IMPORTANT POINT
Unintentional homicide is not murder.

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/A1 and A2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2011 in S.C.No.188 of 2008 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad convicting A1 and A2 for the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

2a) The prosecution case is that on 22.05.2007 at about 11 PM, when PW2 and LW3 went to fetch water from the bore well situated in front of house of accused in the open place of Dwakra Mahila Sangham in Rajaramnagar Colony, Armoor, A1 – Syed Areef abused them in filthy language and thrown them on the ground. On hearing the quarrel, PW1 and deceased – Chaika Gangadhar went to the bore well and all the accused abused them in filthy language and suddenly A1 went into the house and brought a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left chest while A2 and 2 JCLs. (Juvenile in Conflict with Law) held the deceased and thereafter, the accused persons hit the deceased person to the CC road and when PW1 went in rescue of the deceased, A1 stabbed him on his right hand with an intent to kill him but PW1 escaped. PW1 lodged Ex.P1 – complaint with the SI of Police, Armoor PS (PW10) at about 11.50 PM and he registered in FIR No.160 of 2007 under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 and other two JCLs and sent the Express FIR to all concerned.

b) While so, the further case of the prosecution is that PW11 – CI of Police, Bheemgal in-charge of Armoor took up investigation and during investigation he rushed to the Government Hospital, Armoor and secured the presence of PW5 and LW10 – T.Kamalakar and in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW5 and LW10 and got prepared Ex.P3 – inquest report and later sent the dead body to autopsy. PW8 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Armoor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report – Ex.P7 opining that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of grievous stab injury. On 23.05.2007, PW11 rushed to Perkit village and apprehended A1, A2, JCL-3 – Sibat Ali @ Mohammed Imran and JCL-4 – Sujjath Ali @ Mohammed Safdar and interrogated them in the presence of PWs.6 and 9 and the accused confessed the offence produced MO1 – knife which was used in the commission of offence and the same was seized under the cover of panchanama and later the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On completion of investigation PW12 laid charge sheet.

c) On appearance, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2. d) During trial, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and MOs.1 to 9 were exhibited on behalf of prosecution. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of accused but they have not examined any witnesses.

3 a) The trial Court having regard to the evidence on record held that prosecution failed to prove its case for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly acquitted them but convicted them for the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced as stated supra.

Hence, the appeal by the appellants/A1 and A2.

4. Heard arguments of Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Deepika Gadde, learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State (TG).

5. Learned Senior Counsel, fulminated the judgment of trial Court on the main argument that no offence as alleged by the prosecution took place on the night of 22.05.2007 at the bore well in front of the house of accused but on the other hand the deceased who was an active member of RSS was killed somewhere in a communal violence and the police in order to see that no communal riots erupted on account of his death created a false story and implicated the accused