Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ...

The appellants herein along with one Khambham Pai Reddy were prosecuted for causing the death of Khambam Venkatramana Reddy. While the appellant No.1 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the two other accused were prosecuted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, in the alternative under Section 302 IPC read with Section 114 IPC and under Section 342 IPC.

In order to prove that the death of Khambam Vankatramana Reddy was homicidal, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs1, 2, 3, 8 and 11. PW-1 is the widow of the deceased. PW-2 is the father of the deceased and PW-3 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of Khambam Venkatramana Reddy. PW-8 is one of the inquest witnesses and PW-11 is a Sub Inspector of police who conducted the inquest and deposed that he had found an injury near the left eye of the deceased as also on the left thumb. The case of the prosecution is that the victim and the accused persons were related to each other. The 1st accused is the son of accused Nos. 2and 3 and the 3rd accused is the husband of the second accused. The 3rd accused and PW-2, Khambam Gangi Reddy, the father of the deceased, were brothers. It was the case of the prosecution that the relations between the accused and the family of the deceased were strained and there was subsisting hostility between the two groups.

According to the prosecution, on 9th May, 1994, the deceased harvested his paddy crop and placed it in a heap on Thellabanda near Koraparthivaripalle bus stop and on that night the deceased and his wife, PW-1 slept near the heap of paddy to keep a watch over the same. In the early hours of 10th May, 1994, the accused were said to be proceeding towards Thellabanda and one R. Venkataramana who was watering his fields is alleged to have focused his torch light on them. PW-1 is said to have woken up on hearing the noise of the accused persons proceeding towards Thellabanda and in the beam of her torch light she claims to have seen and recognized the accused persons. According to her, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her hands and gagged her by stuffing a cloth in her mouth to prevent her from crying out. At the same time, the 3rd accused exhorted the 1st accused to kill the deceased who was still in a sound sleep. On such exhortation, the 1st accused is said to have picked up a big stone and had thrown the same on the head of the deceased, as a result whereof, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on his head and died instantaneously.

Having committed the crime, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 ran away and PW-1 raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm, one Srivargani Guravaiah, PW-7, who was also said to be watching his paddy near the scene of the offence, focused his torch light and saw the accused Nos. 1 to 3 running away. PW-7 then rushed to the spot and found the deceased with head injury. PW-1 is said to have narrated the incident to him and then she went to the village and informed her family members about the said incident.

The main thrust of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants was directed to the attack of polio suffered by the appellant No.1 which had left him crippled and made it impossible for him to lift a heavy object such as a stone weighing 25 to 30 Kgs. with which the offence is said to have been committed. The further contention of the appellants was that the High Court had failed to appreciate that in her evidence PW-1 had admitted that she had not seen any blood oozing from the ear, nose or mouth of the deceased after the commission of the offence. Certain material inconsistencies in the statements of PW-7 as to whether he had actually noticed the accused in the focus of his torch light were also pointed out. It was pointed that while he had stated in his deposition that he had woken up upon hearing the shouting and thereafter he switched on his torch light with the aid of which he noticed the accused persons running away from the scene, in his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had mentioned that he was engaged in agricultural operations at the time of the incident.

However, the High Court was of the view that the offence committed by the accused persons, though homicide, did not amount to murder and had possibly been committed with the intention of causing grievous hurt to the deceased. The High Court accordingly held the accused persons to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and convicted the accused Nos. 1 & 2 and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, to suffer R.I. for one month more. As the accused No. 3 had died during the pendency of the trial, the case against him stood abated. This appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Chest: Ribs are norml.

Heart and lungs normal. Abdomen: Stomach contains undigested food particles mixed with vegetables. Instetines distended with gas Liver, Spleen, and both kidneys are normal. Bladder empty. Scrotum and testicles are normal."

Apart from the above, the High Court has also gone wrong in observing that there is no positive evidence on record to show that the accused No.1 is crippled. The High Court has proceeded on the supposition that since a polio attack is always to the legs and not to the hands, a person who had suffered from a polio attack, was capable of lifting a stone weighing about 25 to 30 Kgs. with his hands. The learned Sessions Judge has, in fact, referred to a certificate issued by Dr. M. Venkatadri, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, dated 5th January, 1994, to the effect that the right leg of the appellant No.1 had been affected with polio and he was unable to travel without the assistance of an escort. Negatives in respect of the disability of the appellant No.1 showing him to have been attacked by polio had also been filed. For the appellant No. 1 to have lifted a stone weighing 25 to 30 kgs in his physical condition was highly improbable. The two circumstances taken up together creates sufficient doubt regarding the prosecution case and as to the manner in which the victim is said to have been killed. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants herein are set aside. The appellants are on bail. Let them be discharged from their bail bonds and be set at liberty forthwith.