Case: Mannam Balaswamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

FAZAL ALI, J. The appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh by which to set aside the acquittal of the appellant under S. 302 and convicted the appellant under the said section to imprisonment for life. The trial Court had convicted the accused under S. 304(1) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years R.I. on the ground that as the assault to the deceased was caused by the appellant due to sudden and grave provocation his case fell within the ambit of S. 304(1) of I.P.C. 2. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment of the Courts below. According to the prosecution, there was some dispute between the deceased (appellant) and his father and on the date of occurrence, the appellant was quarrelling with his father when the deceased came there and intervened in the struggle and pushed aside the appellant. Thereafter the appellant went into his room and came with a knife and inflicted two stab injuries, one on the chest and the other on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased. As a result of these injuries the deceased died. We are rather surprised how the trial Court took the view that the case of the appellant few within the purview of S. 304(1) of I.P.C. There was no. question of any sudden and grave provocation at all. In fact the appellant tried to assault the innocent intervener in the quarrel between him and his father. Secondly, the act of the appellant was a cruel act and he took undue advantage of the situation because instead of keeping quiet he went to the room and brought a knife in order to cause the death of the deceased who was an innocent intervener. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court on the question of law was absolutely wrong and High Court was, therefore, right in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant under S. 302. On the facts proved in the case, in our opinion on other view was possible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment of the Courts below. According to the prosecution, there was some dispute between the deceased (appellant) and his father and on the date of occurrence, the appellant was quarrelling with his father when the deceased came there and intervened in the struggle and pushed aside the appellant. Thereafter the appellant went into his room and came with a knife and inflicted two stab injuries, one on the chest and the other on the left side of the abdomen of the deceased. As a result of these injuries the deceased died. We are rather surprised how the trial Court took the view that the case of the appellant few within the purview of S. 304(1) of I.P.C. There was no. question of any sudden and grave provocation at all. In fact the appellant tried to assault the innocent intervener in the quarrel between him and his father. Secondly, the act of the appellant was a cruel act and he took undue advantage of the situation because instead of keeping quiet he went to the room and brought a knife in order to cause the death of the deceased who was an innocent intervener. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court on the question of law was absolutely wrong and High Court was, therefore, right in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant under S. 302. On the facts proved in the case, in our opinion on other view was possible.