Thammu Panduranga Rao & Anr vs State Of A.P

2. The case of the prosecution which led to the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that the deceased Boddu Maraiah and accused No. 2 were having prior disputes between them. The son of said accused loved the daughter of the deceased. As the elders did not agree to the proposal, the deceased married his daughter to some other person. Even after her marriage, the son of accused used to go to her house and tried to create problems in her married life, because of which the son of accused was beaten by the deceased and his family members which became the subject matter of a criminal case. Thus, it was alleged that there was inimical term between the two families. On 2.11.1998 at about 5.30 p.m., while accused Nos. 1 to 5 (A-1 to A-5) (accused No. 4 is son of accused No. 2; accused No. 2 is the nearest relative of accused No. 1; accused No. 3 is his son; and accused No. 5 is a close relative of accused Nos. 1 to 4) were returning to their village after finishing their fishing work and when they reached near the cattle shed of the deceased, they heard PW-2 (wife of deceased) abusing her cattle sarcastically. All are stated to be residents of Ramannamodi. The accused suspected that PW-2 was abusing them. On PW-2 being questioned by A-2 as to why she was abusing them, the deceased interfered and attacked A-2. A-1 also interfered and the deceased beat him whereupon A-1 beat the deceased on his head with a stick and induced A-2 to A-5 to beat the deceased. A-2 beat the deceased by poking against his abdomen with stick near his naval, A-3 beat him on his back with a stick, A- 1 and A-4 beat PW-2 with sticks and caused injuries and A-1 and A-4 beat PW- 1 (son of deceased) on his left hand wrist and on his neck with sticks. After beating the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Later PW-1 went to police station and registered a complaint (Ex.P-13) and a case under Section 324/34 IPC was started. The deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were sent to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Machilipatnam. After the deceased succumbed to injuries on 4.11.1998 in the hospital, the police altered the FIR to Section 302 IPC and took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body, observed the scene of offence, conducted panchnama, got the post mortem examination done and after receipt of post mortem report laid the chargesheet under Section 302/34 IPC against A-1 and A-2, under Section 325 against A-2, under Section 323 against A-1, A-4 and A-5 and under Section 114 against A-5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-23 and also MOs 1 to 26. No defence witness was examined but Exhibits D-1 to D-9 were marked on their side.

3. PW-9 Dr. K. Sanjeevarao who held inquest over the dead body and issued post mortem certificate opined that the deceased died of shock due to rupture of mesenteric vessel and damage to the intestines. The doctor stated that the injuries mentioned in the certificate would have been caused with sticks like MOs1 to 5 and that the internal injuries 2 and 3 were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The following external injuries were found on the dead body:

4. On internal examination, the doctor found (1) about 2 ½ litre of blood present in the abdominal cavity and ½ litre of blood present in the pelvic cavity, hemoperitoneum present and all the intestines congested; (2) bluish contusion 6” x 1” on the middle third of small intestine; (3) the mesentance vessels ruptured and the entire mesentery blood stained; (4) three bluish blood clots each 30 grams on the mecentary near the superior mesenteric artery; (5) all the internal organs like liver, both the lungs, spleen and both the kidneys congested; (6) the stomach empty and its mucosa congested; (7) the brain and its menings congested; (8) hyoid bone intact; (9) urinary bladder and the gall bladder empty; and (10) the chambers of the heart empty. The doctor opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock due to rupture of mesenteric vessels and contusion of the intestines and death would have been occurred within 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination and Ex.P- 7 is the post mortem certificate he issued. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P-7 would have been caused with sticks like MOs.1 to 5 and that the internal injuries 2 and 3 are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature.

6. The trial court on consideration of testimony of the witnesses held that a case has been made out against A-1 and A-2 (appellants herein) finding them guilty for the offences under Sections 304/34, 324/34 and 325 IPC. Accordingly, they were convicted for the offence under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A-1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. A-2 was further convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A-4 and A-5 were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences imposed on respective accused were directed to run concurrently. A-3 had died on 5.12.1998 due to ill health while under judicial custody. In arriving at its conclusion as regards conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2 (appellants herein), the trial court gave the following reasoning:

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants stand cancelled. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining period of the sentence.