IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.

JUDGMENT :

P.SAM KOSHY, J.

The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the appellant/accused No.1 assailing the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Asifabad (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) in S.C.No.169 of 2016.

2. Heard Mr. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the appellant hereinguilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Upon convicting the appellant, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- along with default stipulation.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there was a love affair between Srikanth (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Juvenile in conflict with law who is the daughter of accused No.2. The relationship was allegedly not approved by accused No.1, who is the brother-in-law of accused No.2and the uncle of the Juvenile. This disapproval festered into a grudge against the deceased and eventually leading to a premediated conspiracy to murder him.

5. According to the prosecution's case, on the night of 20.06.2015, the juvenile in conflict with law invited the deceased to her house as part of their devised plan. Upon his arrival at the house of accused No. 2, the accused No.2 had called accused No. 1 to her house. This subsequently led to a heated quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased. During the altercation, accused No.1 attacked the deceased with an axe by striking him on the head. The blow rendered the deceased unconscious and on hearing the hue and cries from the scene of occurrence, the neighbors noticed the incident. At that juncture PW.6 (patrolling police) came to the site of incident and shifted the injured deceased to the Government Hospital, Asifabad for treatment with the intention that he was alive and struggling with his life, but he eventually died due to injuries.

6. Subsequently, after the incident, PW.4 (Lunare Suresh) who is the neighbor of the appellant went to the deceased’s mother PW.1 (Karu Suguna) and informed about the incident.She visited the hospital where she found her son dead and then rushed to the scene of offence. Subsequently PW.1 lodged a complaint in the Asifabad police station and the police authorities in turn registered Crime No.85 of 2015 and took cognizance of an offence under Section 302 of IPC.

7. On 22.06.2015, at 8:00 A.M, PW.10 (Gurrala Shashank) the TRS party town president brought accused Nos.1 and 2and the juvenile in conflict with law and made them surrender before Inspector of Police, Asifabad. Meanwhile, P.W.12 (Medical Officer) held autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that deceased died due to cardio pulmonary arrest due to fracture of skull and laceration of the brain.

8. In the course of trail, the prosecution examined asmuchas thirteen (13) witnesses; however, there was no evidence on the part of the defence. Subsequently, on recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment of conviction was passed with the sentence of life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.100/-.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment contended that the findings of the Trail Court are pervasive and in contravention to the evidence on record. The trial Court strongly relied on the statements of PWs.2 to 4 who claimed to have witnessed the attack on the deceased and was able to provide first hand evidence of the incident. Despite some contradictions in their testimonies, the Trial Court found their evidence to be consistent and credible enough to be accepted. Their testimonies provided the necessary details about the incident, which helped the Trial Court understand the sequence of events and the role of the a