H. MADDULETI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused is the appellant. He filed this appeal assailing his conviction u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE facts of this case as deposed by the material prosecution witnesses are as under: Appellant/accused is the son of the deceased. They are residents of Lakkasagaram Village. Sunkamma was resident of Yapadinne and was married to one James about 20 years ago. But since ten years Sunkamma was living at Nandyal and has developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Kistanna. The deceased used to visit his wife Ullokkamma and his children at Lakkasagaram. The deceased suspected the chastity of his wife and used to abuse her and quarrel with her. Thus the accused and his brothers bore grudge against the deceased. About 4 days prior to the date of incident the accused went to Nandyal and told the deceased and Sunkamma that his mother Ullokkamma was with her daughter Madduletamma at Govardhanagiri and that Ullokkamma wanted the deceased and Sunkamma to visit her. The deceased went to Dhone from Nandyal on 1.3.1993 accompanied by Sunkamma and Eswaraiah. The accused also followed them. On 2.3.1993 all of them went to Govardhanagiri at about 9.30 a.m. But Madduletamma and her husband were not present in the village. So the accused, the deceased, Sunkamma and Eswaraiah went to the house of Guvvala Laxmanna where they had taken food in his house. At about 1.30 p.m. Sunkamma, Eswaraiah, accused and the deceased were silting in the Varapaku of the house of Guvvala Laxmanna. Then the deceased abused the accused and his mother in vulgar language. The accused became enraged and took out a crow bar from underneath the cot and dealt a blow on the head of the deceased causing a fatal injury involving fracture of the bones of the head. Sunkamma, Eswaraiah and one Maddamma witnessed the incident. Sunkamma (P.W. 1) gave a statement to the S.I. of Police, Veldurthi (P.W. 9) which was recorded by him as Ex. P.l He read over Ex. P. 1 to P.W. 1 and took her thumb impression on it P.W. 6 the Village Administrative Officer attested the same. P.W. 9 registered a case in crime No. 16/93 u/s 302 I.P.C. add issued, copies of F.I.R. to the concerned. P.W. 9 recorded the statement of P.W. 1 and left the police station at 5.35 p.m. along with P.Ws. 5 and 6. On the way he picked up P.W. 1 at Madarpuram bus stage and reached the scene of offence at 6.30 p.m. He found the dead body of the deceased with a bleeding injury on the head. P.Ws. 2 to 4 were at the scene of offence. P.W. 9 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 6.45 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. with the aid of petromax light. During Inquest he examined P.Ws. 2 to 4 and recorded their statements. He read over the statement of P.W. 1. During inquest he seized M.Os. 2 to 7 from the body of the deceased and M.Os. 8 and 9 from the scene of offence. Ex. P -2 is the inquest report. Thereafter he sent the dead body for post -mortem examination. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex. P.10. He also examined P.W. 5 and recorded his statement. On 8.3.1993 P.W. 9 along with the C.I., Dhone arrested the accused near Madarpuram bus stage at 2 p.m., under cover of panchanama Ex. P. 3. On the information given by the accused he recovered M.D. 1 crow bar under .Ex. P. 4 panchanama in the presence of P.W. 6 and another. The Doctor, P.W. 10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following antemortem injuries: Lacerated wound on right side of head near the top oblique 5 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp layer deep with contusion and haematoma of the entire scalp. Scalp and skuIl fracture of the skull bones of left temporo -parietal bones, linear with length of 10 cms. and sub -archonoid haemorrhage of the brain tissue. He issued Ex. P. 11 post -mortem certificate opining that the cause of death of the deceased is shock due to head injury which is possible with any blunt object including a crowbar similar to M.O.1. He stated that the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After completion of investigation the charge -sheet was filed.

(3.) SRI Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appeIlant; contended that there is no legal evidence on record to base the conviction of the accused and that even if the evidence is believed, it is only to the provocation of the deceased as he abused the accused and his mother in vulgar language, the accused became enraged and hit him with a crow bar; therefore the offence falls only under Sec. 304 Part I or III I.P.C. but not under Sec. 302 I.P.C. He therefore contended that the accused is entitled for acquittal.