BHYKYA NARAIA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused, who murdered his own son, had filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 22-01-1996 made in S.C.No. 379/1993 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, in convicting him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that: the accused is the resident of Patha Thanda h/o Narayanapuram. He is living with his youngest son. On 07-07-1992 evening on the occasion of "Datudu" festival in their village he brought a goat and cut and shared the meat among the family members. In that connection his son (deceased) asked his father (accused) to given one such share to his farm servant but the accused refused for the same and in that connection the accused picked up a quarrel with his son and due to intervention of others it was stopped. Again in the same day evening at about 8.00 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with his son with regard to distribution of the meat goat and there was a verbal exchange of the scolding and the accused stabbed his own son on the left part of the chest in front of the house by saying that he would kill him. In order to avert further stabbings from his father, the deceased caught hold of the hand of the accused, in that process the deceased received knife injuries on his little finger of the left hand. At that time, wife of the deceased and some others were present. Immediately the deceased - Bhukya Swamy was shifted to the Mahabubabad Police Station in a bullock cart. The Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P-8. Based on the said statement, FIR (Ex.P-10) is registered. Thereafter, the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Mahabubabad. The duty doctor expressed his inability to treat the deceased and on his advice, the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal. The deceased died while undergoing treatment. After the death of the deceased, the section was altered to 302 IPC from 307 IPC. Inquest was held over the dead body and the doctor made autopsy over the dead body. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The plea of the accused was one of total denial. After the trial of the case, the learned Sessions Judge held that the accused is guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for a period of 7 years.

(3.) P.W. 1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased i.e, the brother of the wife of the deceased. He deposed that immediately on receipt of the information about the stab injuries received by the deceased he rushed to the place of the deceased and he accompanied the deceased while he was being shifted to Mahabubabad Government Hospital. He stated that the deceased narrated the entire incident to the Police at Mahabubabad Police Station and he stated that while giving his statement before the police, the deceased was in a conscious state and that the police obtained his signature on the statement. He spoke about shifting of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Mahabubabad and from Mahabubabad to Warangal by train. While they were travelling on the train, on enquiry by P.W. 1, the deceased told him that his father (accused) stabbed him on that day and on that day his father was in his house. In the cross- examination, he stated that the deceased was living with the accused. He stated that the deceased was unconscious while travelling by the train but again he stated that when he was being taken to the doctor at Mahabubabad, he was talking and he was not unconscious. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that on receipt of information about the injuries received by the deceased, he rushed to his house and found the deceased lying and he was alive and he was having a stab injury on the left side of his chest. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the date of the incident there was a festival called 'Datudu' and a goat was slaughtered and the meat goat was distributed among the family members and he received a portion of the meat only during the process of the distribution, there was an altercation between the deceased and the accused and he was present at that time. He advised them not to quarrel for the meat and after that the deceased and the accused went away from that place. On the same day evening he received the information that the deceased had received injuries.