Jajjara Venkateswarlu alias Kothulodu vs State of A.P.

Motilal B. Naik, J.—The sole accused in S.C. No. 200 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole is the appellant before us who has been tried for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer imprisonment for one week.

The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 23-3-1993 at about 2.00 p.m. he committed murder intentionally by causing death of one Bodhu Adiseshe s/o. Aukaiah by stabbing with a knife on the left portion of the stomach and on the back.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

The accused is a resident of Padarthi village and the deceased as well as the material witnesses are the residents of Madanuru village. PW I is the wife" of the deceased, PW 2 is the neighbour of PW 3, /and PW 3 is the wife of the accused. The deceased is a neighbour of PW 3''s parents house. the accused and PW 3 were married and have /four children from out of their wedlock. As a result of misgivings between PW 3 and the accused, PW 3 left the society of the accused and had started residing in her parents house at Madanuru and was eking out her livelihood by preparing garlands. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-3-1993 at about 2.00 p.m. the accsued went to the house of PW 3 and picked up quarrel with her demanding to return to his house at Padarthi village or to return his articles which are in possession of PW 3. PW 3 informed the accused that the matter could be settled when once the elders are present and therefore requested him to wait for some more time. The accused did not heedito the request of the PW 3 and grew wild and qaiight hold of the neck of PW 3 with his left hand and showed a knife to her pressurising her to heed to his demands. On noticising the accused being cruel to his wife, PW 3, the deceased intervened and tried to pacify the accused and requested him to wait for some more time so that the matter could be settled in the presence of elders. The accused, not satisfied with the intervention of the deceased, inflicted a stab injury on the left portion of the stomach and when the deceased turned back, he stabbed on the back of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down. The accused made good from the scene by slipping away. The said incident has been witnessed by PW1, PW 2 and PW 3 along with one Kesavulu, Rama Rao and Kotaiah.

According to the prosecution the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole, where he was examined and declared dead by the doctor. PW 8, Head Constable of I-Town Police Station, Ongole, on receipt of death intimation (Ex. P7) from the Government Hospital, Ongole, at 4.15 p.m., visited the hospital and recorded Ex.Pl, the statement from PW 1, wife of the deceased. Thereafter, PW 8 forwarded Exs.p1 and P7 to Kothapatnam Police Station, through a police constable on the point of jurisdiction, which were received by PW 9, Sub-Inspector of Policc; Kothapatnam Police Station on 23-3-1993 around. 20.00 hours. A case was registered in Crime No. 6/93 and Ex.P.8 - First Information Report was isued to all the concerned. Thereafter. PW 9 proceeded to Madanuru village to examine the witnesses but found nobody present and went to Ongolc Government Hospital around 24.00 hours. PW 9 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW 4 on 24-3-1993. Ex.P2 is the inquest, report. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. PW 6 Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 24-3-1993 and issued Ex.P6 post mortem certificate. According to PW 6, Civil Assistant Surgeon, the deceased seemed to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to injuries caused with the sharp object. PW 9 proceeded for observation of the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence - Ex.P9. He sent express F.T.R. to PW 10 Inspector of Police, Ongole Town. On a tip-off on 13-4-1993 at 8.00 a.m. PW 10 along with PW 9 arrested the accused in the presence of mediators, who ied the police to Madanuru-Pallepupalem Road and showed the place where M.O. 1 knife was hidden by him which was seize under a cover of panchanama under Ex. P5. PW 5 is one of the mediators.

PW 10 sent Ex.P10, requisition letter along with E.x.P.11, letter of advice to the (11 Additional Judicial Magistrate to send material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of For-rensic Science Laboratory is Ex. P12.

On the basis of the charge, the prosecution in order to sustain their case examined as many as ten witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P12 and also M.O. 1.

On the basis of incriminating evidence adduced against the accused, in the light of the depositions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 the accused was questioned u/s 313, Cr.P.C. as to wchther he had anything to say aboul the evidence found against him for which he pleaded not guilty.

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, particularly the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who are eye witnesses to the incident, the evidence of doctor PW 6 and panch witnesses PW 5, found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and, also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. This is the decision of the trial Court which is challenged before us.

Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel for the accused attacked the order of the trial Court by contending that the learned Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial failed to see that no credence could be given to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as according to him, they arc interested witnesses. He further contended that the statement of these witnesses were taken after twenty four hours from the time of the incident though the Investigating Officer and other police authorities were aware of the incident much earlier and hence during that period of twenty four hours there is every possibility of the witnesses-to change their version suiting to the occasion. He further contended that the conviction passed by the trial Court u/s 302, I.P.C. is not warranted and at best the offence could be treated as on falling u/s 304 Part I, I.P.C. The sum and substance of the attack of the learned senior counsel on the decision of the trial Court primarily on the question whether the accused had any intention at all to kill the deceased. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions in Harjinder Singh alias Jinda Vs. Delhi Administration, and Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, .

The learned Public Prosecutor on the ontrary sustained the order of the trial Court by contending that this is a fit case where no lacuna could be found in the prosecution either on procedural aspect or in the evidence of witnesses particularly, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are eye witnesses present at the spot. She contended that M.O. 1 : knife which was used by the accused is of the size of ten inches with six inches blade, is a dangerous weapon and if an injury is inflicted such injury would be fatal to take away the life of the person. She further stated that the accused had inflicted two injuries one on the stomach and another one on the backside. From the opinion of the doctor PW 6 the stab injuries are sufficient for the death of the deceased. She further contended that the motive part or intention part is not crucial in this case as it is apparent that on the basis of the statement as heard by the prosecution witnesses 1 to 3 before making an attempt on the deceased by the accused, he was firm in his view that the deceased was responsible for the indifferent attitude of his wife towards him and thus that is also one of the causes for the accused to inflict such a fatal injury and therefore contended that the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused u/s 302, IPC.

We have heard both the learned Counsel extensively on various counts.

The principal contention raised before us on behalf of the appellant-accsued is that of lacuna in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the lacuna in not recording the statement of the Witnesses u/s 161, Crl. P.C. earlier and the accused having no intention to kill the deceased.

Coming to the first attack, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, we are unable to find any deficiency in their evidence. PW1, being the wife of the deceased deposed that around 2.00 p.m. on the fateful day, her husband had gone to the field and came for taking meals while she was sitting in varandah. She went inside, served meals to her husband and came back and again sat in the varandah. At this stage, she noticed that the accused was exchanging words with PW 3 who is none else than the wife of the accused, who is also the neighbour sitting in the same building which had three portions. She further deposed that the accused was demanding PW 3 either to accompany him or to return the articles which are in her possession. She further deposed that PW 3 was pleading the accused to wait for some time so that the elders could come and the matter could be settled. Not satisfied with this request, the accused abused and caught hold of her neck and showed the knife. She further deposed that her husband (deceased) after taking meals came out to wash his hands and noticed the altercation and on being unhappy with the situation in which PW 3 is placed, tried to intervene and asked the accused to keep the matter pending till the arrival of the elders. However, the accused enraged with the deceased for his intervention, inflicted two injuries as indicated above with M.O. l.P.W. 1 has also seen PW 2 and others as spoken to by the prosecution.

A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 makes it clear that there is no reason for us to discredit the testimony of P.W. 1, who in our considered view has spoken to the reality. Insofar as the evidence of P.W .2, he claimed that he had gone to P.W. l''s house with a request to get a garland prepared by her and he noticed P.W. 3 and the accused in a fighting mood and as he was not interested to interfere, he was watching the situation by keeping quiet. He also deposed the fact of the deceased coming out of the house and interferring to convince the accused to wait till the elders come and settle the dispute. He also de-posed to the fact that the accused stabbed the deceased with knife, inflicting two injuries. Likewise, the evidence of PW 3, who is none else than the wife of the accused spoke to the feet thai: she married the accused and be got four children from out of their wed-lock. She further deposed that the accused was a habitual offender indulging in petty crimes. Despite P.W.3''s request to change his ways and lead a normal life, the accused did not mend his ways and continued to lead a criminal life and therefore P.W. 3 decided to part with the company of the accused and returned to her parents house and started living by doing coolie work and also by preparing garlands. She also deposed that on the fateful day i.e., 23-3-1993 around 2.00 p.m., the accused came and picked up quarrel demanding her either to join his society or to return the articles and she pleaded to wait for some time so that the matter could be settled in the presence of elders. However, the accused was not prepared to accept her version and pulled her by catching her neck and was about to inflict injury. At this stage the deceased who had just came''out of the house to wash his hands after taking meals, tried to persuade the accused to give up the hatred part with P.W. 3, which the accused had developed against P.W. 3. The accused became furious with the intervention of the deceased, inflicted two injuries, one on the front side of the stomach and the other on the backside, by uttering that due to his encouragement given to P.W. 3, she is behaving indifferent towards him. P.W. 3 also speaks to the fact of presence of P.W,. 2 and other witnesses as spoken to by the prosecution side. All the three eye witnesses speak to the fact of taking the deceased by covering his body with towel to the Government Hospital, Ongole, wher the doctor had examined him and declared dead.

