Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B. Venkata Prasad vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 September, 2022

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2015

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

1) Heard Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing

for the Appellants and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, through

BlueJeans video conferencing APP.

2) Accused No. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2013 on

the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam, are the Appellants herein. Originally the

accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section

302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.']. By its

Judgment, dated 23.07.2014, the learned Sessions Judge

convicted both the accused under the said count and

sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and

to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months.

3) The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that,

on 19.11.2012 at the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu,

both the accused caused the death of one Dongabanti

Satyanarayana ['Deceased'] by beating him with a stick on

his head and also pressing his neck with pressure, which lead

to his death on the intervening night of 19th / 20th November,

2012, at 2.00 a.m.

4) The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, are as under :

i. The deceased is the husband of PW1 and Nephew of

PW2. All the material prosecution witnesses are

residents of Godugurayi Village and are eking out their

livelihood by doing cultivation. A1 and A2 are also

residents of Godugurayi Village. A1 was working as

Vidya Volunteer in Kuneti School of the same village.

ii. While things stood thus, on the fateful day, the

deceased went to the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu

on coming to know that the Works Inspector was at his

house to collect installment amounts for allotment of

Government Houses under Indiramma Pathakam. When

the deceased and PW1 reached the house of said

Vanjari Appala Naidu, A1 and A2 were also present at

his house. At that time, the deceased questioned A1 as

to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by

the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy quarrel ensued

between them. Then A1 is said to have attacked the

deceased with a stick and beat him on the head while

A2 is said to have pressed the neck of the deceased.

Seeing the incident, PW3 intervened and tried to

separate them, but could not do so. However, after the

attack, he separated them and took the deceased to his

house. The deceased is said to have complained of pain

and burning sensation due to head injury. But,

however, he was not taken to hospital, instead they tied

a wet cloth around the head of the deceased in order to

prevent burning sensation. Since, there were no medical

facilities available, the deceased was not taken to

hospital and, as such, at about 2.00 A.M., on the

intervening night of 19/20-11-2012 the injured died in

the house. Thereafter, PW1 is said to have gone to the

police station and lodged a report before PW8, who on

receipt of instructions from the Inspector of Police,

registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2012 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. of G-

Madugula Police Station. Further investigation, in this

case, was taken up by PW9 - Inspector of Police.

iii. It is said that, on receipt of a copy of First Information

Report from PW8, he along with PW8 and PW4 reached

the scene of offence and noticed the dead body in the

house. He took photographs of the body with his camera

and thereafter proceeded to the scene of offence. At the

house of the deceased, he conducted inquest over the

dead body. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. After completing

the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for post-

mortem examination.

iv. PW7 - the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health

Centre, Paderu, conducted autopsy over the dead body

of the deceased and issued Ex.P16 - post-mortem

certificate. The Doctor noticed two contusions and one

fracture to thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone on the body

of the deceased. He also noticed dislocation of the

cervical vertebrae C5 and C6 present and fracture at the

vertex region. The Doctor opined that, injury Nos. 1, 2

and 5 are possible with M.O.1 - stick, while injury Nos.3

and 4 are possible if pressure is applied. According to

him, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory

arrest secondary to haemorrhagic shock due to multiple

injuries.

v. PW9, who continued with the investigation, prepared a

rough sketch, which was marked as Ex.P18 and,

thereafter, on 23.11.2012, he arrested A2. On

19.02.2013, he arrested A1 in the presence of PW6 and

his confession statement was reduced into writing. The

relevant portion is marked as Ex.P14. Pursuant to

Ex.P14, they proceeded to the house of A1, from where

they claim to have discovered M.O.1 - stick. After

completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be

filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 4 of 2013 on

the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu.

5) On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents

as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and

since the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the same was

committed to the Court of sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

On appearance of the accused, charges, as referred to above,

came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, besides marking M.O.1.

After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but,

however, no defence evidence was adduced.

7) Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who were

examined as eye witness to the incident, which gets

corroboration from the medical evidence, the learned Sessions

Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the

present appeal came to be filed.

8) Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the

Appellants would submit that there is any amount of doubt

as to whether really PW1 and PW2 have witnessed the

incident. He further submits that the evidence of the doctor

[PW7] does not corroborate the oral evidence. In other words,

his argument appears to be that when pressure is applied on

the neck with hands, the possibility of dislocation of C5 and

C6 vertebra or a fracture to vertex is highly impossible.

According to him, the incident must have occurred in

different circumstance and only with a view to implicate the

accused this false case is foisted against the accused.

9) Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that when the

evidence of PW1 and PW3 inspires confidence, which gets

corroboration from the evidence of the medical evidence, there

is no reason to disbelieve the same and, as such, the

conviction and sentence imposed on accused requires no

interference.

10) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.?

11) In order to appreciate the rival stand, it would be just

and proper to refer to the evidence of PW1 to PW3.

12) PW1 is none other than the wife of the deceased, who in

her evidence deposed that, on one day at about 4.00 p.m. in

the evening, herself and deceased went to the house of one

Vanjari Appala Naidu, on coming to know that the Works

Inspector has come to his house to collect installment

amounts for allotment of Government Houses under

Indiramma Pathakam. When she along with the deceased

reached the said house, A1 and A2 were present by then. At

that time, the deceased questioned A1 as to why he is

distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his

own people. Then A1 is said to have attacked the deceased

with a stick and beat him on the head while A2 pressed the

neck of the deceased with hands, as a result of which, the

deceased fell down unconsciously. When PW1 raised cries,

PW3 and PW6 separated the accused from the deceased.

Thereafter, LW5 [Bonji Naidu] sprinkled water on the

injured/deceased, who in turn gained conscious and drank

water. Thereafter the injured was taken to his house. Though,

he complained of pain, no effort was made to shift him to the

hospital. On the other hand, a wet cloth was tied around the

neck of the deceased. On the intervening night at about

2.00 a.m., the deceased is said to have succumbed to the

injuries. Thereafter, the law was set into motion.

13) In the cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that

immediately after the incident, the deceased took a glass of

water and, thereafter, talked with PW1. Both of them i.e.,

PW1 and deceased reached their house on foot and the

distance they covered was about half a kilometer. PW1 in his

cross-examination also admits that they reached PW1's house

within one hour from the scene of offence. On that day, the

deceased also had food and, thereafter, went to sleep, though,

complained of pain. It was further elicited in the cross-

examination of PW1 that A1 is an educated person, working

as Teacher in a school and that he used to hold a stick

whenever he used to go for agricultural fields for cultivation.

All other suggestions given to PW1 were denied.

14) PW2 is not an eye witness to the incident. He came to

know about the same when information about the incident

was furnished to him.

15) PW3 was examined as an eye witness to the incident.

His evidence toes in line with the evidence of PW1 in all

material aspects, but, one circumstance which he deposed in

the evidence-in-chief is that prior to the attack, there was a

wordy altercation between A1 and the deceased. On seeing

the same, he intervened and separate them, but, in the

meanwhile, A1 attacked the deceased and beat him with

M.O.1 and A2 holding the neck of the deceased. Thereafter,

he claims to have separated and took the deceased to his

house. He also speaks about the deceased being not taken to

the hospital and that the deceased dying in the house at

about 4.00 A.M.

16) The evidence of other witness may not be of much

relevance except the evidence of the Doctor [PW7], which we

will deal a little later.

17) From the above, it is clear that, there was no prior

enmity between the accused and deceased, at any point of

time and only on the date of incident, they went to the house

of one Vanjari Appala Naidu [not examined], in whose house

the deceased questioned A1 alone as to why he is distributing

mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A

wordy altercation took place and A1 is said to have attacked

the deceased with the stick on his head.

18) At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would contend that, there is no reason for A1 to carry stick

unless he has intention to cause an injury. But, the evidence

adduced by the prosecution itself would show that A1 was in

the habit of carrying stick though he was working as a

Teacher in a School and whenever he goes out for agricultural

operations. Under those circumstances, it can be said that

there is nothing unusual in A1 having a stick with him.

19) From the above, it stands establish that there was no

enmity or ill-will between the Accused and the deceased and

because of a wordy quarrel, that took place at that time, A1 is

said to have beat on head, while A2 pressed the neck of the

deceased.

20) At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would contend that having regard to the nature of injuries

sustained on the body, definitely, it has to be inferred that the

accused had an intention to cause the death. It would be

appropriate to refer to the injuries, on the body of the

deceased, as spoken by Doctor [PW7], which are as under:

"1. Contusion injury of size 6 x 4 cm present at the left front parietal region. On opening the scalp skin, severe hemorrhage present and fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones present.

2. Contusion injury of size 5 x 22 cm present at the right parietal region. On opening the scalp skin hemorrhage present and fracture of the right parietal bone also present.

3. Fracture of thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone also present.

4. Dislocation of the cervical vertebrae C5 and C6 also present.

5. Fracture at the Vertex region also present."

21) It is well established law that it is the quality and not

the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence.

Evidence has to be weighed not counted, as is held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Shaji v. State of Kerala1.

"22. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time- honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on the value provided by

2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 153 SC

each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is thus, the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence, as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act."

22) Taking into consideration the manner in which the

incident in question took place and in the absence of any ill-

will, motive or prior enmity between the accused and the

deceased, we are of the view that the conviction of the

Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 has to be scaled down to one

under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Hence, the conviction under

Section 302 IPC is set-aside and the Appellants/Accused No.1

and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section

304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since the

Appellants/Accused No. 1 and 2 are on bail in pursuance of

the Order, dated 01.10.2019, passed by this Court in I.A.