IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the degree of intention and knowledge, with the court finding the appellant guilty of culpable homicide under Section 304-II IPC.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2015 in S.C.No.86 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak, whereby, appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. According to the prosecution case, the deceased had two younger brothers, who are the appellant and another namely Mohd. Hussain. The deceased was working as bus driver in APSRTC and retired in the year 2002. He alone constructed the house in the Indira Colony, Medak and stayed along with PW.1/wife and PW2/daughter and another daughter namely Farhana. According to PWs.1 and 2, on the date of the incident in the evening the appellant quarreled with the deceased demanding share in the house and threatened to kill him. During the said quarrel, it is alleged that the appellant took out a long knife (Lamba Chaku)/MO.1 and stabbed the deceased on the left thigh. As a result of the injury that was caused with the knife, according to PW.8/Doctor, the death occurred due to cut of arteries. The injuries received by the deceased are 1) Deep cut stab injury present in left thigh, 2) Stab injury ¾ inch and 6 inch depth and width 1/4th inch, length ¾ inch, which present in posterial compartment of thigh which enter into deep structure and cut the following muscles and artery’s and i) Posterial compartment biceps fermories muscle ii) Femoral arteries, veins, and nerves and follow anterior compartment quadriceps muscles anteriority sartorious muscles anteriorly. Sharp weapon enter through posterior compartment of thigh and exit from the wound length 2/4 x ¼ inches width. Large columns of blood loss throw deep cut on femoral artery.

3. After the assault, PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police. Even before the deceased/injured was taken to the hospital, the deceased died in the verandah of the house.

4. Learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs.1 and 2, who are the eye witnesses to the incident found that there was deliberate intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, though a quarrel ensued between them, prior to attack by appellant. The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was falsely implicated though the appellant did not cause any injuries on the deceased. In fact, there is a discrepancy regarding the weapon that was used at the time of alleged assault. Initially, it was stated that it was a knife with tape on it, but knife produced in the Court is with a wooden handle. In the said circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove that the weapon with which the injury was caused is the same weapon seized during investigation. In the background of disputes between the appellant, false implication cannot be ruled out.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that PWs.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the incident. There is no reason why they would speak false against the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased. The factum of disputes between brothers regarding the property is not disputed. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which was not shaken in any manner in the cross examination, the conviction has to sustain.

7. PWs.1 and 2 have specifically stated regarding the manner in which the assault had taken place. The appellant assaulted the deceased with a long knife which was marked as MO.1, during evidence before Court. Admittedly, there were disputes regarding the property in between brothers i.e. appellant, deceased and another brother namely Mohd. Hussain. There is no reason why PWs.1 and 2 would involve the appellant, if third person had caused the injury. In fact, the defence that was taken by the appellant is that he was falsely imp