IN RE: PULLUGARI SUBHANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was charged that on 10th July, 1954, he committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, by causing the death of one Balipaka Gangadu, and at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction robbed the aforesaid Gangadu, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge found him guilty of both the offences and sentenced him to transportation for life under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. The deceased, a Harijan, had some hides for sale. On 10th July, 1954, P.W. 1 wanted to buy one for making a bucket for bailing out water from the well. The deceased offered to sell it for Rs. 14. P. W. 1 accepted the price and asked the deceased to take it to his house the next morning. When, next day, the deceased went to the house of P.W. 1 with the hide, P.W. 1 wanted it for Rs. 13. This price the deceased was not willing to accept, and was going back with the hide. Thereupon, the appellant, who happened to come there, inquired what the matter was and on knowing the details he went and brought back the deceased with the hide and settled the price of the hide at Rs. 13 -12 -0.

(3.) P .W. 5, the widow of the deceased, deposed that her husband left on the morning of the 10th of July with a hide to be sold to P.W. 1 and he came back by noon with bleeding injuries, and when questioned as to how he received those injuries he said that he sold the hide to P.W. 1 for Rs. 13 -12 -0, that the price was settled by the appellant and that while he was returning home, the appellant who was following him with a billhook pretending that it was to be used for cutting fuel cut him from behind and took away the money. This was heard by P.Ws. 6, 11 and some others. Thereupon, the ryots went to P. W. 1's village and came back with P.W. 1 and the appellant. By that time, the deceased had lost his power of speech. Then the injured man was put on a cot to be taken to the village Munsif, Reddipalli, but on the way he died. P.W. 11, Venkatigadu, gave the complaint to the Village Munsif. The Circle Inspector examined her the next day.