The court relied on medical evidence and established that the appellant's act of pouring acid resulted in injuries sufficient to cause death, leading to the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

ORDER

1. 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 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 RI for life and fine of Rs 2000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, the appellant-accused 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 to the sugarcane fields belonging to the deceased. For that purpose a criminal case was filed by the deceased against the accused, which ended in acquittal. It is also stated that she and the deceased and one other person caused burn injuries to the deceased (sic accused) with "atlakada" (spoon used for preparing "dhosa"). It is her further say that because of this incident the accused came to their house at about 3.00 a.m., on the intervening night of 20-6-1993/21-6-1993, 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 20-7-1993.

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 the 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 PW 1 when they were sleeping in their house at nighttime. 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 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% bum injuries and that the cause of the death was due to septicaemia. He has also referred to the examination of PW 15, Dr. K. Mahipal Reddi, who has stated in the cross-examination that a septicaemia will be definitely caused if proper treatment is not given. It is, therefore, contended that the cause of the death is not because of the bum injuries but because of the septicaemia.

4. In our view, this submission is not tenable as because of the bum injuries by throwing of the acid on the deceased, who was sleeping, septicaemia was caused and he died. PW 15 (doctor) has made it clear that t even in the cases of proper treatment also there is possibility of septicaemia. For this purpose, the High Court has rightly referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhil. In the said case, the Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, by considering the fact that there were 35% bum injuries by pouring of acid which according to the doctor's evidence was due to toxaemia and septicaemia 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