Velpula Lachanna Lachaiah vs The State Of Ap,.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4863 Tel

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                       &
  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Santhosh Reddy)

      The sole accused in Sessions Case No.159 of 2013, on the

file of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at

Jagtial, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section

302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for six months, by judgment dated

20.09.2013.   Feeling aggrieved by the same, he has filed the

present criminal appeal.


2.    The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant

(hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') and the husband of the

de facto complainant viz., Parsa Gangaram (hereinafter referred to

as 'the deceased') belong to Ailapur Village of Korutla Mandal and

their agricultural lands are contiguous to each other. There were

boundary disputes for the last two years and the same was referred

to panchayat wherein it was settled by the elders. However, the
                                   2




relationship between them was strained. The deceased used to

abuse the accused in filthy language and used to comment him in

every aspect keeping the boundary dispute in mind. The accused

developed grudge and hatredness towards the deceased. The

deceased also started moving freely with the wife of the accused

and the accused developed a feeling that the accused may develop

illicit intimacy with his wife and decided to eliminate him. On

24.04.2012 at 11:30 a.m., the accused noticed that the deceased

was consuming toddy along with others at the toddy shed situate on

the outskirts of Ailapur. The accused attacked the deceased with

an axe and assaulted him over his head and on right ear from the

rear side. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. The accused

escaped on his bicycle. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, lodged a

report to police in ExP-1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Korutla

Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.111 of 2012 for the

offence under Section 302 IPC at 11:30 a.m., on 24.02.2000 and

submitted the FIRs to all the officers concerned. P.W.23, Inspector

of Police, Korutla Circle, took up investigation.
                                  3




3.    During the course of investigation, P.W.23 visited the

hospital and secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their

statements. He called the photographer P.W.19 to the hospital and

he took the photographs of the dead body under Exs.P-11 to P-13.

Later, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the

presence of P.W.18 and another under Ex.P-6 and in the presence

of mediators, collected the blood stained clothes of the deceased

and also collected M.O.1-axe which was found inserted on the

head of the deceased and seized the same. Subsequently, P.W.22,

the doctor, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead

body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-17-post-mortem report.

The investigating officer also visited the scene of offence and

prepared the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P-15 and

collected the blood stained earth and also prepared rough sketch.

On the next day, P.W.23 visited Ailapur village and secured the

presence of P.Ws.6 to 19 and recorded their statements.

4.    During the course of further investigation, the accused

himself surrendered before P.W.23 in the police station and later he

secured the presence of panch witnesses P.W.21 and another and in
                                  4




their presence, recorded the confessional statement of accused.

Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

He forwarded the material objects to the FSL for analysis and after

receipt of the reports and after completing the investigation, filed

charge sheet.

5.    The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not

guilty to the charge framed under Section 302 IPC and claimed to

be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 23, marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and produced M.Os.1 to 5.

On behalf of defence, no evidence was let in, but Exs.D-1 and D-2

were marked.

6.    On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,

the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as noted

hereinabove.


7.    We have heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant-accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that

P.Ws.3, 14, 15 and 17 turned hostile and that the evidence of other

prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 and 6 to 11 and 15 to 17,

who are alleged direct witnesses, does not inspire confidence, as

their evidence is not consistent and improbalises the medical

evidence. Further, P.W.22, who is the Medical Officer, who held

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, clearly stated in her

opinion Ex.P-17 that the death of the deceased was hypovolemic

shock due to head injury and the medical evidence does not support

the prosecution case. The learned counsel alternatively submits

that the even if the participation of accused in the commission of

offence is held proved, there was no intention on the part of the

accused to kill the deceased and he may be liable for conviction for

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I. Learned counsel

relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in GURDIP

SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB1.

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant-accused and

vehemently contended that the prosecution has successfully proved

the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence of

AIR 1987 SC 1151

eyewitnesses P.Ws.3 and 6 to 11 and P.Ws.15 and 17, who are

direct witnesses, and there is consistency in their evidence.

