A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. The sole-accused in S.C. No. 5/2003 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Trac Court), Ongole prepared this appeal against the judgment of the said Court dated 26-7-2005 convicting him for the offences under Sections 302, 324 and 506, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302, IPC; and simple imprisonment of six months, each, for the offences under Sections 324 and 506, IPC respectively.
2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 10-9-2002 at about 3-30 p.m. near Ramalayam in Rajupalem village, he caused the death of one Kasula Kotrswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by stabbing him with knile. During the course of same transaction, he caused hurt to P.Ws. 2 and 3 and further threatened P.Ws. 1, 4 to 7 with dire consequences.
3. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that the accused, the deceased and the material witnesses are the resident of Rajupalem village. P.Ws. 1 and 4 are nephews, P.W. 5 is the brother, P.W. 6 is the wife and P.W. 7 is the sister-in-law of the de-ceased. The deceased and P.Ws. l's family owned a joint shopping complex at Thripuranthakam. One room was given on lease to P.W. 8, who was running a cycle shop there. On 9-9-2002, P.W. 1 and the deceased went to that shop and saw the accused and P.W. 8 altercating with regard to delivery of a cycle. When the deceased intervened and advised the accused to send Kamisetty Satyanarayana, L.W. 12 (not examined) and take the cycle through him saying that he (L.W. 12) gave cycle for repair. On that the accused grew wild and warned the deceased. On 10-9-2002 at about 3 p.m. while P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 were chit-chatting, they saw the accused abusing the deceased standing in front of his house. When the deceased came out of his house, the accused caught hold of the hand of the deceased and pulled him towards Ramalayam temple, which is at a distance of 25 to 30 feet. Then he took out a knife from his navel portion and stabbed him on his right flank. Then the deceased raised shrill cry and fell down. When P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 tried to intervene, they were threatened. In the meanwhile, P.Ws. 2 and 3 reached there. When P.W. 2 tried to take out the knife from the hands of the accused, he received a bleeding injury on this right palm. When P.W. 3 tried to catch hold of the accused, he pushed him, as a result of which, he sustained a head injury. When P.Ws. 6 and 7 came out of their house, the accused fled away from the scene by threatening them to stab, if they come to him. While the deceased was being shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Then, P.W. 1 lodged a report covered under Ex. P.1 with the police. P.W. 17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thripuranthakam police station registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 51/2002 and issued FIR covered under Ex. P. 18. Subsequent investigation was taken over by P.W. 19, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report and held inquest over the dead body. After conducting inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. On 11-9-2002 P.W. 14, the Medical Officer, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate covered under Ex. P-9 opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage. On the same day, P.W. 15, another Medical Officer, examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and issued wound certificates covered under Exs. P-10 and 11 respectively. P.W. 19 arrested the accused on 24-9-2002 and at his instance; one knife covered under M.O. 1 was recovered under a cover of panchanama, Ex. P. 22. He sent all the material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory. On receipt of relevant reports and on completion of investigation, P.W. 19 laid the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sees. 323, 324, 506 and 302, IPC.
4. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.
5. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the accused, examined as many as 19 witnesses and got exhibited 24 documents, apart from M.Os. 1 to 3. The defence did not examine any witness nor exhibited any documents.
6. Learned Sessions Judge after scanning the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and reliable and basing upon their testimonies, while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 323, IPC for causing hurt to Chadalavada Sundaraiah, P.W. 3, convicted and sentenced him for the offences, as aforesaid.
7. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that no doubt, P.W. 1 is an eye-witness, P.W. 2 is an injured eye-witness but another injured eye-witness P.W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Since P.Ws. 3, 12 and 13 did not support the prosecution versions, confession made by the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. He also contended that even if the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the paternal uncle of P.W. 1, is reliable, as the independent witness, P.W. 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, in such circumstances, it is unsafe to base the conviction only on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He lastly urged that there was no intention to kill the deceased and the evidence also discloses that the accused scolded the deceased, for 15 minutes with regard to the payment of repairing charges for a cycle, and in connection with payment of repairing charges, earlier to the present alleged incident also there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased, and in a fit of rage, he inflicted a single injury without there being any intention to kill the deceased; therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, but be can be convicted for a lesser offence. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court.
