BANGARU VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation as recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Srikalulam.

(2.) Background facts as projected by the prosecution to fasten guilt on the Appellant are as follows : Accused had suspected the fidelity of his wife Polamma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) towards him, for about one week prior to the offence. On 24-8-2000 at 2.00 p.m. the accused with an intention to kill her, stabbed on the left side of her abdomen with a knife. On hearing her cries, the neighbours Damyanthi, Appamma, Shanthi (PW-3) the daughter of the accused Ankamma and others rushed there and found the accused holding a knife and on seeing them, he left the house. Polamma informed them that the accused had stabbed her. She was immediately shifted to the hospital at Palakonda. There, the Medical officer gave treatment and the Sub Inspec tor of Police recorded her statement and registered the Crime No.55/2000 under section 307 IPC. Polamma was shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam and there she died at 6.00 P.M. while undergoing treatment. On information, the section of law was altered to 302 IPC. The accused was arrested on 25-8-2000 at 4.00 P.M. at the RIC bus complex and in pursuance of his confessional statement, the Inspector of Police recovered the weapon of offence i.e. the knife. A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused and it was read over and explained to him in Telugu. When he was questioned under section 228(2) of Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) regarding the said charge, the accused stated that his wife harassed him in several ways and that on 24th August at 2.00 P.M. his wife sent away the children after 4.30 P.M. after providing lunch to them and that when he was lying on the cot his wife went out and came back 10 or 15 minutes later and tried to stab him and that he snatched the said knife and stabbed her and that he had rushed to the police station and informed the same to the police and the police did not take it seriously, as he went to the police station earlier on that day at about 8.00 A.M. and his wife took him away characterizing him to be mentally unsound and the police did not take his representation seriously. In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 who is a neighbour stated that at the time of occurrence she was in her home and on hearing cries of the deceased, she rushed to the house of the accused and found doors of the house closed. At that time Santhi (PW-3) daughter of the accused, Palakonda Appamma (PW-2) and one Akula Shankari also came there. All of them knocked the door. Then accused opened the door. They found the accused with a knife in his hand which was stained with blood. They found the deceased on the cot lying and holding her hand on a bleeding injury on the abdomen. When they asked her about the incident, the deceased told that the accused was suspecting her charac ter for some days and had stabbed her after exchanging of hot words between them. They took her to the hospital in a cycle rickshaw and she was admitted. The accused was found guilty and convicted as noted above. In appeal, it was stated that the accused had committed the offence in private defence and therefore he could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC. In the ulti mate it was submitted that only one blow was given and there was no intention to kill the deceased. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid stands and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) In Supplort of the appeal, Mr. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned amicus curiae has submitted that even if it is accepted that the appellant was not exercising the right of private defence, the conviction under Section 302 is not proper. It is further submit ted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that there was sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased and single blow was given and, therefore, the conviction under Section 302 is not proper.