Judgment:
Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and one year respectively for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. All the sentences were, however directed to run concurrently.
2. The appellant was tried for rive charges viz., for causing the death of Vengappa by throwing a bomb at him punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for attempting to commit murder Kullayappa and P. Krishnaiah by throwing bombs and causing injuries punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Cods and for possession and use of explosive substances punishable under Sees. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. As the said Kullayappa died even prior to the trial, the accused was acquitted of that particular charge.
3. The facts of the case as deposed by P.W. 1 are as follows: Dasari Vengappa, hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased', P.W. 1 and one Kullayappa are the residents of Bonala village within the limits of Lingala police station. About one year prior to the date of offence, P.W. 1 cut the buffalo and sold the mutton to various people including the accused. But the accused did not pay its price and started postponing the same. About three days prior to the dale of offence i.e on 15-8-84, the accused cut a buffalo and P.W.I purchased mutton for Rs. 10/-. Instead of paying the amount, P.W. 1 requested the accused to adjust the amount which he owed to him earlier. But the accused insisted payment in cash. Consequently, there was ah altercation between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, both of them went away. On the same day in the evening while the accused was going, the deceased came opposite to him not to quarrel with P.W 1. Then the accused beat the deceased with a stick stating that who he was to tell him like that. Meanwhile P.W 6 came there and advised them not to quarrel and sent them away, In spite of that, the accused abused the deceased in vulgar language. On the morning of 15-8-1984 at about 6 or 6.30 a.m., the deceased, P.W. 1 Kullayappa went to the field of the deceased for removing the tharny bushes and wild growth in the field. When they were removing the same, P.W. 2 came there with a Goru and a pair of bulls to plough the land. They requested V.W.2 to plough the land and went to the village for food. While going to the village and when they reached the field of one Chinna Vengalareddy's Cheeni-garden which is at a distance of one furlong from Bonela, the accused who was near the boundary in the said garden of Vengala Reddy, hurled a bomb at the deceased. The deceased received injuries and fell down. The accused again threw a bomb by which Kullayya received injuries. The accused threw another bomb at P.W.I who also received injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Afterwards some people and relatives of the deceased and injured came to the spot and took all of them to the police station Lingala on a cot. P.W.13, Sub-Inspector of Police, Lingaia police station who was present in the police station, recorded the statement Ex. P-13 from the deceased and registered a Crime No. 18/84 under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sees. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and issued F.I.R. Ex. P-14. P.W. 13 informed the same to P.W. 15, Inspector of Police, Pulivendala who proceeded to the village and recorded the statements of P.Ws 1 and 3 and sent all the injured to the Hospital for treatment. P.W. 4 Dy. Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pulivendala examined the deceased and issued Ex. P. 2, wound certificate. He also examined Lingala Kullayya and P.W. 1 and issued Exs. P.3 and P.4 wound certificates. P.W. 14 sent a requisition to the Magistrate to record the statement of the deceased. P.W. 10, Munsif Magistrate, Pulivendla went to the hospital at 4.30 p.m and recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of the Doctor. It is Ex.P. 6. The Doctor, P.W. 4 also endorsed on Ex.P. 6 certifying that the patient is conscious. Thereafter the patient was sent to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah for treatment. The deceased who was admitted in the Hospital, died on 16-8-1984. P.W. 3, Duty Medical Officer sent intimation of death to the Sub-inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Cuddapah. P.W. 11, Head Constable, 1 Town Police station, Cuddapah received the intimation and registered the same as Crime No. 255/84 Under Section 174 Cr.P.C., went lo the hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P.11 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for the purpose of post-mortem examination. A copy of the F.I.R. was transferred to Lingala Police Station on point of jurisdiction. P.W. 5, Dy. Civil Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, conducted post-mortem examination on 16-8-1984 at 10 a.m. Ex. P.7 is the post-mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage from wound No. 1 and that the injuries could have been caused by explosion of bomb. P.W. 15, Inspector of Police later inspected the scene of offence and found some remnants of exploded bomb and a pair of chappals at the scene of offence. He seized the same under Ex.P. 9. He examined P.Ws 2, 6 and some others. He issued altered F.I.R. Ex.P. 7 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The remnants of the bomb which were seized by P.W. 15 were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and he issued Ex.P. 23 report. After completion of the investigation into the case, the charge sheet was filed.
4. The prosecution in all examined P.Ws. 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 23. When the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the offences. The court below after considering the entire material on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated supra, against which the present appeal was preferred.
