Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 662
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, R.M.BAPAT
Dudekula Khabala Saheb alias Khabala - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-11-95
Voluntary intoxication does not absolve the offender from the consequences of his violent attack, and the absence of intention to cause death does not exonerate the accused from a charge under Section 302 IPC if the bodily injury inflicted was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 304 PART-I IPC - VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION - INTENTION TO KILL - CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER - FATAL INJURIES - SECTION 300 IPC - SECTION 209 IPC - AIMLESS HURLING OF STONE - DOUBT REGARDING INTENTION TO CAUSE FATAL INJURY - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 304 PART-I IPC UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, the deceased's younger brother, was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC for causing the deceased's death while they were both intoxicated. The prosecution appealed against the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC, arguing that the injuries inflicted were more than one and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and that the injuries inflicted were not intended to cause death. However, the court held that the accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and had knowledge that he was likely, by such an act, to cause death. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had the intention to kill the deceased. 2. Whether the injuries inflicted were intended to cause death. 3. Whether the accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 4. Whether the accused had knowledge that he was likely, by such an act, to cause death.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Voluntary intoxication by itself does not absolve the offender against the consequences of his violent attack nor does it have the effect of making him liable for a lesser offence. 2. The mere absence of intention to cause the death by itself is not conclusive to exonerate the accused of a charge under Section 302 IPC. 3. An intention to cause the bodily injury that was inflicted and such injury being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, brings the offence under culpable homicide amounting to murder. 4. Section 304 Parts-I and II read with Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted when the accused had the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and had knowledge that he was likely, by such an act, to cause death.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code.
( 1 ) THE accused who is the wife s younger brother of the deceased used to assist him in digging burial pits since about six months prior to the date of offence and they were sharing the collections. As per the version in Ex. P-1, on 8-3-1989, the accused engaged himself in vending ice-cream and in his absence, the deceased dug a burial pit and appropriated the amount received exclusively without sharing with the accused. On the evening of 9-3-1989, the appellant and the deceased proceeded to the toddy shop of P. W. 6 and consumed toddy. Not being satisfied with it, they went to another nearby shop of P. W. 7 and consumed arrack at about 7-00 p. m. After the drink, the accused demanded his share of collections received on 8-3-1989 for which the deceased refused. There was heated exchange of words between the accused and the deceased. Thereupon, P. W. 7 asked them to get away from the shop. Shortly thereafter, P. W. 2, a relation of the deceased and his wife saw the accused holding late Imam Saheb by placing a towel around the neck near M. G. Brothers lorry office and further saw him holding and twisting the hand of Imam Saheb. They also noticed the accused abusing the deceased. When P. W. 2 questioned the accused, he informed him that the deceased evaded to pay his share of the collections made on 8-3-1989. He further asked P. W. 2 to mind his own business. Thereafter, P. W. 2 and his wife suspecting, that the accused might harm the deceased, went in a rickshaw to the house of the deceased and informed his wife Fathima about the incident. Immediately the wife and son of the deceased (P. W. 1) rushed to the lorry office and came to know through Talari Lakshmanna (P. W. 3) that the appellant dragged away Imam Saheb placing a towel around his neck towards the burial ground. On that, the wife and son of the deceased rushed to the burial ground and there, they saw the accused dragging Imam Saheb on the ground with a towel around his neck near the Mandapam of the burial ground and hitting him with a stone on the back of the neck and on the head. The head of the deceased broke and he died immediately on the spot. The accused went away in a drunken mood abusing the deceased. According to the complaint-Ex. P-1 given by the wife of the deceased, the incident took place at 8-00 p. m. and it was witnessed by her and her son (P. W. 1 ). The wife of the deceased went to the police station at 10-00 p. m. and reported the matter. The Sub-Inspector of No. 1 Town Police Station (P. W. 11) recorded the statement which is marked as Ex. P-1 and registered the crime under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He issued express F. I. Rs. to all concerned. Ex. P-9 is the F. I. R. P. W. 11 rushed to the scene of offence. At that juncture, the Inspector of Police (P. W. 13) who received the FIR at 11-15 p. m. proceeded to the scene and took over investigation. He examined the wife of the deceased and P. W. 1 and recorded their statements. On the morning of 10-3-1989, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He recorded the statements of P. W. 2, the wife of the deceased and P. W. 6 during inquest. P. W. 9 and others acted as inquest panchas. He seized M. Os. 1 to 4 from the crime spot. M. O. 1 is the stone slab with which the accused is alleged to have hit the deceased. According to P. W. 13, the blood stains on the stone slab got washed off on account of rain on the evening of 10-3-1989. A towel was also seized during the inquest but it was not produced before the court. Ex. P-7 is the inquest report. P. W. 13 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W. 5 conducted the autopsy on the dead body on 10-3-1989. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-4. P. W. 13 arrested the accused at 7-00 p. m. on 11-3-1989 at his house and sent him for remand. The chemical analysis report is marked as Ex. P. 14. P. W. 14 who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Anantapur I-Town Police Station filed the charge-sheet on 22-5-1989 by w
