The accused failed to prove unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence, and motive loses significance in cases based on direct evidence of eye-witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment, dated 27.10.2014, rendered in S.C. No. 56 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows.

3. The deceased by name Gajjala Apparao was an employee working in Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. On 11.07.2012 at about 08:30 a.m., he entered the premises of the said Steel Plant on his bicycle to attend his duties. At that time, the accused suddenly attacked him with an iron rod and beat him indiscriminately on his head and other parts of the body. P.W.2, who is an employee working in the Steel Plant, also entered the Steel Plant premises to attend his duties. He was behind the deceased and witnessed the accused attacking the deceased with iron road and beating him. When he tried to interfere to rescue the deceased the accused also attacked P.W.2. Immediately P.W.2 went and informed about the said incident to P.W.1, who is the Inspector of Police, C.I.S.F, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. Both of them together came running to the scene of offence. At that time, they found the deceased lying on the road with injuries. The accused, after seeing them, has thrown away the iron road and escaped from the scene of offence. Thereafter, the accused went and attacked another two persons with another iron rod in the Steel Plant. At that time, he was apprehended by the other employees of the Steel Plant along with the rod.

4. The deceased, who sustained injuries in the hands of the accused, was shifted to the Hospital for medical treatment. While undergoing medical treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries. Thereafter, on the report lodged by P.W.1 with the Steel Plant police, the police registered a case in Crime No. 144 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused. During the course of investigation, police seized M.O.1 – rod, which was used by the accused to attack the deceased in this case, in the presence of mediators. The police have also seized M.O.2 - rod, which was used by the accused in attacking the other two injured after attacking the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found multiple external and internal injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He opined that the deceased died on account of the head injuries that were caused with a blunt object. Accordingly, he has issued the postmortem report to that effect.

5. After the accused was arrested and when he was produced before the Magistrate for his remand, the Magistrate has directed to take the accused to the Hospital for treatment relating to his mental condition. Accordingly, he was admitted in Government Hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam, where treatment was given to him relating to the mental illness. The Doctors opined that the accused was suffering from mental ill-health and mild mental retardation and he was behaving violently.

6. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as the investigation revealed that the accused caused injuries to the deceased with an iron rod i.e., M.O.1 and thereby killed him.

7. After the case was committed by the committal Court to the Sessions Court, a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him. The same was read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to 8 documents and M.Os.1 to 3