(1.) Accused 1 and 2 were tried in S.C.No. 27 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prosecution case in so far as it relates to the first accused is concerned, but convicted the second accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304 (II) IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two weeks. Hence, this appeal by the appellant-second accused.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Mudedla Appa Rao (herein after referred to as 'the deceased') was a worker in Indus Marine Food Factory, which is at a distance of 2 or 3 k.m. from Pamarru. P.W. 1 Mudedla Lakshmi, is the mother of the deceased. After the death of the father of the deceased, P.W. 1 and the deceased were living at Pamarru and P.W. 1 was running chit business. The first Accused, by name Dintakurru @ Pulipaka Venkateswara Rao joined as a subscriber in the chit and in that context, he was visiting the house of P.W. 1 frequently, which was not to the liking of the deceased. On 10-04-1994, when the deceased returned home from work, he saw the said Venkateswar Rao in his house and on account of which he was serious and found fault with his mother for allowing him into the house in spite of his repeated sayings. Later, the said Venkateswar Rao left the place. However, half an hour thereafter, the appellant herein, who was alleged to be working as a cleaner of the lorry belonging to the said Venkateswar Rao came and took the deceased away and later they consumed liquor. Thereafter, they boarded a lorry and got down at Bondlella Donka and when they were proceeding towards fields, two more persons joined them. All of them beat the deceased with sticks and dragged him to the nearby bushes and threw him into it. On the next day morning, some farmers saw the deceased and informed the same to P.W. 1, who, with the assistance of her neighbours engaged a taxi car, went to that place and took the deceased to the Police Station. The Head Constable, P.W. 19, recorded the statement of the deceased Ex. P-20 and sent him to the Government Hospital for treatment. Based on Ex.P-20, P.W. 19 registered a case in Crime No. 42 of 1994 initially for the alleged offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 and 109 IPC. Ex.P-21 is the FIR. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W. 20 took upthe investigation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, Ex.P-22. Thereafter, P.W. 20 examined P.Ws. 1 to 5. In view of the gravity of the offence, he altered the FIR from Section 324 read with Section 34 and 109 IPC to Section 307 IPC and submitted a memo (Ex.P-23) to the Magistrate to that effect. Later, he went to the scene of offence, prepared observation report, Ex.P-5, in the presence of the mediators and also drew a rough sketch marked as Ex.P-24. P.W. 18, the Deputy Civil Surgeon, examined the deceased and found fracture and dislocation of cervical 6th vertebra and also noticed abrasions on various parts of the body and accordingly, issued a wound certificate Ex.P-19. Subsequently, the deceased was shifted to the Government General Hospital at Machilipatnam where he was given treatment. On a requisition, dated 14-04-1994, the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, marked as Ex.P-16. In view of the seriousness of the injuries received by the deceased, he was referred to NIMS hospital at Hyderabad, where he was treated for 10 days. Thereafter, he was brought home. But, as he was ailing. P.W. 1 admitted him in the District Hospital, at Machilipatnam and there he died on 07-08-1994. On 18-04-1994, the appellant and the first accused were arrested at their native place and were produced before the Magistrate. On receipt of the death intimation, the F.I.R. was altered to that of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. On receipt of the altered F.I.R., the Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W. 21, took up investigation and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators. The inquest report was marked as Ex. P-10. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem examination and P.W. 17, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, issued Post-mortem certificate Ex. P-18. He opined that the death must have occurred due to septicaemia. After completion of investigation, P.W. 21 filed charge-sheet against the appellant and the first accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC.
(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and got exhibited Exs. P-1 to P-25. On an analysis of the said evidence, the learned Judge did not accept the case of the prosecution in so far as the first accused was concerned and accordingly acquitted him. However, considering the dying declarations marked as Exs. P-20, P-16 and also the evidence of P.W. 8, in whose company the deceased was last seen, the learned Judge convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 304(ll) IPC.