CHANDAKA GOVINDA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant. Originally A-1 and A-2 were tried by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and A-2 was acquitted of the said charge, but A-1 was found guilty under Section 325 IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The version of the prosecution is that on 21-10-1996 at about 9.30 p.m. at Chandaka Veedhi Junction near Dandubazar, Visakhapatnam, the accused picked up a quarrel and caused body injury to one Shaik Hussain (hereinafter referred to in short as "the deceased"), as a result of which he died on 2-11 -1996. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were working as process servers in District Court, Visakhapatnam and during the year 1996, the Court staff as usual had performed Durga Pooja in Court premises for three days and after three days on 21 -10-1996, at about 6.00 p.m. while they were taking out a procession to immerse the Durga Devi idol in the sea, on the way at Chandaka Veedhi at about 9.30 p.m. 7 or 8 persons asked them to stop the procession, but as it was getting late to immerse the idol in the sea, they did not stop and the deceased requested A-1 not to cause obstruction, on which A-1 fisted the deceased with hand on his mouth and beat him on his head with a nickel Chester. A-2 also beat the deceased on his head. The deceased fell down on the road and became unconscious. Subsequent thereto, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 shifted the deceased to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and he was examined by P.W. 15-C. M.O., K.G.H., Visakhapatnam and on receipt of medical intimation Ex. P-8, a Head Constable 206 went to hospital to record the statement of the deceased, but he could not do so as the deceased was unconscious. Subsequent thereto on 26-10-1996, on receipt of Ex. P-8 from the Head Constable P.W. 14- Inspector of police directed P.W. 12- Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to record the statements of witnesses and accordingly, P.W. 12 recorded the statement of P.W. 1 on 26-10-1996 which is marked as Ex. P-1. On the strength of Ex. P-1, P.W. 14 registered the same as a case in Crime No. 291 of 1996 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and issued Ex. P-9 FIR and then, on instruction of P.W. 14, P.W. 13-Sub- Inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and further he examined the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and Ex. P-2 is the observation report. On 27-10-1996, P.W. 13 arrested the accused No. 1 and recovered M.O. 1-nickle Chester under Ex. P-3 panchanama. On 2-11-1996 on receipt of death intimation of the deceased, P.W. 14 altered section of law from 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC and issued altered FIR- Ex. P-10 and then he had conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W. 8 and Ex. P-5 is the inquest report. P.W. 11 Professor of Forensic medicine conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to head injury. Ex. P-17 is the post mortem certificate. After receiving the relevant documents and on completion of evidence, P.W. 14 filed charge sheet.

(3.) The plea of the accused is one of total denial. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-10. P.Ws. 7 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the defence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, as already aforesaid, convicted A-1 under Section 325 IPC. But recorded acquittal as far as A-2 is concerned and the said acquittal recorded against A-2 had attained finality since the State had not preferred any appeal.