10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for

the parties with reference to the evidence on record.

11. The motive pleaded by the prosecution for the accused to do

away with the deceased was due to land disputes and the wife of

the accused was moving freely with the deceased.

12. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, who gave Ex.P-1 report

within 90 minutes of the occurrence. She deposed that on the day

of incident at about 11:30 a.m., P.W.12 informed her about hacking

of the deceased to death at the toddy shed (kallu manduva).

Immediately, she rushed to the place and found her husband i.e.,

the deceased who had fallen on the ground and found an axe fixed

on the upper portion of right ear. P.W.1 deposed that about two

years prior to the incident, disputes arose between the deceased

and the accused regarding boundary of their agricultural lands.

A panchayat was conducted in the village in that regard wherein

the elders, apart from P.Ws.13 and 14 and some others also advised

them to live amicably and asked them to fix boundaries of the

lands properly. In cross-examination, she further stated that in

the panchayat held in connection with re-fixing of boundary stones,

the elders imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- on them. It is quite evident

from the testimony of P.W.1 that there were agricultural boundary

disputes between the deceased and accused and in that regard,

panchayats were also held.

13. One of the panchayat elders P.W.13 in his evidence deposed

that the deceased and accused were having boundary disputes and

they advised them for measurement of their respective lands and on

such measurement, some land was found excess in the land of the

deceased; that as per the resolution, the deceased bore the expenses

and the elders have fixed the boundaries. After two years, the

accused informed the elders that the boundary stones were found

missing and again disputes took place between them and the

elders once again advised them and re-fixed the boundaries.

Subsequently after some days, the deceased got ploughed his

land through tractor and the ploughed earth material fell into the

land of the accused. Then the accused again complained the same

to the elders. In his cross-examination also, P.W.13 stated that the

deceased and accused were not in cordial terms in view of the

boundary disputes between them.

14. P.W.14 is another elder, who acted as panchayatdar,

also deposed about the panchaayts held between the accused

and the deceased. Though P.W.14 was treated hostile, he has

deposed that he acted as elder in the panchayat held between

the deceased and the accused regarding boundary disputes. P.W.14

corroborated the evidence of P.W.13 about the boundary disputes

between them and fixing of boundaries.

15. It is evident from the testimony of P.Ws.13 and 14 coupled

with the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused and deceased were

not in cordial terms and the deceased in spite of advise of the

panchayat elders and after fixing of boundaries had ploughed the

land with tractor and got removed the boundary stones. These facts

would go to show that the accused developed grudge on the

attitude of the deceased and determined to eliminate the deceased.

16. On a careful perusal of Ex.P-1 report, we find that P.W.1

also referred to the relevant background as to the relationship

between the accused and deceased in view of the boundary disputes

between their families. She also referred to the names of P.Ws.13

and 14 and two others who pacified the disputes in the panchayat

held and also advised them not to interfere with each other and

since the accused and deceased were not in talking terms, in our

opinion, these details are sufficient to come to conclusion that the

motive part, as alleged by the prosecution, has been established

through the cogent evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by the

evidence of P.W.13 and partly by P.W.14.

17. As regards the commission of offence by the accused, the

prosecution has let in the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to

11 and 15 to 17, out of whom P.Ws.15 and 17 turned hostile and

therefore, their evidence may not be relevant.

18. P.W.2 deposed that he knows the deceased and the accused.

On the day of incident, the deceased came to his house at about

09:30 a.m., on his two wheeler and both of them proceeded to

P.W.2's fields. On the way, P.W.6 met them and all of them

reached his fields and near to his fields, they went near toddy shed.