1. Bhera v. State of Rajasthan 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230.
2. Rajinder v. State of Haryana : 2006CriLJ2926 .
8. Sri H. Prahlad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State while sustaining the judgment under appeal argued that the accused went: to the deceased by premeditated or a pre-arranged plan by carrying knife and pulled the deceased from his house to Ramalayam temple, which is at a distance of 25 to 30 feet and inflicted an injury, which is sufficient to cause death, therefore, entire attending circumstances must be taken into account for the purpose of finding out the nature of the actual offence committed by placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 476.
9. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is ; whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentences imposed on him are liable to be set-aside or modified ?
10. P.W. 1 in his testimony, firstly stated about the previous incident that occurred prior to the present alleged incident : The accused was asked by Gudipati Rama Rao L.W. 11 for return of the cycle who replied that the said cycle will be given for repairs by Kamisetty Satyanarayana L.W, 12 and specifically stated that the cycle will be given after payment of repairing charges, and consequently, there was an altercation between the accused and L.W. 11. Then the deceased intervened and advised him to send L.W. 12 and take the cycle through him. Then the accused got angry and warned to teach a lesson to him. With regard to the present incident, P.W. 1 deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 10-9-2002, at about 3 p.m. the accused came to the house of the deceased, where the deceased and P.W. l's families were residing under one roof, and started abusing the deceased loudly, by standing in front of his house. On hearing the abuses, the deceased got down from the first floor of the house and P.Ws. 6 and 7 also came out of their house. Then the accused caught hold of the deceased by saying 'what you told yesterday and now I will see your end' and forcibly pulled him to Ramalayam, which is at a distance of 25 to 30 feet from their house. When the deceased asked the accused to discuss the issue next day, the accused stabbed the deceased on the right flank. Then the deceased raised a shrill cry and fell down. When they tried to save the deceased, he threatened to stab them also. In the meanwhile, P.W. 2 who was present at the spot attempted to remove the knife from the hands of the accused and in that process, he received an injury on his right palm. Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 to discredit his evidence. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that the accused abused the deceased referring the incident occurred on the previous day, and about 15 minutes the accused scolded the deceased. The neighbours did not gather while the accused was scolding the deceased, but the deceased did not scold the accused. There was no exchange of heated words from the side of the deceased.
11. P.W. 2 is an independent witness. He deposed that on hearing cries from the house of the deceased, he went and found the accused was scolding the deceased and the deceased was asking him to go away and in the scuffle both the deceased and the accused moved towards Ramalayam and then he went to his house when his mother called. Again when the deceased raised cries, he went to Ramalayan and attempted to remove the knife, but the accused forcibly pulled the knife and in that process, he sustained a pleading injury to his right hand fingers. He found the deceased fell down on the ground and observed an injury on the flank of the deceased. A towel was tied to that injury. P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 shifted the injured to Thripuranthakam and 45 minutes later, he came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries at the outskirts on the way to hospital. P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and 7 who were present at the time of occurrence witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 3 reached the spot after the injured deceased was shifted to Thripuranthakam. At that stage, he was declared hostile. In the cross-examination by APP, he admitted that he stated before the police that L.W. 3 was present when he attempted to remove the knife from the accused, and P.W. 3 also attempted to caught hold of the accused with his both hands and the accused pushed him, due to which, he sustained an injury by falling on the ground. In the cross-examination by the accused, he stated that when he returned to Ramalayam after answering his mother's call, the accused and the deceased were found quarrelling, and he caught the blade portion of the knife when the accused attempted to stab again and he received an injury thereby. Nothing favourable was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 2.
12. P.W. 3 in his evidence stated that a knife was in the hands of the accused and he removed the said knife from the hands of the accused and then the father of the accused gave a blow with a stone against the accused and he also received an injury due to that stone and at that stage he was declared hostile.
13. P.W. 15, is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured persons i.e. P.Ws. 2 and 3 and issued wound certificates covered under Exs. P-10 and P-l1.
14. P.Ws. 4 and 5 also spoke about the accused going to the house of the deceased; calling him; questioning the accused as to why he was scolding him (deceased) and wordy quarrelling in between them, inflicting injuries on the deceased and receiving injuries by P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the hands of the accused.
15. The ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 14, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries and issued the post-mortem certificate covered under Ex. P-9 opining that the injuries are sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and the deceased died of external injury No. 1 and other internal injuries.
