Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh  INSC 239 (3 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Leave granted.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 18.10.1995
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No. 32/95.
appellant-accused, according to the prosecution, is the uncle of accused No.2.
They were residents of Velleturu Village of Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh.
One V. Nageswara Rao alias Naguru, (hereinafter called the
"deceased"), was a resident of Sattupalli in Khammam District. PW-9
is the widow of the deceased. PW-1 is the native of Veeramallu village in Khammam
District. It is the prosecution case that all of them are 'Yerukala' by caste.
deceased and PW-6 used to commit thefts and they were ex-convicts. A-1 along
with the deceased, also used to commit the offences. While the investigation
247 in Crime No. 110 of 1991, for an offence under Section 395, was in
progress, PW-16, the sub-Inspector of Police had sent for PW-1 through the
deceased and two constable. At about 11 a.m. on January 17,
1992, they reached Bhimavarppadu
village and went into a Hotel at Junction. While P-Ws, 6 and 10 stayed back,
the deceased went to the house of PW-1. The deceased informed PW-1 1 the told
him that he could not walk because he was having pain in the legs. The
proceeded towards the coffee hotel at the Junction. It is the prosecution case
that when PW-1, the deceased and PW-3, who joined them on the way reached the Bhimvarappadu
junction, the appellant and A-2 came on two cycles from behind and cought hold
of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that A-1 came near
the deceased put a towel around the neck of the deceased and pulled him. It is
also said to have been uttered by the appellant that the deceased should be
done to death on that date. Thereafter, A-2 caught hold of the deceased after
twisting his hands towards back.
A-1, the appellant took out a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased.
According to the evidence of PW-15, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, the
deceased had three injuries of which Injury No.3 is "an eliptical oblique
injury of 2-1/2"x1" penetrating through chest wall tapering towards
lower and exposing cut muscles and cut ribs 2" medical to left nipple. Clotted
blood present. Sharp edge weapon. Internal Injuries: On opening the skin over
the chest wall 7th and 8th ribs completely cut and 6th rib partially found cut
just lateral to left margin of sternum corresponding to external injury of
1-1/2" through and through present over the right verticle. Pericardium is
found torn. Extravasation of blood into surrounding Lissues in respect of all
the injuries mentioned noticed. All the injuries are ante-mortem." As per
the evidence of PW-15, the injury to the heart was caused with a sharp object
and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature
which would come under clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The question,
therefore, is: whether the offence is one of murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder? Ms. K. Sharda Devi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, contends that the appellant was not in know whether the deceased
would be coming there as in informer to the police; the deceased had several
enemies and that they were in search of him. As a consequence, it was not known
that he would meet the deceased and in consequence, he had not intention to
kill the deceased. we cannot appreciate the argument of the learned counsel.
Notice is confined only to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant
and, therefore, we have to proceed on the basis of the evidence on record as
accepted by the courts below and then to consider whether the facts bring out
the offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C.
light of the aforestated facts and in view of the nature of injury inflicted
upon the deceased, it is axiomatic that when the appellant had inflicted injury
by piercing sharp edged weapon into the heart of the deceased as consequence of
which the deceased died instantly, the necessary inference would be that he
inflicted the injury with intention to do away with the deceased. In the light
of the PW-15, doctor's evidence and material prosecution evidence spoken to by
the witnesses and the words of "doing away with the deceased" as
uttered before the commission of the crime, the offence is clearly one of the
we do not think that the High Court has committed any error in confirming the conviction
of the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
appeal is accordingly dismissed.