Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, JJ.
Komara Gandhi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2019
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ammaji Nettem, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent: S. Dushyanth Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Point of Law: It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Benthem, 'witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice'.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Part-II of Section 304 - Offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Fishing harbor - Conviction - Challenged - Intention – Whether Proved - Deceased and accused along with few other workers were employed under owner of boat (PW.7) there were differences between accused and deceased to such an extent that deceased was even planning to leave present employment and to look out for other suitable employment; that on fateful day accused came to house of deceased and both of them went for work wife of deceased was informed that her husband received a stab injury and died while he was being taken to KGH in an auto rickshaw - Incident happened after a spat between deceased and accused relating to fish - It is clear that accused has dealt only a single blow on chest that injured the heart, causing the death - The accused not only had knowledge that this action is likely to cause death but he also had intention to cause death when he had given a single blow with a knife directly on chest that pierced into heart. (Para 28)
Finding of the Court: Accused has dealt only a single blow on chest that injured heart, causing death previous animosity is also deposed by PW.2, who is wife of deceased. PW.1 spoke about spat between the accused and deceased as eye witness from the stone throw distance - It is clear from ocular evidence read with FSL Report in Exhibit P.9 that stab injury that caused death is single blow with knife that injured heart - Court finds that case of accused cannot be considered for convicting him under Section 304 Part-II and sentencing him with imprisonment under said provision - Accused not only had knowledge that this action is likely to cause death but he also had intention to cause death when he had given a single blow with a knife directly on chest that pierced into heart.
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
The present criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2016 in S.C.No.155 of 2012 passed by the learned 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. Murder took place between 4.15 p.m and 4.30 p.m on 18.07.2012 at Jetty Nos.9 and 10, fishing harbor, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the deceased is one Kesam Seethayya (hereafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The case of the prosecution is that the sole accused had stabbed the deceased with a knife after he had a spat with the deceased.
3. The story of the prosecution, in short, is as follows:
That the deceased and accused along with few other workers were employed under the owner of the boat by name Mylapalli Masenu (PW.7). That, there were differences between the accused and the deceased to such an extent that the deceased was even planning to leave the present employment and to look out for other suitable employment; that on the fateful day, the accused came to the house of the deceased and both of them went for work at about 1.00 p.m. That, at about 4.30 p.m, the wife of the deceased Kesam Ammoru was informed that her husband received a stab injury and died while he was being taken to KGH in an auto rickshaw.
4. PW.1, Barri Konda is the eye witness. PW.1 was working as watchman of the boat owned by PW.7 in the fishing harbor as on the date of the alleged incident. He deposed that prior to the incident he worked as cook in the boat owned by PW.7. He deposed that he knows the deceased and the accused and that the offence took place on 18.07.2012 after 4.30 p.m. That, the incident happened after a spat between the deceased and the accused relating to the fish. The accused fled away and the driver of the boat Laxmana (PW.3) and Appanna (PW.4) lifted the deceased and put him in an auto rickshaw to take him the hospital. He also deposed that he was later informed that the deceased succumbed due to stab injury enroute to KGH. In the cross examination, the said witness stated that he is an illiterate and he had not met either the police or the defacto complainant before coming to the Court hall. He further stated that he straight away came to the Court.
5. As could be seen from the deposition of PW.1, it appears that defence could not elicit anything to its advantage nor was able to throw doubt about the evidentiary value of the witness by pointing out any animosity or predilection against the accused nor any overbearing relationship between him and the deceased. The said witness had stated that he had witnessed the entire incident from a stone throw distance including the spat and the subsequent aggressive action of the accused including stabbing.
6. While the prosecution examined 13 witness on its behalf out of 22 listed witness, it had produced Exhibits P.1 to P.9 along with one material object (M.O.1) namely knife.
7. PW.2, Kesam Ammoru, wife of the deceased deposed to the effect that there was a dispute and altercation between the accused and her husband (the deceased) relating to fish and that her husband expressed his intention not to attend to work on the boat. She also deposed that at her request, her husband went out for work along with the accused at about 1.00 p.m on the fateful day. She had also deposed about her source of information and the death of her husband through Karri Lakshmana (PW.3). She deposed that upon such information, she had reported to the police and lodged the report. She had confirmed that the said report bears her thumb impression, indicative of the fact that she is also an illiterate. In the cross examination, she had stated that her husband returned home after being on the boat fishing for three days before the incident. She further stated in the cross examination that the accused never visited her home except on the date of incident and that the accused came to the house on the date of the incident in a friendly manner. She further deposed that she had followed PW.
