Supreme Court of India
Veerla Satyanarayana vs State Of A.P. on 20 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD(CRI)637, JT2002(SUPPL1)SC489, AIRONLINE 2002 SC 209, 2009 (16) SCC 316, (2002) 1 JT (SUPP) 489, (2002) 4 CRIMES 218, (2002) 45 ALL CRI C 258, (2002) 3 ALL CRI R 2292, (2003) 1 EAST CRI C 269, (2002) 6 SUPREME 226, 2010 (3) SCC (CRI) 274, (2002) 2 ALD(CRL) 637
Bench: M.B. Shah, D.M. Dharmadhikari
ORDER
I. By judgment and order dated 11.10.1996, in sessions case No. 12 of 1994, the sessions judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under sections 304 (Part I), 307 and 447 of the IPC. Against the said judgment, the state preferred criminal appeal No. 1215 of 1998 contending that the appellant ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. By judgment and order dated 27.12.1999, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said appeal and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R1 for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The prosecution story in short is PW 1 (Shaik Putli) who is the injured witness had developed relationship with the deceased (Lalayya) and was staying with him. It is also her case that the accused was visiting her house frequently and thereafter she also developed illicit intimacy with the accused as well. However, when the deceased came to know about it he warned the accused and asked him not to visit his house. Because of this, it is her say that the accused set fire on the sugarcane fields belonging to the deceased. For that purpose criminal case was filed by the deceased against the accused which ended in acquittal. It is also stated that she and deceased and one other person caused burn injuries to the accused with "Atlakada" (spoon used for preparing 'dosa'). It is her further say that because of this incident accused came to their house at about 3.00a.m. on the intervening night of 20th/ 21st of June, 1993, when they were sleeping on a cot and poured acid. Both were injured and removed to the hospital. Because of the injuries the deceased expired on 20th July, 1993.
3. For the incident and the motive, the High Court as well as the trial court after appreciating the evidence in detail have rightly relied upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses and have held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence of throwing acid on the deceased as well as on PW1 when they were sleeping at their house at night time. This part of appreciation of evidence is rightly not challenged before this Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that taking into consideration the medical evidence on record, the alleged offence would not be punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the order passed by the High Court requires to be set aside. For this purpose, the learned counsel referred to the post mortem report wherein it has been stated that the deceased was having 60 per cent burn injuries and that the cause of the death was due to septicemia. He has also referred to the examination of PW15 Dr. K. Mahipal Reddi, who has stated in cross examination that septicemia will be definitely caused if the proper treatment is not given. It is, therefore, contended that the cause of the death is not because of the burn injuries but because of the septicemia.
4. In our view, this submission is not tenable because of the burn injuries. By throwing of the acid on the deceased who was sleeping, septicemia was caused and he died. PW15 (doctor) has made it clear that even in the cases of proper treatment also there is possibility of septicemia. For this purpose, the High Court has rightly referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi . In the said case, the court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC by considering the fact that there was 35% burn injuries by pouring of acid which according to doctor's evidence was due to toxaemia and septicemia from absorption of toxins. The Court also considered the relevant explanation (2) to Section 299, which provides that -where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
5. In the present case, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the motive of the accused of causing this injury. It is also established that the act of the appellant in pouring acid on the body of the deceased was pre-planned one; he selected night time when the deceased as well as PW1 were sleeping; he poured the acid which caused 60% burn injuries and as the injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is rightly held to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
6. Hence, there is no substance in these appeals and the same are accordingly dis-missed.