IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.313 OF 2007 Mangali Ganti Lingamma …Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.313 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-10-2006 in SC.ST.SC.No.53 of 2006, on the file of the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool, wherein the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 304 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- and was also convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, with a direction that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased was a cobbler belonging to scheduled caste of madiga and was eking out his livelihood by repairing and selling chappals in Kowthalam village. The accused is a barber and pursuing his occupation in the same village. On the evening of 17-04-2005, P.W.1-Harijana Yellamma, who is related to the deceased, went to the shop of the deceased along with P.W.2-Harijana Venkamma, to purchase chappals. Meanwhile, the accused came to the shop of the deceased along with his barber’s kit, which included scissors and knife and demanded the deceased for a pair of new chappals. The deceased insisted for payment towards cost of the chappals. Thereupon, the accused grew wild and scolded the deceased in the name of his caste saying how dare he was to ask money when he asked for chappals. The deceased felt insulted as the accused scolded him in public place in the name of his caste. The accused took out a pair of chappals forcibly from the shop of the deceased and the deceased snatched them back from the accused. The accused grew angry, again abused the deceased in the name of his caste saying that he would kill him and picked up a barber’s scissors from his kit and stabbed on the throat of the deceased causing bleeding injury. When the accused was about to stab the deceased for a second time, P.Ws.1 and 2 intervened and caught hold of the accused. Meanwhile, P.W.3- Harijana Kumar and P.W.4-Harijana Harerama reached there and removed the scissors from the hands of the accused. Thereupon, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. P.Ws.1 and 2 brought the deceased to the police station. P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P-1 and registered the F.I.R-Ex.P-5 in Cr.No.21 of 2005 initially under Section 307 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. P.W.10 also seized the scissors from P.Ws.3 and 4 under a panchanama-Ex.P-3 and sent the deceased for treatment to the Government Hospital, Adoni. The deceased was thereafter referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he died on 18-04-2005 while undergoing treatment. On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.10 altered the section of law into 302 IPC and issued F.I.R-Ex.P-6. On the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, the SDPO- P.W.11 took up investigation and held inquest under Ex.P-2. P.W.14, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased, issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P-11 stating that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 the SDPO filed the charge sheet. 4. The accused appeared before the trial Court. A charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and another charge under Section 302 IPC, alternatively under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.O.s1 to 4. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of both the offences and convicted him for the above said charges and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 7. The prosecution mainly relies upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and P.Ws.3 and 4, who reached the scene of offence immediately after the occurrence on hearing the cries and removed the weapon i.e., scissors from the hands of the accused, apart from the medical evidence. 8. P.Ws.1 and 2 have both testified that on that evening, they went to the shop of the deceased for purchase of chappals and meanwhile the accused came there along with a hand bag and asked the deceased to give him a pair of new chappals for which the deceased demanded payment of price and the accused got angry and abused the deceased in the name of his caste saying how dare he was to ask money for the chappals. They further deposed that the accused has forcibly taken away a pair of chappals from the shop and the deceased took them back from the accused and the accused again abused the deceased in the name of his caste and picked up the scissors from his hand bag and stabbed on the throat of the deceased causing bleeding injury. It is also in their evidence that when the accused attempted a second stab, P.Ws.1 and 2 prevented the same. 9. P.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that meanwhile P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and snatched the scissors from the hands of the accused and thereupon the accused ran away from the scene. The above version of P.Ws.1 and 2 finds mention in the complaint statement- Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1 at the earliest point of time, shortly after the incident. The offence is said to have taken place on 17-04-2005 at about 05-15 P.M. The complaint was given to the police under Ex.P-1 almost immediately thereafter at 05-30 P.M., as the police station was situate nearby at a distance of two furlongs from the scene of offence, as can be seen from the F.I.R-Ex.P-5. It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that immediately after the occurrence they along with P.Ws.3 and 4 took the deceased to the police station and as the deceased was unable to speak and was semi-conscious, the complaint was given by P.W.1. Thus, there is absolutely no delay whatsoever in giving the complaint-Ex.P-1 to the police and the said complaint was given almost instantaneously. The names of P.Ws.1 and 2 as being eye-witnesses to the occurrence is referred to in Ex.P-1 and the names of P.Ws.3 and 4, who rushed to the scene of offence immediately after the occurrence on hearing the cries and snatched away the weapon from the hands of the accused, is also referred to in Ex.P-1. Thus, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the altercation between the accused and the deceased over purchase of new pair of chappals by the accused from the deceased and abuses hurled by the accused on the deceased in the name of caste over demanding payment of cost of chappals and accused forcibly trying to take a pair of chappals and deceased snatching them back and the accused thereupon stabbing on the neck of the deceased with the scissors readily available with him in the barber’s kit he was carrying, is duly corroborated by the contents of Ex.P-1 given at the earliest point of time. No doubt P.W.1 is stated to be distantly related to the deceased as his aunt. Simply because P.W.1 is distantly related, her testimony which is otherwise acceptable and reliable, cannot be discarded on the ground of mere relationship. It is well settled that the evidence of related witnesses, if it is found acceptable and reliable, cannot be discarded on the ground of mere relationship. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent, consistent and mutually corroborative. No material contradictions or omissions are elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 so as to discredit their evidence. There is absolutely no motive suggested to P.Ws.1 and 2 as to why they should depose falsely or implicate the accused falsely. Their evidence is further corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are residents of the same village and who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the cries. It is in the evidence of P.W.3 that himself and P.W.4 were at a tailoring shop opposite to the shop of the deceased on the other side of the road and on hearing the loud voice of P.Ws.1 and 2, they rushed to the scene and saw the accused stabbing on his neck by using scissors- M.O.1. It is also in their evidence that both of them intervened and took away the scissors-M.O.1 from the possession of the accused and thereafter the accused ran away from the spot and that they accompanied the deceased to the police station along with P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that they handed over the scissors-M.O.1 to the police. P.Ws.3 and 4 have deposed that they also accompanied the deceased to Government Hospital, Adoni and from there to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. The testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, who were present nearby the scene of offence and rushed to the scene after the occurrence on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 2 and found the accused with the weapon at the scene and snatched the weapon from the hands of the accused and produced the same before the police, is not discredited in any manner. As stated supra, even in Ex.P-1 given immediately after the occurrence, reference is made to the arrival of P.Ws.3 and 4 at the scene immediately after the occurrence and their snatching the weapon from the hands of the accused in a bid to prevent him from further hacking of the deceased. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly placed reliance on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.Ws.3 and 4. The accused is barber of the same village and is known to one and all in the village and, therefore, there was no dispute regarding the identity of the accused. 10. P.W.6, one of the panchas for the inquest corroborated the testimony of the investigating officer regarding the seizure of the blood stained clothes-M.Os.2 & 3 and M.O.4-waist thread from the body of the deceased at the time of inquest under inquest panchanama- Ex.P-2. P.W.8, the village secretary and one of the panch witnesses, supported the prosecution case that M.O.1 scissors produced by P.Ws.3 and 4 before the police was seized under a panchanama- Ex.P-3 in his presence. 11. P.W.7, the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Adoni deposed that he examined the deceased and found bleeding injury on the neck and after rendering first-aid referred the deceased to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for necessary treatment. P.W.13, the Assistant Professor of Surgery, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, testified that the deceased was brought to hospital with stab injury caused with barber’s knife and died of the same and he sent the death intimation-Ex.P-4. P.W.14, the Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased found surgically sutured wound of 26 cm with 13 sutures extending from left supra clavicular fossa 3cm above left mid clavicular point on the left side of the neck. He was of the opinion that the deceased died due to the said cut injury on the throat and issued Ex.P-11 post-mortem certificate. According to him, the injury is possible by any sharp edged weapon and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Thus, the medical evidence on record also supports the prosecution case that the deceased died of the stab injury on the throat and the said injury is possible by scissors-M.O.1 and is sufficient to cause death. Ex.P-10 report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory also shows that human blood was detected on the dhoti-M.O.3 and shirt-M.O.2, which were seized from the deceased and also the scissors-M.O.1. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that the death of the deceased was homicidal and it was caused due to the injury inflicted by the accused with the scissors- M.O.1. 12. The question which then arises for consideration is whether the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased. The evidence on record shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to kill the deceased nor was there any strong motive for him to commit the said offence. The offence was committed by the accused on the spur of the moment during the course of an altercation with the deceased and having got enraged by the demand for payment of price for the chappals and also by the act of the deceased in snatching back the chappals by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly held that the offence was committed in a heat of passion and hence is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and falls within the ambit of Section 304 IPC. However, the evidence on record also established that the deceased belonged to a scheduled caste as can be seen from the caste certificate-Ex.P-9 and the accused abused him in the name of his caste not once but twice in a public place in front of the shop of the deceased and in the presence of the members of the public who included P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused abused the deceased in the name of the caste firstly when the deceased demanded payment of money towards cost of the chappals and again when the deceased snatched back the chappals forcibly taken by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act read with Section 304 IPC. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act prescribes aggravated punishment stating that whoever commits any offence under the I.P.C punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more against a member of the scheduled caste, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. Even if the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC, the same is punishable with imprisonment for ten years and hence in view of the aggravated punishment prescribed by Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, a special enactment, the trial Court has rightly sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Similarly, the conviction of the accused for the other offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, are also sustainable. 14. In the circumstances, it is held that the conviction of the accused for the above said offences and sentences imposed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment are liable to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. __________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Lrkm. Dated 10th November, 2009