KOPPULA DASARATHA RAMAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The accused has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been fined Rs. 100/-, in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and he was tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents.

(3.) The facts which gave rise to filing of charge-sheet against the accused were that the accused and the deceased belonged to the same village. The deceased was one of the village elders. Prior to the occurrence P. W. 2 had stated that she had lost two hens and she suspected the accused and another of having stolen the two hens and made a feast at the house of P. W. 8. She complained to the elders and a panchayat was held on 8-9-1997 at 9.00 p.m. P.W. 8 was also summoned to attend the panchayat as it was alleged that in her house the stolen hens were cooked. She did not come to the panchayat up to 11.00 p.m. Therefore, the panchatdars decided to postpone the panchayat to next day. The accused who was waiting there objected to the postponement of the panchayat and insisted that the panchayat should be held immediately. There was some altercation between him and the deceased and other panchayatdars as well. The accused took a knife and stabbed the deceased on his neck who had died on the spot. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the events given by them. P.Ws. 3 to 5 turned hostile to the prosecution. But the injuries mentioned by P.Ws. 1 and 2 are reflected in the medical evidence of P.W. 14 as well. Therefore, we do not find any reason not to come to a conclusion that the death of the deceased was not caused by the accused, but we do not find any evidence to show that there was any premeditation or any intention of the accused to kill the deceased. The deceased was one of the panchayatdars and the accused was also accused of having stolen hens. There was no animosity between the accused and the deceased and in the first instance the accused only wanted immediate decision with regard to the allegation of theft levelled against him and he resisted postponement of the panchayat on that issue. Therefore, we think that it was not proper for the trial court to convict the accused under Section 302 of IPC. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC, but convict the accused under Section 304, Part II of IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.