Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, JJ.
Harijana Katthi Krishna, S/o.Thernekanti Madanna - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.773 OF 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. V. Mythili, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor

Point of Law: cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.

Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 299, 300, 302, 304, 304-Part II - Culpable homicide – Murder - Punishment for murder - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Appellant submitted that witnesses, both in FIR as well as their statements, took a stand that incident occurred in house of PW-5; whereas in deposition, PW-5 has not only become hostile but in cross-examination has stated that said incident did not take place in his house - Learned counsel drew attention of Court to rough sketch made by Investigating Officer with regard to place of occurrence, in which also there is no indication of any material much less blood being found in house of PW-5, and rather there was blood on road outside house of PW-5 and on other side of road, so-called weapon/stick and bloodstained soil have been recovered.
Finding of the Court:
Having regard to scope of Section 304-Part II of IPC, we find that conduct of appellant, from evidence led by prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill deceased - Rather, on spur of moment, by one blow to head of deceased, that too with a 2 feet wooden stick lying around, does not lead us to believe that there was intention to kill deceased - In our considered opinion, act committed by appellant would, no doubt, call for conviction, however, under Section 304-Part II of IPC, and not under Section 302 - Court upholds conviction of appellant for action of causing deceased’s death but modifies such conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304- Part II of IPC - Court are also persuaded, in interest of justice, to modify sentence of appellant to period already undergone - Bail bonds, if any, executed by appellant shall stand cancelled and he shall be set at liberty - Jail authorities are directed to release appellant forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result: Criminal Appeal disposed of.

JUDGEMENT :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

We have heard Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, learned senior counsel along with Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the appellant, and; Mr. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement dated 16.04.2015 rendered in Sessions Case No.393 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-4VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), by which the appellant, having been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution came to be instituted on the basis of the First Information Report, lodged by the Station House Officer, Krishnagiri Police Station, on the basis of the statement recorded by Harijana Kathi Amrose (PW-1), relating to the death of his father viz. Harijana Kathi Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), in which the appellant was made the sole accused. As per the prosecution’s story, on the fateful day, the appellant, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, along with the deceased and the brother-in-law of the deceased went to the house of Kuruva Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandrudu (PW-5) for giving application to get drought relief cheques and at about 09.00 AM, in his house, the appellant is alleged to have shouted at the deceased in Telugu:

4. The aforesaid extract loosely translates in English to read:

“What man, how many times I should tell you that you are taking away the drought relief cheques that belong to the father without giving it to me.”

5. Having said so, it is alleged that he hit the deceased on the left side of the head with a 2 feet pattudu stick, which was available on the spot. It has further been alleged that due to the said blow, the deceased fell on the ground and PW-1, Harijana Devakanta Rangadu @ Ranganna (PW-2) and Harijana Kesavaiah (PW-3) as also PW-5, Nerakanti Ediga Giddaiah (PW-6) and Kuruva Bullineni Nadipi Rangadu (PW-7) witnessed the incident. It is stated that PW-1 rushed to the road to get a vehicle to shift the deceased, i.e. his father, to the hospital and was able to secure the jeep belonging to Kuruva Mahesh (PW-4). Thereafter, deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Dhone, and the doctor informed that the father of the informant had succumbed to the injuries sustained.

6. The trial resulted in the appellant’s conviction and sentencing as stated supra, against which this appeal has been preferred.

7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses, both in the FIR as well as their statements, took a stand that the incident occurred in the house of PW-5; whereas in deposition, PW-5 has not only become hostile but in the cross-examination has stated that the said incident did not take place in his house. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the rough sketch made by the Investigating Officer with regard to the place of occurrence, in which also there is no indication of any material much less blood being found in the house of PW-5, and rather there was blood on the road outside the house of PW-5 and on the other side of the road, the so-called weapon/stick and bloodstained soil have been recovered. Learned senior counsel submitted that when there are two versions with regard to place of occurrence, the benefit should go to the accused. For such proposition, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buta Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1991 AIR SCW 1022, the relevant portion being at Paragraph No. 9, which reads as under:

“9. From the above state of evidence, it appears that the