1. Abdomen distended.
2. An oval shape clear cut edged incised injury present on the upper abdomen 2 to 3 cms below epigastric region.
3. Omentem protruded from the incised wound.
4. Bleeding coming from the injury site.
5. No other external injuries have been observed other than No. 2 by externally.
16. From the above evidence, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of stab injury caused by the accused. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 506, IPC needs no interference.
17. We next consider the submission of the learned Senior counsel that appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC as he had no intention to kill the deceased and inflicted only one stab injury.
18. Before considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, we lightly touch upon the cases on which the reliance is placed.
19. In Bhera (supra), the facts are that the accused was originally acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal, the High Court set-aside the acquittal order passed by the trial Court and convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. On further appeal the Supreme Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the accused and the deceased had some quarrel in the house of Bhana and on the road while they quarrelled with each other; suddenly the accused brought out the knife and gave the blow which stuck the chest of the deceased held that it is difficult to hold that the accused gave the blow with the requisite intention of causing murder of the deceased and accordingly set-aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC and instead convicted him for the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC.
20. In Rajinder : 2006CriLJ2926 (supra), the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the same was confirmed by the High Court in appeal. On further appeal by the accused, conviction was altered from Section 302, IPC to Section 302, Part II, IPC after considering the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab : 1958CriLJ818 . The facts in the above case are that appellant-accused met P.W. 8 and the deceased when they were going to irrigate their fields and declared that the deceased had given information to the police regarding the poppy husk and Prithi Raj had taken on lease the land of his brother and they shall have to pay price for the same. P.W. 8 pacified the accused and he left the village. Then later at about 9-15 p.m. P.W. 8 and the deceased were going through their fields looking after the water course. P.W. 8 had a torch with him and when they reached on the culvert by the side of the village near the road leading to village Pirthala and the deceased was walking ahead of P.W. 8, the appellant was spotted in the torch light coming from the village side. He was armed with his gun. He enquired from P.W. 8 and the deceased as to who they were. When P.W. 8 disclosed his own identity and the identify of Subhash, the accused raised a 'lalkara' saying that he will teach a lesson to them for giving secret information to the police and for taking the land on lease. He then fired a shot at the deceased with his gun, which hit on his right thigh and deceased fell down on the ground. While he was shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The Doctor opined that the injury was dangerous to life, its duration was fresh and it was caused by a fire-arm. In those circumstances, section of law was altered. While altering the conviction under Section 302, IPC into Section 304, Part II, IPC, the Supreme Court observed thus:
These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classicus. The test laid down by Virsa Singh case (supra) for the applicability of clause 'thirdly' is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300, IPC, culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death viz. that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted.
Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh case (supra) even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder, Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.
21. The evidence let in by the prosecution, as referred to above, clearly discloses that on the previous day to the incident, the accused challenged the deceased to teach him a lesson and on the date of the incident, the accused went to the house of the deceased and started abusing loudly by standing in front of his house. When the deceased got down from the first floor, he caught hold of the deceased and pulled him towards Ramalayam. When the deceased asked the accused to discuss the matter, next day, the accused removed a knife from his navel portion and stabbed the deceased on his right flank. When P.Ws. 2 and 3 intervened, he inflicted injuries to them also. From the same, it is clear that the accused went in preparation by keeping a knife in his navel portion and challenged the deceased to come out from his house. What he said on the previous day of the incident that he will see his end for his conduct, which clearly goes to show that there was an intention to cause bodily injury. In fact, he inflicted only one stab injury with an intention for causing a bodily injury and the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as per the evidence of Doctor, P.W. 14. Therefore, the case clearly falls under Illustration 'c' appended to Section 300, IPC, and the presence of first element of clause thirdly' of Section 300, IPC had been cogently and convincingly established. P.W. 14, the Doctor, opined that the injuries as mentioned in Ex. P-9, post-mortem certificate, are sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and the deceased died of external injury No. 1 and other internal injuries. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the offence committed by the accused was murder, notwithstanding that the intention of the accused to cause death has not been shown beyond doubt.
22. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the trial Court, on analyzing the entire evidence, oral or documentary on record, has rightly concluded that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 302 and 506, IPC. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
23. In the result the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all respects.