PONGURU VENKATESU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was preferred by the sole accused, Ponguru Venkatesu, who was convicted of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1963 on his file. The prosecution case is as follows :- The accused, Ponguru Venkatesu, who is a washerman by caste, and the deceased, Makepati Yenadayya, a Kamma by caste, both belonged to the same village, Ponguru Khandriga. On 30th September, 1963, at about 8 A.M. the deceased while passing along the main street of the village, met P.W. 1 a Yerukula by caste eking out livelihood by weaving baskets. When the deceased asked P.W. 1 why he had not supplied the baskets for which he had placed an order, and found fault with him. P.W.1 replied that the deceased thought fit only to find fault with him, but neither he nor the other villagers enquired why the washermen of the village had not been rendering service to the Yerukulas. The deceased thereupon stated that he would enquire into it that evening. The accused who was nearby, standing in front of his house, overheard that conversation and said to the deceased that he was promising to enquire the washermen but who would enquire why the barbers failed to render services to the washermen of that village, and also remarked that if the deceased had any manliness, he should see that the barbers also rendered service to the washermen. The deceased got affronted at that remark of the accused and gave a slap to him. P.Ws. 2 and 3 separated the accused and the deceased, and prevented further quarrel. Thereafter the deceased went away along the street but the accused went into his house and returned in the northern direction, held the deceased, stabbed him in front of the pial of the house of one Tirumalasetti Ankaiah abutting the road, and ran away, leaving the knife embedded, in the chest of the deceased. The deceased as well as P.Ws. 4 to 6 chased the accused for some distance, but in vain. The deceased himself pulled out the knife from his chest and fell down. He was removed for treatment to the hospital at Atmakur and thereafter to the Headquarters hospital at Nellore where he died at 6-45 A.M. on 2nd October, 1963.

(2.) After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was; committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the accused admitted having stabbed the deceased with the knife M.O. 1, but pleaded that the deceased slapped him, abused him, in vulgar language calling him bastard and saying that his mother be ravished, and also beat him with the sandal twice on the head and ear, that thereupon he grew wild and unable to control himself and out of anger, stabbed the deceased. He also pleaded that the whole incident took place in front of his house but not near the pial of Tirumalasetti Ankaiah as stated by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge found that the stabbing of the deceased took place only at the house of Tirumalasetti Ankaiah but not at the house of the accused. As regards the plea of the accused that he stabbed the deceased on account of grave and sudden provocation, he found that there was some truth in the version of the accused that he was slapped and abused, and might have also been hit with a sandal, and that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 on this part of the case was not convincing. Even so, the learned Judge held that the step taken by the accused in stabbing the deceased with a deadly weapon like M.O. i did not bear proper and reasonable relationship to the provocation caused. