present at the said incident. On the complaint of PW1, PW9 has registered the case in Crime No.1 of 2001 of Koyyur Police Station under Section 302 IPC and investigation was handed over to PW10 and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. The prosecution in order to establish the said charge examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and MO1. The learned Sessions Judge, by taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present appeal. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 304 Part- II IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel appearing for the appellant has pleaded that the deceased fell down from the construction work and died on the spot and as the accused came there in an intoxicated condition, a false case is foisted against him and he further pleaded that the PWs.3 and 4 being the co-workers of the deceased have supported the case of prosecution even though no such incident has taken place. On behalf of the public prosecutor, it is argued that the evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs.3 to 5 establishes the commission of offence by the accused and the medical evidence of PW11 establishes the death of the deceased due to injury received on her neck with a stick. The stick was recovered from the scene of offence in the presence of PW10 and thus, the prosecution is able to establish the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to the prosecution, on 01.01.2001 when the deceased Anantha was attending coolie work for the construction of Government School building, the accused came there in an intoxicated condition at about 3.00 P.M. and demanded her to serve food and when she replied that she will come after completion of the said work, he got angry and picked up a stick and beat her on the left side of neck and when she fell down he again beat her which caused her instantaneous death. PW1 is the cousin brother of the deceased. He has gone to the spot on coming to know about the incident through PW2-Azmeera Jampaiah and after enquiring about the incident at the spot, he lodged complaint-Ex.P1 with the police. He is not an eye-witness to the said incident. PW2-Azmeera Jampaiah who is the contractor of labour working at the site has also come to the spot after the incident and on enquiry he came to know about the incident through his workers working there. PWs.3 to 5 are the eye-witnesses to the incident who are working at the site. PW3 has categorically stated about the accused coming to the site in a drunken condition and demanded the deceased to serve lunch for him and she informed that she would come after some time, that is after completion of laying of the slab, the accused grew wild and picked up a teak stick and beat her on the left side of the neck twice and thereafter the deceased fell down and they were about to take her to the hospital and she died on the spot. PWs.4 and 5 who are other eye-witnesses also supported the version of PW3 with regard to the accused coming to the spot and demanding for serving of lunch and when she stated that she will come after some time, he grew wild and beat her with a stick on left side of the neck twice and thereafter, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 clearly establishes the act of the accused i.e. hitting the deceased on the left side of the neck. PW11 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, and he found (i) Lacerated wound on the left lower border of mandible about 4” x 1” x ¾” upto the bone involving fracture of mandible, (ii) swelling and bruise of left side of the neck antimortem in nature could have been caused by a blunt object, (iii) subcutaneous haemorrhage present upto occiput brain and became pale, commuted fracture of mandible. Subcutaneous haemorrhage present on the left side of neck extending on to left side of the upper chest wall. She opined that the cause of death was due to neurogenic shock injury to the neck structures on the left side. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is established that the deceased died of the injuries sustained by her on the left side of the neck. PW7 is the mediator for the inquest and he also stated about the police conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased and he found the injury on the left side of the neck. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish the death of the deceased due to the injury on the left side of the neck and that the accused has caused the said injury to the deceased. Since there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased, but the injuries caused to the deceased led to her death, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, and the said conviction does not warrant any interference by this Court. With regard to the quantum of sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Since the accused is the husband of the deceased and he has caused the said injury unintentionally and he is undergoing the sentence, I hold that it is just and appropriate to reduce the sentence. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is confirmed but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for four years. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the sentence from Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years to Rigorous Imprisonment of 4 years. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 28th July, 2011 KSM