Then three of them went and ordered for toddy. P.W.10 served

toddy to him and the deceased and P.W.11 served toddy to P.W.6

and by the time they reached there, P.Ws.7 to 9 and one Baddam

Sai Redy were already there and all of them were consuming

toddy. The accused, who is a toddy tapper by profession, came

near to them and kept his toddy instruments and after cleaning his

face, came near to them and started supplying toddy which he

brought to the persons of Dharmaram village, who were present

there. They spent about half an hour consuming toddy and the

accused thereafter came from backside and inflicted injury with an

axe on the right side of the head of the deceased and due to that

injury, the brain matter came out. He again inflicted another injury

with an axe on the above right ear portion and as a result, the axe

was fixed in that place itself. Later, the accused went away from

the place on his bicycle. The deceased died on the spot. In cross-

examination, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. On the

other hand, there is consistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and

nothing was elicited worth mentioning to discredit his testimony.

19. P.Ws.6 to 11 & 16, who are the eye-witnesses to the

occurrence, deposed on the similar lines as that of P.W.2. It is the

evidence of the witnesses, they were all present at the toddy shed

and P.Ws.6 to 9 were consuming toddy. P.W.11 also supplied

toddy to P.Ws.6 and 9.

20. P.W.10 is a toddy tapper and he supplied toddy to P.Ws.2, 6

to 8 and the deceased at toddy shed. It is the evidence of all these

witnesses that the accused attacked the deceased with an axe and

inflicted injury on the above portion of right ear and inflicted

another blow and the axe was fixed in the head causing

instantaneous death of the deceased. The accused went away on

his bicycle. In fact, P.W.16 purchased toddy from accused and

while consuming toddy, he saw the incident. In cross-examination,

all these witnesses denied the suggestion that the accused was not

at the place of occurrence and he has not attacked the deceased and

they were deposing falsehood and except that, nothing which could

discredit the testimony of the witnesses could be elicited from their

evidence.

21. If we closely analyze the evidence of eye-witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.2, 3, 6 to 11 and 15 to 17, their evidence is consistent and we

do not find any material inconsistency in their evidence. In fact, all

the said eye-witnesses have narrated the entire incident

commencing from the time of serving toddy by the accused to

some of the witnesses, attack of the accused with an axe on

deceased, causing gruesome murder of the deceased and about their

presence at toddy shed at the time of incident.

22. P.W.22, who is the doctor who held autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate under

Ex.P-17, deposed that she found ante mortem injuries on the

dead body i.e., stab injury measuring 3 x 3 x 1 over the right ear

and fracture of right frontal parietal body of skull. The brain was

protruded from the skull. Those ante-mortem injuries were

appearing to be caused with a sharp object. The cause of death to

the best of my knowledge and belief was on account of

'hypovolemic shock'. Thus, the injuries found on the dead body of

the deceased with reference to the medical evidence support the

ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses that fatal injuries were

caused to deceased with the sharp object like M.O.1. The eye-

witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy and also

corroborated by the medical evidence about the weapon used in the

commission of offence leading to death of the deceased. From the

ocular evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 11 and 15 to 17, it is clear that

the accused armed with an axe M.O.1 inflicted two fatal blows on

the right side of the head above the ear causing instantaneous death

of the deceased. In our considered opinion, there is nothing to

discredit the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses which remain

unimpeachable, as nothing could be elicited from their cross-

examination. All the eye-witnesses are wholly independent

witnesses, who are not related in any manner to the deceased

and we have no reason to discredit the testimony of these

eye-witnesses. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of the

prosecution, we have no reason to interfere with the judgment of

the trial court.

23. With regard to the submission of learned counsel that the

accused did not have intention of killing the deceased, we are

unable to find any merit in the submission. The evidence on record

clearly shows that the accused attacked the deceased with

pre-meditation and the nature of injuries, which were caused by the

accused on the vital part, such as head and above the right ear,

clearly show that the accused had intention to kill the deceased.

Hence, this is not a case where we can convict the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The trial court,

in our opinion, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and its judgment is not liable for

interference.

24. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal appeal fails and

the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

25. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

______________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

23.09.2022 Lrkm