TELANATLE ANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the 1st accused in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1991 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, against the convictions and sentences passed against him for life under section 304 Part I, I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under section 201, I.P.C.

(2.) Two charges have been framed against the accused. In support of the charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and marked M.Os. 1 to 14. The main witness that has been examined on behalf of the prosecution is P.W. 1. P.W. 1's evidence shows that on the date of the offence, there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife i.e. the deceased and A2. While the quarrel was going on the deceased was having an axe and that A1 also was present at that time. A1 took the axe from the deceased and dealt a blow on his head. Thereafter P.W. 1 was confined in a room. He also stated that his brothers aged 8 and 5 years were also confined in a room. This incident took place at night time. Therefore, the inmates of the house are the best persons to speak about what has happened. P.W. 1 who is the son of the deceased and A2 and brother of A1 stated that the accused/appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. Furthermore the dead-body of the deceased was burried just in front of their house, the dead-body has been exhumed and inquest over the dead-body has been conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, P.W. 8, in the presence of panch witnesses. The Doctor P.W. 6 who examined the dead-body of the deceased found as many as 18 injuries and he was of the opinion that the deceased died due to the said injuries and those injuries have been received prior to the death and they are all ante-mortem injuries. The Doctor also did not find any alcohol in the stomach of the deceased. The medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution case. The prosecution case has been believed by the lower court and the 1st accused/appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for life under section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 201, I.P.C. A2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 201, I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, A1 filed the present appeal.

(3.) The main contention that has been raised by Mr. P. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a case that falls under the right of private defence. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 we find that there is no element or apprehension of any danger to the life of A1 appellant in the hands of the deceased. Therefore, the question of getting the right of private defence does not arise. In this case it has been argued that the deceased was having an axe in his hand and therefore, there is every possibility of his using the same. But the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that there is no any attempt made by the deceased to use the axe. Therefore the plea of right of private defence in this case is only an after-thought and invented for the purpose of defence. We may believe the version, but the other circumstances that let out would make the Court to feel that what has happened exactly. In this case, the dead-body of the deceased has been burried just in front of the house and it has been exhumated from that place as pointed out by the accused. After death only the dead-body has been burried. The death is not a natural one and it is homicidal. When it is a homicidal death and when inmates are there, it is their duty to inform about the death to the neighbours or to the authorities. But in this case, the accused have secretly burried the body in front of their house with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence. Therefore, it is a clear case, where the ingredients of Section 201, IPC have been attracted as it is a case of homicidal death. The evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that the deceased was done to death and he was burried and that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. P.W. 1 is no other than the son of the deceased and A2 and brother A1. He will be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate his own brother and mother as responsible for death of his own father. In these circumstances when P.W. 1 is a natural witness and his evidence does not suffer from any motive and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witness to show that there is any attempt on the part of the deceased to cause harm to the accused, we feel that the plea of right of private defence as claimed by the appellant and as argued by the counsel is not at all available to him. A1/appellant has caused as many as 18 injuries to the deceased. If there is any grave or sudden provocation is there, there is no necessity for him to cause so many injuries to the deceased. Therefore, without any provocation, causing of so many injuries excludes the possibility of application of right of private defence that has been pleaded by the accused. So the evidence of P.W. 1 and the evidence about exhumation of the dead-body, all points out only to the guilt of the accused rather than his innocence that has been pleaded by him. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that even though P.W. 1 is a sole witness for the occurrence, his evidence could be accepted without any hesitation. The lower court has got the possibility of observing the demeanour of the witness and the lower court has rightly accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 and convicted the accused. Taking these circumstances into consideration, we feel that it is a fit case where the convictions as found by the lower court should stand.