In the light of the attack by the learned senior counsel on the testimony of these three witnesses who are eye witnesses to the incident, we have carefully scrutinised the evidence; of these three witnesses. In our considered view, the. defence is unable to shatter the evidence of these three eye witnesses who narrated the entire factual position. We are therefore, of the view that the submissions have no substance in the light of the abundant conoborating evidence available on record.

Coming to the second submissions made by the learned senior counsel that though the incident took place on 23-3-1993 around 2.00 p.m. tne witnesses were examined only alter twenty four hours and thus there is every likelihood of the witnesses to change the entire spectrum of the incident by preparing the statement suiting to the interest of the prosecution, we do not think that this is a crucial aspect in the set of circumstances. No doubt, the incident had taken place around 2.00 p.m. on 23-3-1 993 and the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, . which is away from the scene of offence. It is seen that all the witnesses present had shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital. P.W. 8, Head Constable i Town Police Station, on receipt of death intimation from the Government Hospi- . tal. Ongole, visited the hospital at 4.15 p.m. and only recorded Ex.P.l statement from P.W. 1. P.W. 8 stated that he rushed to Madunuru village to record the statements but he could not find any witness in Mandunuru village and he went back to the Government Hospital at 24.00 Hours. He explains that he could not record the statement because he found all the family members including the witnesses in grief. We feel that the explanation given by P.W. 8 seems to be reasonable as the family members who are in grief are not expected to give statements narrating what has happened. In such a situation, the immediate concern is to take the deadbody to their place. We, therefore, see no discrepancy or lacuna which would have an effect on the prosecution case. Accordingly, this submission is rejected.

Coming to the thrid limb of the submission that us the accused had no intention or desire to kill the deceased and therefore, the charge could be brought u/s 304, Part I, I.P.C., though the learned Counsel for the appellant has placedrreliance on the case:; cited supra, we do not think that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in those cases are applicable to the set of circumstances emanating from the present case. Section 300, I.P.C. clause "thirdly" defines that if an act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, such an act is murder, in other words, it is not necessary that the injuries shall be intended to cause death but when the intention is to cause bodily injury and injury is inflicted as a result of which death is caused, such an act would fall within the ambit of "murder.

In this case the words uttered by the .accused, as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence, before inflicting injuries on the de- � ceased, are that "because of the support receiving from the deceased she (P.W. 3) had been indifferent towards the accused", speak volumes about the inherent cause of grudge the accused has developed against the deceased. As the proviso to Section 300, I.P.C. "thirdly" makes it clear that if an injury is inflicted with an intention to cause bodily injury and such injury causes death of the person, then it is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. We are, therefore, in the set of circumstances, convinced in the background of the utterance by the accused using hatred words against the deceased, the accused had an intention to cause bodily injury to the deceased, and when such injury is inflicted, it has resulted in the death of the deceased.

The evidence of P.W. 6, doctor who deposed to the fact of injuries on the body of the deceased is as under:

An incised wound of 21/2 x 1 inch obliquely placed, elliptical in shape present over the lateral side of lower part of left side of chest over costal cartilage. On dissection, there is congestion of underlying tissues muscles underneath are found cut. There is no fracture on ribs. There is an entry wound of one inch present over the paritonel cavity at the site of injury. A tear of 1" present over lateral side of spleen.

An incised wound 1" x 1/4" over left side of lower thoracic spine i" lateral to mid line obliquely placed and on dissection congestion of underlying tissues present. Left erectory spine muscles are found cut. The injury found entering into left plural cavity with a wound of 1/2" over the plura. A tear of 1/2" present over the left side of diaphragm. An incised wound of 1/2" present over the posteriot aspect of left kidney with a left retraperitoneal haetnotoma of 500 cc.

P. W. 6 further opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased might, have been caused with the sharp object like M.0.1 knife. He further opined that the injuries are sufficient to cause death in a normal course of nature. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 6 reflects the correct nature of the injuries, which were found on the body of the deceased, as spoken to by P. Ws. 1 to 3, who have, in no uncertain terms have stated that these injuries were inflicted by the accused with sharp knife M.O. 1.

In the light of the evidence, in our considered view, the trial Court is justified in finding the accused guilty of the charge punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine. Therefore, we have no reason to come to a different conclusion than the finding given by the trial Court.

We see no merits in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant-Accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court.