5. The point for consideration is whether the accused is guilty of the 'charges with which he is convicted
6. P.W. 1 is the injured eye witness. He deposed that he is a native of Bonela village and live by cooli work. The deceased and the accused are also residents of the same village. About one month prior to the date of offence, he had cut a he-buffalo and the accused purchased mutton worth Rs. 10/- on credit. When he demanded payment, the accused went on postponing the same from time to time. About three days prior to the date of offence, the accused cut a he-buffalo. Then P.W. 1 purchased mutton worth Rs. 10/- from him. When the accused demanded payment of Rs. 10/-, P.W. 1 asked him to adjust the amount which he owed earlier to him. But the accused insisted on payment of Rs. 10/-in cash. In this connection, there was some altercation between the accused and P.W. 1. The accused went away threatening P.W. 1 with dire consequences. While the accused was going into the village, the deceased came and advised him not to quarrel with P.W. 1 unnecessarily. Then the accused beat the deceased with a stick on his left knee saying who he was to tell him like that. In the meanwhile, P W. 6 came there and advised the accused and the. deceased not to quarrel. Three days later, P.W. 1, Lingaia Kullayappa and the deceased went to the field of the deceased by about 6.30 a.m. for removing tharny bushes. At about 7.30 a.m., P.W. 2 also came along with Guru for ploughing the land. After he came to the field, they asked him to plough the field and proceeded to the village for taking food. While they were proceeding and when they reached the Cheeni-garden of China Vengal Reddy which is about one furlong from the village, Bonela and while they were proceeding along the Rasta, the accused who was in the border of the garden, hurled a bomb at the deceased from inside the garden which struck the deceased on his right side and exploded. The deceased sustained injuries on his right hand and fell down. Immediately the accused hurled another bomb at Kullayappa which hit on his left knee and exploded. The accused again hurled another bomb at P.W.I which struck his foot and exploded. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Some women happened to pass by that Rasta saw them and informed the villagers. Then the villagers and the relatives of the injured came with a bullock-cart and took all the injured to Lingula police station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 13 recorded a statement from the deceased (Ex. P-13). P.W. 13 seized M.Os 1 to 4. later P.W. 15 came and sent the injured to the Government Hospital Pulivendla for treatment. On the same evening, the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Cuddapah for better treatment. P.W. 1 was in-patient for about ten days in Pulivendla hospital. Kullayappa was treated as an in-patient for one month in the Government Hospital, Pulivendla. Later, Vengappa, the deceased died. This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. His evidence is cogent and consistent. It is suggested to him that there are factions in the village and he belongs to one faction and the accused belongs to another faction, which he denied. He is an independent witness. He has no connection or enmity with either of the parties. PW. 13. Sub-Inspector of police deposed that on the date of incident, at about 12 noon when he was in the police station, the deceased, P.W. 1 and Kullayappa came there with injuries on a D.B. cArt. He recorded Ex. P. 13 statement from the deceased, registered a crime and issued F.I.R. He stated that he seized M. Os 1 to 3 from the deceased and M.O. 4 from Kullayappa undercover of a Mahazar, Ex. P. 12 in the presence of P.W. 12. He also stated that he issued a requisition to the Medical Officer to send the deceased to the Government Hospital. According to his evidence, he recorded Ex. P. 13 statement from the deceased which is the first statement of the deceased and the same is a dying declaration. In Ex. P. 13 all the details now spoken to by P.W. 1 were mentioned by the decesed. Thus the evidence of P.W. 1 amply corroborates the dying declaration given by the deceased immediately within four hours from the time of occurrence. It must be noted that the incident happened at 8 or 8.30 a.m. and the statement, Ex. P. 13 was recorded by the Sub-Inspector at about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m on the same day. The police station is 8 kilometres away from the village. Thus Ex. P. 13 recorded by P.W. 13 is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in Ex.P. 6 recorded by the Magistrate. P.W. 10, the deceased only stated regarding the earlier incident and he has not stated as to what had happened on the date of incident and that therefore, it cannot be held that the accused is guilty of the offence. It must be noted that Ex. P. 13 was recorded at about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m, whereas Ex. P. 6 was recorded at about 4 or 4.30 p.m by which time the suffering of the deceased might have been increased and he was not in a position to state all the details. He only narrated the previous incident and stopped there. The learned counsel also contends that nothing is stated in Ex. P. 6 regarding the attack which resulted in the death of the deceased and that therefore, it cannot be stated as a dying declaration. Merely because, the deceased has not given full details, it cannot be said that Ex. P. 13 recorded by P.W. 13, basing on which a crime was registered and an F.I.R was issued, is inadmissible in law. Further Ex. P. 13 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1 who is an injured cye-wirtness. The evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the earlier incident and earlier quarrel between himself and the accused is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6 who is an independent witness. The fact that on the date of the incident the deceased, P.W. 1 and Kullayappa went to the field of the deceased for removing the wild growth, that then P.W. 2 came there when they were proceeding to the village to take food, is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2. Thus, the version of the deceased given in Ex. P. 13 is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1. Further, P.W. 4, the Doctor who examined the deceased and P.W. 1 and issued Exs. P.. 2 to P. 4 wound certificates opined that the injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused by explosion of bombs about 6 to 9 hours prior to his examination. Thus, the Doctor was of the opinion that the injuries could have been caused by explosion of a bomb. P.W. 15 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined in Ex. P. 7 postmortem certificate that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage from wound No. 1. He stated that the two glass-pieces which were seized at the scene of offence were handed over to the police. The police sent them to the Chemical Examiner. Ex. P. 20 is the Analyst's report wherein it was opined that the contents of Item No. 1 are remnan'.s of one or more exploded bombs which had contained an explosive mixture of chlorate of potassium and sulphide of arsenic before explosion and that such a bomb is capable of endangering life on explosion. Thus, the medical evidence coupled with the report of the Chemical Examiner's report amply corroborate the version of P.W. 1 and the dying declaration of the occeassed(sic) recorded by P.W. 13. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 15 and the observation report also lends issurance to the evidence of P.W. 1 and the dying declaration. Thus, the prosecution has emply establised the guilt of the accused. We, therefore, sec no merit in this appeal. The convication and the sentences of imprisonment inflicted on the accused by the learned Sessions Judge are accordingly confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.