Kothamasu Ramakoteswara Rao vs The State

Punnayya, J.—The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1983 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur who convicted him under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused was tried for an offence punishable; under S. 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of Mannem Krishna Murthy (who will hereinafter be referred to as the "deceased"). As a result of the injury caused to the deceased by the accused at 6.30 p.m. on 20-12-1982 he died on 25-12-1982 in the Government General Hospital, Guntur. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

P.W. 1 and the deceased originally belong to Gurazala. Since two years prior to the date of incident, they were residing at Vinukonda. P.W. 1 was doing commission business in paddy while the deceased was doing clerical work in auditing the books of some business people. The deceased was also one of the nine partners in the amusing park at Vinukonda. The accused who belongs to Kallagunta, near Macherala was also residing at Vinukonda prior to date of occurrence. At about 4.00 p.m. on 20-12-1982 P.W. 1 was going to Bazar from his house. On his way to the Officer''s club, P.W. 1 saw the accused. The accused asked him as to where is his brother (deceased). He told him that he might have gone on his business. Then the accused invited him for coffee. P.W. 1 and the accused were going for coffee near Aruna talkies at Vinukonda. They said that the deceased was coming. Then the deceased called the accused and questioned him as to why he said something scandalous against his kept mistress to one Nagabhushanam of Narasaraopet. While so saying, the deceased slapped the accused. Then the accused asked the deceased that they should better go to Narasaraopet and verify from Nagabhushanam and if the allegation was proved, the deceased could take appropriate action against him. At that time, P.W. 2 Yakkala Anjaneyulu was also present. Then, the accused, the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded to Narasaraopet to verify from the said Nagabhushanam. They all came to Bus stand at Vinukonda and got into the R.T.C. Bus at Vinukonda and got down at Narasaraopet R.T.C. bus stop at about 6.15 p.m. They were all going towards the town. Then the deceased uttered that he would take action against the accused if the allegation is proved through, Nagabhushanam, P.W. 4. Then immediately the accused picked up a knife from pocket of his pant and stabbed the deceased on his left abdomen and ran away towards R.T.C. bus stand having thrown the knife somewhere. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 chased the accused and caught hold of him brought the accused to the spot where the deceased was lying with injuries. They found bleeding from the injury of the deceased. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 took the accused to town police station, Narasaraopet and handed over the accused to the Police. P.W. 2 took the deceased and admitted him in a Nursing home. The S.I. of Police, Narasaraopet town, recorded the statement of P.W. 1 which is Ex. P. 1. and registered the case as Crime No. 269 of 1982 under S. 307 I.P.C. and prepared printed FIR Ex. P. 12. Subsequently, he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements. He kept the accused under surveillance and proceeded to Government General Hospital, Narasaraopet. He did not find the deceased in that hospital and on his enquiry he came to know that he was admitted in a private Nursing home run by P.W. 8 Dr. D. Venkateswara Rao. P.W. 8 found the clothes of the deceased stained with blood and also a stab injury on his left abdomen. He questioned the injured as to how he sustained the injury. He told him that he was stabbed by the accused Koteswara Rao while he was coming from the bus stand, Narasaraopet. He also asked P.W. 3 as to why the injured received injury. P.W. 3 also told him that the accused stabbed the deceased while they were coming into the town from Narasaraopet, R.T.C. bus stand. P.W. 8 rendered first aid to the patient as the injured was weak and gave glucose and also Streptochrome injection and even then the bleeding was not controlled. As he was afraid that the patient would collapse he advised P.W. 3 to take the injured to Government General Hospital. Accordingly the injured was taken by P.W. 8 to Government General Hospital, Narasaraopet. P.W. 12, a Civil Asstt. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, received a requisition from P.W. 11, S. 1. of Police, Narasaraopet Town and examined the injured at 8.45 p.m. On Examination, he found "Stab wound 3/4" x 1/4" spindle shape on left sub-coastal region at mid axillary line. Oblique in direction bleeding present from the wound". He found the injured conscious but he was getting into shock. He rendered first aid to the patient to improve his condition and referred him to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for expert treatment.

P.W. 13 the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Guntur saw the injured on 20-12-82 at 11.55 p.m. and found the injured under the influence of shock due to injury which he received but he was conscious and responding to the calls. Though P.W. 13 felt that the patient should be operated, he did not do so immediately as his condition was not fit for the operation. He gave intravenous fluids on the same night. On the next day as the condition of the patent was little improved at 7.50 a.m. on 21-12-1982 P.W. 13 operated the patient.

