V. YERRAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex.P-1 statement dated 19-3-92 was submitted before P.W. 8, the S.I. of Police Pachipenta by P.W. 2 and others alleging that the accused who is the son of the deceased was responsible for causing the death of the deceased on the evening of 17-3-1992. On the basis of that report, a case in Crime No. 10/92 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Ex.P-6 F.I.R. was issued. Subsequently the charge sheet has been filed after investigation was completed. In support of the prosecution P Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-25 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked The learned Judge found that the evidenced P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the eye-witnesses and who are in mates of the deceased, can be accepted and found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. It is against that conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Smt. 8. Vijaya Lakshmi was appointed as State Brief. She contended mainly that it was a dark-night as stated by P.Ws 1 and 2 and the possibility of their observing the accused or the nature of scuffle is doubtful, and that the suggestion given in the lower court and the manner in which the deceased might have received the injuries are there and that there is delay in issuing the FIR. Taking all these circumstances into account, she submitted that the learned Judge ought not have convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC.

(3.) P.Ws. 1 and 2 are no other than the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was living in the next house. There was strained relationship, as per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, between the deceased and the accused. The prosecution version is that the accused was moving as a vagabond and not taking any interest in the family affairs. In that connection differences were there and there is no serious challenge about that fact. The accused has to pass through and in front of the house where the deceased was living. While the accused was passing through that, PWs. 1 and 2 quarrelled as usual and the accused was advised by the deceased to work hard and live. In that quarrel the accused pulled down the deceased and dragged him to a distance and so the deceased received injuries. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are closely related to the accused. They do not speak falsehood against their own relation. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to show that they are inimical towards the accused and their evidence is a partisan witness. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to show that they have some grudge against the accused. It cannot be said that they played as tools in the hands of P.W.5, the Sarpanch of their village for implicating the accused in this case. Normally the relations are the persons that will not screen the real culprits and falsely involve their own relation in a murder case. Viewing the case from the relationship or from the strained relations be-tween the accused and the deceased, or the suggestions made to the witnesses, the incident took place, we feel that the accused is the person that caused the injuries to the deceased which resulted the death of the deceased The suggestion that the injuries to the deceased might have been caused due to fall, has no force and the same has not been suggested to P.W.7, the doctor. P.W.7 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxiz due to cutting of trachea and the injuries could have been caused by M.O.1. Causing of the injuries by the accused and the weapon used were not in dispute. The suggestion is that the injuries might have been caused when the deceased fell on M.O. 1. The direction of the injuries do not support that version. We feel that the accused is the person who caused the injuries to the deceased.