Robba Ramanna Dora vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The sole accused in SC No.72/95 who was tried by III Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant herein and he was facing the charge punishable u/s 302 of IPC. On evidence the learned Judge found that the charge levelled against was proved and therefore he proceed to convict him and sentence him to suffer imprisonment for life. Hence, this is an appeal by the accused through jail.

Prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows:

That the accused and the deceased are related to each other. The deceased was the maternal uncle of the accused and also husband of the sister of the accused. There were property disputes between them. About four years prior to the incident the deceased had purchased two and a half acres of land from the accused family for consideration of Rs.24,000/- and since then the accused bore a grudge against the deceased.

It is further slated by the prosecution that on 11-11-1994 at about 5.00 p.m. while the accused along with PW1 and PW2 and others were returning home, the accused went to the sugar field of the deceased and cut four sugarcane stumps and distributed between PW1 and PW2 and himself. The deceased same out of the field and questioned the accused as to why he had cut the sugar cane stumps. There was exchange of hot words between the two. The accused alleged to have suddenly inflicted a cut injury on the neck of the deceased and four or five injuries were again caused on the face of the deceased. The incident in question was noticed by PWs.1 and 2. They had alleged to have accompanied the accused. They informed the members of the deceased about the incident. PW1 gave a report to the police station, thus on the strength of Ex.P1 given by PW1 the offence was registered against the accused. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 4-4-1995 MO.5, knife, was produced by the accused from his mother''s house and handed over the same to the Police.

In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution laid evidence of PWs.1 to PW7. They also filed certain documents and the documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 27 and the material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 8.

PWs.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses in this case. PW3 is the son of the deceased who was examined to prove the motive part of the accused in killing the deceased. PW4 is the Village Administrative Officer and PW5 is the Doctor who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, and PWs.6 and 7 are the Police Officers.

As stated earlier the criminal law was set on motion on the strength of Ex.Pl filed by PW1. In order to establish the fact that the deceased died homicidal death prosecution laid investigation of Presiding Officer and also of PW4 who was the Village Administrative Officer and who had acted as a panch witness to the scene of offence. The scene of offence is marked as Ex.P5. According to the evidence of PW4 that some incriminating articles MOs.3, 4 and MO.5 (chappals) stained with blood were attached by the Police in the panchanama.

It further appears from the order that the same witness has acted as the panch witness in the panchayat vide Ex.P6.

It further appears from the record that after the inquest panchanama was over the body was handed over to the Medical Officer at Chodavaram on 12-11-1994. He conducted the autopsy on the dead body on the same day commencing from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. and found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased:

(1) An incised injury present over upper part of the left ear to be Obliquely present 3 x 1/2 c.m. cartilage depth. Edges clean cut and separated. Taping towards medical side.

(2) An incised injury present over left side of the face. Obliquely present starting from front of upper part of the left ear upto 3 c.m. lateral to the left angle of the mouth about 121/2, c.m., muscle depth, tapering seen towards the lower part of the injury. Blood clots seen around the injury.

(3) An abrasion present over the right cheek, obliquely present about 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. in size, reddish brown in colour.

(4) An incised injury present over right side of the chin 1 c.m. lateral to the centre of chin. Obliquely present about 5 x 1/2 c.m., bone depth. Tapering seen towards the lower part of the injury. Fracture of underlying mandible seen blood clots present in and around the injury.

(5) An incised injury present I c.m. above and parallel to the lower border of right mandible starting 3 c.m. below the right ear lobule and extended downwards and medially upto 5 c.m. lateral to the centre of chin obliquely present about 9 c.m. x 2 c.m. bone depth, tapering seen towards the medial side of the injury i.e., towards the chin, blood clots present in and around the injury.

(6) An incised injury present over the middle of the right side of the neck obliquely present about 6 x 2 c.ms. bone depth, blood clots seen around the injury. Tapering seen towards medial side. On dissecting the injury. Hematoma present in all the surrounding tissues and muscler. All the right side superficial and deep neck muscles were seen cut. Right carotid artery, internal jugular vein and vagus nerve were seen cut.

On internal examination he found the following internal injuries on the person of the deceased. According to the opinion of the Doctor the deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage to injury to the neck with his neck vessels-caotid cartiery jugular vein. The deceased died within 24 hours of the postmortem examination. Ex.P9 is the medical certificate.

Considering the evidence laid by the prosecution on the point of death, we hold that the prosecution proved that the deceased died on the said date. Now, the question arises whether the version of PWs.1 and 2 can be believed into.

As stated earlier that PW1 was related to the accused as well as the deceased. He was working as a coolie in cutting the palm tree. He along with the accused and two others had gone to do coolie work. When they were returning home they came near the field of the deceased. The accused alleged to have cut some sugarcane stumps from the field of the deceased and it was distributed among themselves. The act of the accused of distributing the sugarcane was not liked by the deceased since prior to the incident the relations between them were already strained on the ground that the deceased had purchased 2.5 acres of land from the family of the accused for a meagre amount.

It is further stated by the prosecution that when the accused was questioned by the deceased regarding his misbehaviour and also for destruction of the crop the accused felt offended and therefore he made the attack on the neck of the deceased by hitting with a knife. The accused caused as many as four injuries on the neck and the face of the deceased.

It further appears from the evidence of PW1 that immediately after the occurrence he went to the police station and reached there at 9.00 p.m. The police station is at a distance of 9 k.m., from the place of offence and he presented Ex.P1, the report. On the strength of Ex.P1 the offence came to be registered against the accused and investigation machinery was set in motion.

Thus, we find that evidence of PW1 corroborates Ex.P1.

PW2 also claims to be an eye witness to the incident. He had also gone along with the accused for cutting palm trees and on their return he admitted to have eat the sugarcane which was secured by the accused and all of them eat the sugarcane. All of a sudden deceased appeared the scene of offence and called the explanation from the accused/ appellant. The act of calling explanation by the deceased was not liked by the accused/ appellant and therefore he made murderous attack with the knife on the neck and caused three to four injuries.

The evidence of PW2 also corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material aspect. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses to the incident, on the back ground that PW1 was vigilant in filing the report with the Police.

Now, the question arises for our consideration as to what offence is disclosed looking into the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted at the bar that looking to the nature of injuries and also looking to the meagre motive suggested by the prosecution it cannot be said that the accused intended to kill the deceased, but we are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel. The motive suggested by the prosecution may be very meagre even if the motive would not have been suggested by the prosecution their case would not have been damaged. It is well settled principle of criminal law that motive on the part of the accused is not relevant but we have to find out whether the accused had intention to kill the deceased. In the present case as stated earlier though the evidence was meagre evidence of both the witnesses inspires confidence and therefore we feel that it is an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, and therefore we proceed to pass the following order:

The criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellant.