CRLA/2284/2004 of Nakka Venkanna Vs State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutro on 30 December 2011

JUDGMENT:

The appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.3 were convictedby the lower Court under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC andwere sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six years andwere also convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and weresentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years and fineof Rs.100/- each. Questioning the same, A.1 and A.3 filedthis appeal. Even though A.2 was also convicted andsentenced similarly, A.2 did not join the appellants in thisappeal.

2. A.1 and A.2 are sons of A.3’s brother. The deceasedChinna Ramulu and PW.1 are brothers. They are alsosons of A.3’s another brother. All of them were doingcoolie work. They are natives of Ragampeta village ofMulakapalli Mandal of East Godavari District and all ofthem went to Khammam District for doing coolie work. Alleging that the deceased and PW.1 collected Rs.300/- towards wages representing all of them, A.1 to A.3attacked the deceased and PW.1 with stone and stick andcaused instantaneous death of the deceased and beatPW.1 and caused injuries to him. Plea of A.1 and A.3 isone of total denial and not guilty.

3. PW.1 who is the informant of the offence to the policeand who also received injuries in the same transaction, isthe most competent witness to speak to the offence. Heis equally related to the deceased as well as theaccused. It is his evidence that in October 1998, all ofthem attended funeral of Eerla Peddulu who is their co-worker and that after the funeral, the accused, thedeceased and himself consumed liquor in the house ofPeddulu at Mukamamidi village and that since A.1 wasstaggering in highly intoxicated condition, the deceasedSubba Rao took A.1 to canal and dipped head of A.1 inwater to reduce intoxication and that A.1 abused thedeceased in filthy language for dipping his head in waterand picked up quarrel with the deceased and that thedeceased slapped A.1 and that thereupon, A.2 picked upa stone and beat the deceased on his head while saying that three days back they wanted to kill him when theyrefused to distribute Rs.300/- taken from the contractorand that A.1 picked up a bamboo stick available therefrom fencing of a field and beat the deceased neartemporal region and that A.3 caught hold of PW.1. PW.1further says that A.2 beat him with the same stone on hishead and caused bleeding injury and A.1 beat him withthe same stick on left upper arm. PW.1 says that thedeceased died on the spot and that due to fear theaccused may kill him also he wriggled out of the clutchesof the accused and ran away and went into house ofSunnam Mallappa who is a person belonging to Koyacaste and that Mallappa’s daughter PW.3 hided him undera gunny bag and that when A.1 to A.3 came running tothat house and enquired her, she informed them that heran away towards hillock side. It is his evidence thatabout three days prior to the incident, he brought Rs.300/-from the Contractor, Adapa Nageswara Rao and that theaccused bore grudge against his brother as they did notdistribute the said amount of Rs.300/-. He identified M.O.1as the stone and M.O.2 as the bamboo stick with which

A.2 and A.1 dealt blows to the deceased and himself. Ex.P.1 is report given by PW.1 to the police. Version ofPW.1 contained in Ex.P.1 is consistent with his evidencein the lower Court.4. PW.2 is father of the deceased and PW.1. Aftergetting information about death of the deceased, he alongwith others went to the scene and saw the dead body ofthe deceased. PW.3 says that scene of the offence is at adistance of about 60 to 70 yards from her house and thatthe scene is visible from her house. She says that sheand her brother saw five persons beating each other atabout 4:00 P.M. near cashew-nut garden on road sideand that one person held the deceased and one personbeat him with stone and another person beat him withstick and that the deceased fell down and that when PW.1went to rescue of the deceased, the accused beat PW.1also. She identifies the accused who beat the deceased. But, she stated that she cannot specify which of theaccused beat the deceased and which of the accusedcaught hold of the deceased since she saw the incidentfrom a distance. PW.3 also speaks about PW.1 running to her house and she hiding PW.1 and when the accusedcame and enquired about PW.1, she informing themabout PW.1 running away towards hillock side. PW.4 alsosaw the incident from a distance of 100 yards. Though hecould not say which accused beat the deceased andwhich accused caught hold of the deceased, PW.4 gavehappening of the offence in general terms. PW.4 wasgetting his cattle grazed. He says that A.1 to A.3 anddeceased and PW.1 came from Mukamamidi side andwere proceeding towards Jagannadhapuram and that A.1was staggering in intoxicated condition and that thedeceased dipped A.1’s head to reduce intoxication andthat quarrel arose between them and that one of theaccused held the deceased firmly and one of the accusedbeat the deceased with a stone and one of the accusedbeat the deceased with stick and that when PW.1 tried tointervene, the accused beat him also and he ran towardsGuttagudem village and that the deceased died on thespot and the accused chased PW.1 to some distance. There is no cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4 worthmentioning. PW.5 met PW.1 after the incident and narrated the incident to PW.5. On advice of PW.5, PW.1went to the police station and gave report.5. PW.8 is the Deputy Civil Surgeon, GovernmentHospital, Paloncha, who examined PW.1 and gave Ex.P.8wound certificate opining that PW.1 was having twosimple injuries. PW.8 also conducted post-mortemexamination on dead body of the deceased and gaveEx.P.9 – post-mortem report. He opined that thedeceased might have died due to shock and heamorragedue to fracture of skull. PW.1 attributed overt acts to A.1as well as A.2 against head of the deceased. Therefore,A.1 cannot escape liability under Section 304 Part II IPCalong with A.2. But for catching of the deceased by A.3,A.1 and A.2 could not have dealt with blows on thedeceased. Therefore, the lower Court rightly came to theconclusion that A.3 is also liable as he had commonintention along with A.1 and A.2 and he facilitated A.1 andA.2 to inflict blows on the deceased. After hitting thedeceased to death, the accused pounced on PW.1. Butfor his timely running away from the scene, the accusedwould have done him to death. It is PW.3 who saved PW.1 by hiding him or otherwise A.1 to A.3 would havedealt blows to PW.1 also severely. Their intention is clearfrom the fact of A.1 to A.3 chasing PW.1 to a distance. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case andevidence on record, the lower Court rightly came to theconclusion in favour of the prosecution insofar as A.1 andA.3 are concerned for the offences under Section 304Part II/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC. There are nocircumstances to come to a different conclusion in thisappeal.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,JDt. 30[th] December, 2011.PNV