Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
C.Praveen Kumar, B.V.L.N.Chakravarthi, JJ.
Nellore Brahmaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2016
Decided On : 22-12-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - SCALING DOWN OF OFFENCE TO SECTION 304 PART-II IPC - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SINGLE BLOW WITH BLUNT OBJECT - NO INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL DOCTOR - INTERPRETATION OF INJURIES - CONSIDERATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE - MODIFICATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for hacking the deceased with an axe on the back and left side of the head, leading to instantaneous death. The incident occurred due to a dispute over the sale of 10 ankanams of land, which the deceased refused to part with. The appellant's defense was that he did not intend to cause death and that the single blow with the blunt portion of the axe was not sufficient to establish the intention to kill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offense. However, the court also considered the evidence of the medical doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, which showed that the injuries were caused by the blunt object of an axe, indicating that the appellant may not have intended to cause death. Additionally, the court noted that there was only one blow given and that the appellant and the deceased were brothers, suggesting a lack of premeditation.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the offense should be scaled down from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, considering the circumstances and evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hanuman Vs. State of Haryana, which held that inflicting a blow with the blunt side of an axe, in the absence of an intention to cause death, would not attract Clause I or III of Section 300 IPC. The court also considered the fact that there was no prior altercation between the appellant and the deceased, and that the appellant had used the blunt portion of the axe, indicating a lack of intention to kill.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and instead convicting the appellant for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The sentence was modified from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
JUDGMENT
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. - Heard Ms.Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel representing Sri H. Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
2. The present appeal came to be filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court in Sessions Case No.189 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, wherein the sole accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 'Life' and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
3. The substance of the charge against the accused, is that, on 30/10/2012 at about 8.30 a.m., at the house of P.W.10, Sangam Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, the accused hacked one Nellore Veeraiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') with an axe on the back and left side of the head, leading to instantaneous death.
4. The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:
(i) The accused and material prosecution witnesses are residents of Anasuyanagar village. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.4 had three sons, who are accused, deceased and L.W.7/Nellore Prasad. P.W.1 is wife, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are sons of the deceased. The deceased was the junior paternal uncle of P.W.5, while P.W.6 is the cousin of P.W.7.
(ii) It is said that P.W.4 has partitioned the property equally among his sons. The accused and L.W.7/Nellore Prasad sold their respective shares, but the deceased retained his share of property and was cultivating the same. About two months prior to the incident, accused and his wife went to the house of deceased and requested him to sell 10 ankanams of site, but the deceased refused to part with his share, as he was having three sons.
(iii) One day prior to the incident, accused again went to the house of deceased at about 6.00 p.m., and requested him to give 10 ankanams, but the deceased refused. Then, the accused threatened the deceased with consequences. It is said at that time P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.W.4/Nellore Laxmanudu were present in the house. (iv) On the fateful day i.e., on 30/10/2012 the deceased, P.W.1 to P.W.3 and L.W.4/Nellore Laxmanudu went to their agricultural field and after completing their work, returned to their house. It is said that at about 8.30 a.m., when the deceased was at the centre, accused came from behind, armed with an axe and beat the deceased with the said axe. On receiving the said injury, the deceased fell down. The incident was also witnessed by P.W.6 to P.W.8 and P.W.10. On hearing the cries of deceased, P.W.1 came to the spot. The villagers, who gathered there, questioned the accused, pursuant to which he fled away from the scene of offence with the axe.
(v) It is said that P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.4/Nellore Laxmanudu along with L.W.8/Nellore Narasaiah took the deceased in an auto and by the time they reached reservoir, 108 ambulance came and thereafter, the injured was shifted into 108 ambulance. The deceased was brought to the Government Hospital, Nellore, where he lost his last breathe at about 10.00 a.m.
(vi) The law was set into motion by P.W.1 by lodging a report with P.W.15. Ex.P.1 is the said report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.96 of 2012 of Sangam Police Station came to be registered on 30/10/2012. Ex.P.5 is the FIR. Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.18, who went to the scene of offence, situated at Sangam village and secured the presence of P.W.12, prepared scene observation report, which is placed on record as Ex.P.9. He also prepared a rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.10. He then examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.12 to P.W.16 and at the scene of offence conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.2. Ex.P.3 is
In cases where a single blow is inflicted with a blunt object, without an intention to cause death, the offense may be scaled down from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting....
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that sudden altercations without premeditated intent can lower the charge under IPC.
The court established that a single blow without intent to kill does not meet the threshold for murder under IPC Section 302, warranting a conviction for grievous hurt instead.
The judgment establishes the principle that the nature of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon, and absence of provocation indicate the intention to commit murder under Section 302 of the Indian P....
Instigation alone does not establish guilt for murder if the accused did not directly participate in the act leading to death.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
