Telangana High Court
Sunnam Srinivas Rao, Khammam., vs State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., on 2 September, 2022
Author: M.Laxman
Bench: M.Laxman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1141 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman) The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.280 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam (trial Court), whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for causing homicidal death of his mother. Further, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year for each of the offences, for causing injuries to his father. It is directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the mother of the accused. The accused was wayward and was not attending any works. He used to force his parents for money for consuming alcohol and there were frequent demands and harassment to the parents. On 21.11.2012 at about 23:30, the ML,J 2 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 accused went to the deceased and demanded money for consuming alcohol. When the deceased and her husband (father of the accused) (PW2) refused to give money, the accused initially attacked his father with stick (M.O.1) and went to the deceased and demanded her to give money, and when she refused, he throttled her with hands to death and fled away from the house.
3. On the basis of the said allegation, the FIR was initially issued and subsequently, charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 324 and 506 of IPC.
4. Upon committal, the trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, to support its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1. The accused has not produced any evidence and denied the incriminating material.
6. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the said charges. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the ML,J 3 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 appellant as aforestated. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that there was no light and he had seen only with a battery light and that light was neither seized nor referred by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no material to link the accused with the offence. According to the learned counsel, there is no direct witness to prove the guilt of the accused. It is also further contended that there is no evidence from P.W.2 with regard to the throttling of the deceased by the accused.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that initially, there was no intention on the part of the accused when he came to the house, and his intention was only to cause an injury and not to cause death. Under Section 300 of IPC, the injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even the act committed by the accused is to be accepted, the act of the accused falls within the parameters of ML,J 4 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 Section 299 of IPC but not under Section 300. Therefore, he can only be convicted under Section 304 but not under Section 302, if the Court accepts proof of acts of the accused.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the direct evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the acts done by the accused. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he was present in the house when the incident occurred. In this regard, his evidence also shows that he tried to intervene when the accused was throttling the deceased and he was also suffered injuries in the attack. In his evidence, he stated that the incident occurred when there was no electricity and he had seen with the battery light. Even P.W.2 could not see the accused on account of no electricity, there is high probability of recognizing the voice and other features of the accused, as he is his son. Involvement of the accused was also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.5, neighbour. He stated that he heard cries from the house of the deceased. He also stated that accused fled away and found P.W.2 was lying with injuries. The evidence of these two witnesses clearly establishes that the accused has throttled the deceased and also attacked P.W.2 with ML,J 5 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 stick and the stick was also recovered. The recovery was also supported by the prosecution evidence.
11. The evidence of Doctor (P.W.8) shows that death was on account of throttling. The evidence of both the witnesses i.e., husband of the deceased (P.W.2) and the neighbour (P.W.5) coupled with medical evidence, shows that the death of the deceased was on account of throttling which was done by the accused.
12. Now the question that arises for consideration is:
'Whether the act of throttling done by the accused constitutes a culpable homicide or a murder'?
13. In this regard, it is apt to refer Sections 299 and 300 of IPC, which are as follows:
"299. Culpable homicide:- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1:- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2:- 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.
ML,J 6 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 Explanation 3:- The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
300. Murder:- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-- (Secondly) --If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- (Thirdly) --If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in- flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
(Fourthly) --If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
14. A reading of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC, in both the cases intention and knowledge are the requirements. In culpable homicide, act done with an intention to cause death or with an intention to cause bodily injuries as is likely to cause death or knowledge of the act which is likely to cause death. Whereas under Section 300, the bodily injury caused must be sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and knowledge of act is of such a nature that it was imminently dangerous in all probability to cause death.
15. In the present case, when we see the case of the prosecution, the genesis of the offence committed by the accused ML,J 7 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 was for money to buy alcohol. Initially, there was no preplanned action on the part of the accused. The accused throttled the mother on account of her refusal to give money and there is no evidence that accused throttled the deceased with an intention to cause bodily injuries which is sufficiently enough in the ordinary course of nature or so imminently dangerous to cause death. Therefore, the act of the accused does not fall under Section 300 of IPC but falls under Section 299 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC required to be modified into conviction under Section 304 of IPC.
16. The evidence also shows that the accused in frustration caused injuries to P.W.2. This has been supported by P.W.2, who is the best witness to say about the crime and the same was supported by the medical evidence and neighbour's evidence. Therefore, no inference is required in case of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC.
17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, against the accused in S.C. No.280 of 2013 ML,J 8 MGP,J Crla_1141_2013 for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under section 304 IPC and accordingly, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine amount as imposed by the trial Court is the same for the present offence.
18. The findings of the trial Court with regard to conviction and sentences under Sections 324 and 506 IPC is confirmed. The remand period already undergone by the accused, if any, the same shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. If the accused is completed with the sentence of 10 years, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE M.LAXMAN __________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.: 02.09.2022 ss