On the operation of the abdomen of the injured P.W. 13 found a tare of the spleen on its lateral surface and also found 1 1/2 litres of blood in the abdomen. Then P.W. 13 felt it necessary to remove the spleen for the survival of the patient and removed the spleen by operation. Even after the operation P.W. 13 observed the patient though the ward incharge Doctor attended on him at the operation.

P.W. 11, the S.I. of Police, Narasaraopet town examined P.W. 3 in the hospital and recorded his statement. P.W. 11 proceeded to the scene of offence but did not find any blood there and he examined the neighbours and recorded their statements. He prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and it is Ex. P. 15 and on the same night at 11.00 p.m. he arrested the accused after returning to the police station and interrogated the accused and seized the blood stained shirt of the accused from his person and it is M.O. 5 under a Mahajar (Ex. P5). He arrested the accused and kept him in lock-up in the same night. On the next morning, he again visited the scene of offence along with the accused. They searched for weapon, but they could not find the same. He put the accused in the lock-up. P.W. 11 examined Dr. D. Venkateswara Rao (P.W. 8) and recorded his statement. On 25-12-82 he examined P.W. 4 and others and recorded their statements. P.W. 11 received express FIR on the morning of 26-12-82 from Kothapet Police Station. He altered the section of law from S. 307 to S. 302 I.P.C., and the altered FIR is Ex. P13 and he transmitted the express FIRs to all concerned. On 26-12-1982, 12.30 to 1.45 p.m., he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 7 and others and the inquest report is Ex. P. 7 and others and the inquest report is Ex. P. 7. After the inquest, he despatched the dead body for post-mortem to P.W. 10. P.W. 10 produced the dead body of the deceased before P.W. 6 for autopsy. P.W. 6 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 2.15 p.m. on 26-12-1982. He found the external as well as the internal injuries on the dead body of the deceased as described in the post-mortem certificate, Ex. P. 6.

The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.Ws. 2 and 3 turned hostile. The plea of the accused is one that of not done it.

The learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and the dying declaration and the medical evidence and held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above.

Sri M.P. Narisi Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 1, when the other two eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3 turned hostile.

We find it difficult to accept this contentioned find the evidence of P.W. 1 cogent and satisfactory and it has not suffered from any infirmity. The evidence of P.W. 8 that he questioned the deceased as to how he received injury and the deceased told him that he was stabbed by the accused is also satisfactory and unimpeachable.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, is therefore, justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 and also the dying declaration of the deceased.

Sri M.P. Narisi Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the incident has taken place suddenly under some peculiar circumstances and if all the circumstances leading to the incident are appreciated in their proper perspective, the case will not come under S. 302 I.P.C.

We find some force in this contention. From the facts narrated in the case, it is clear that the case is not a premeditated murder. The incident is the result of a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused. As the accused said to P.W. 4 something scandalous practice v. against the kept mistress of the deceased, who is in Narasaraopet, and as P.W. 4 informed the deceased as to what the accused uttered, the deceased questioned the accused about the same. Then the accused demanded verification from P.W. 4 and hence P.Ws 1 to 3, the deceased and the accused proceeded to Narasaraopet. After they got down from the bus and were proceeding to P.W. 4''s house, the deceased once again threatened the accused with the dire consequences if P.W. 4 stated that the accused stated so. Then he became afraid and wanted to run away from the clutches of the deceased and hence he took out a pen knife from the pant pocket and stabbed the deceased and ran away.

All these facts clearly show that the accused had no intention to kill the deceased. He wanted to stab him to escape from the clutches of the deceased and to run away so that he could save himself from the dire consequences that would ensue at the hands of the deceased on verification from P.W. 4. We think that the offence would come under S. 304 I.P.C. but not under S. 302 I.P.C.

Sri M.P. Narisi Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the case will come only under S. 324 I.P.C., or 326 I.P.C., but not under S. 304 I.P.C.

We do not think that this contention is entitled to acceptance. From the nature of the injury caused to the deceased and from the medical evidence, it is clear that the case will not come under S. 324 I.P.C. or under S. 326 I.P.C.

Here again, we have no enquire further whether the case would fall under the First or Second Part of S. 304 I.P.C.

For this purpose, we have to go to S. 299 I.P.C. which defines "culpable homicide" which consists "in the doing of an act -

a) with the intention of causing death, or

b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or

c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

The guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates the intended death of the person harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his death. The knowledge in the third condition contemplates knowledge of the likelihood of the death of the person.

The circumstances under which the incident took place in this case make it abundantly clear that the accused did not cause the injury with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as it likely to cause death.

But we can safely say that when the accused caused the injury with the pen knife on the abdomen of the deceased it was done with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death. Hence, the case would come under S. 304 Part II I.P.C.

We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge under S. 302 I.P.C. But instead we convict him under S. 304 Part II and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for four years.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Appeal partly allowed.