Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chakali Sreenu vs State Of A.P. on 3 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)ALD(CRI)705, 2005CRILJ4406
JUDGMENT P. Swaroop Reddy, J.
1. This criminal appeal is preferred, assailing the judgment, dated 12-6-2003, in S.C. No. 148 of 2000 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Sangareddy, convicting the sole appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24-11-1999, at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., the appellant and Kattera Shankaraiah (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased') quarreled with each other with regard to certain amount due. In that process, the deceased assaulted appellant, who, in turn, pushed him. Consequently, the deceased fell on the ground on his back and died instantaneously. Based on the report lodged by P.W, 1, the Village Administrative Officer of Achampet village, a case in Crime No. 49 of 1999 on the file of Yeldurthy Police Station was registered against the appellant for the alleged offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was investigated into.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P1 to P6. Of these witnesses, P.W. 1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who, on receipt of information, lodged Ex. P1, report, with the police. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the father and the wife of the deceased respectively. They are not eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the panch witness for the scene of offence, observation and inquest. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are said to be the panch witness for the confession of the appellant. They did not support the case of the prosecution, they were declared hostile. P.W. 10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries :
1) Contusion over right side parietal and temporal region of head 5 x 2".
2) Internally there was sub-arachnoid haemorrhage present in right parietal region.
He opined that the cause of the death is head injury. P.W. 11 is the A.S.I, of Police, who registered the case and conducted part of the investigation, and P.W. 12 is the Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation and filed the charge-sheet.
5. Ex. P1 is the complaint, Ex. P2 is the scene of offence panchnama, Ex. P3 is the inquest panchnama, Ex. P4 is the confessional statement of the appellant, Ex. P5 is the post-mortem report and Ex. P6 is the First Information Report.
6. After completion of evidence on prosecution side, the appellant was examined under Sections 313, Cr. P.C. He denied the incriminating material appearing against him.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence alleged. He further contends that there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint with the police. According to him, even assuming that the incident has taken place, the evidence available on record does not constitute the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found the appellant guilty of the offence alleged, and hence the judgment under appeal calls for no Inference.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal?
10. The factum of death of the deceased, consequent on the Injuries sustained by him, was not in dispute. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, eye-witnesses, coupled with the evidence of P.W. 10, Medical Officer, is also clear to the above effect.
11. The evidence of P.W. 2, one of the eye-witnesses, is that on the date of Incident, he went to a toddy shop, en route his home, at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., near the house of Siddi Ramagoud, he found the appellant am., the deceased quarrelling about Rs. 50/-. The appellant asked the deceased to pay the said amount, but the deceased promised to pay the same on next day. The appellant threatened the deceased that he would beat him indiscriminately, if he fails to pay the amount the next morning. On that, the deceased challenged the appellant to beat him then itself and further assaulted him. Thereafter, the appellant caught hold of the shirt collar of the deceased and pushed him. The deceased fell down on his back and died at the spot. In his cross-examination, except putting a mere suggestion to the effect that the injury which caused the death of the deceased might have been the result of his falling on the ground in an inebriated condition, nothing was elicited.
12. The evidence of P.W. 3 is also on the same lines as that of P.W. 2. He stated that the appellant pushed the deceased, who fell down on his back and died at the spot, in his cross-examination, he was also put the same suggestion to say that the deceased fell on his back in an inebriated condition.
13. The evidence of P.W. 10, who conducted post-mortem examination, is that the deceased had a contusion over right side parietal and temporal region of head of size 5 x 2" and internally there was sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in the right parietal region. Ex. P5 is the post-mortem certificate. In his cross-examination, nothing was suggested by the defence to say that the postmortem examination revealed the presence of toddy in the stomach. There is not even a reference to that effect. In Column No. 3 also, simply it is mentioned that the stomach contained 5 ml. of semi-digested food only. There is no iota of evidence to show that the deceased was under the influence of toddy, prior to his death and on account of that he fell down. Thus, from the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3, corroborated by the medical evidence, it is clear that the appellant pushed the deceased, consequent on which he fell down and died. Hence, their evidence can safely be relied upon. Therefore, unhesitatingly, it can be held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, to the extent that the deceased died of the push given by the appellant.
14. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is some delay in lodging the complaint with the police. Though no explanation, worth its name, has been offered by the prosecution, no significance can be attached to the same in the circumstances of this case.
15. Now the main and important question that requires consideration is as to what offence is constituted against the appellant.
16. The case of the prosecution is that a dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased with regard to some money, when the appellant threatened the deceased that he would beat him in case of his failure to pay the amount on the next morning, the deceased challenged the appellant to beat him then itself. It was in that context the appellant pushed the deceased, who fell down on the ground and died of the injuries suffered by him.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant had no specific motive or intention to kill the deceased and hence the offence would not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attracting the provisions of Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code. To the same effect is the judgment in Urmese v. State of Kerala, , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In that rase, the accused beat the deceased with his hand on his neck and that the deceased fell down unconscious on receiving the blow and died of the fracture of the vertebrae. In the instant case, the appellant pushed the deceased, who fell on the ground on his back and died instantaneously.
18. It is established that the appellant caught hold of the shirt collar of the deceased and pushed to fall on the rough surface and when the deceased fell down, he succumbed to the head injury. The evidence of P.W. 10, (he Medical Officer reveals only one external and one internal injury. There was not even a fracture. Neither any weapon was used nor the push given by the appellant was followed by any violent attacks. Therefore, in view of the ratio arrived at in the case cited supra, as the medical evidence is clear to the effect that the deceased received only simple injuries, even though the death ensued, we hold that the offence is only under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused in S.C. No. 148 of 2000 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Sangareddy, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is converted to the one under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code. As the appellant is already in jail for two years and as the quantum of sentence, in any case, would not be more than one year for an offence under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The period of imprisonment already undergo by the appellant shall be set off.
20. With the above said modification, the criminal appeal is allowed partly. Appeal partly allowed.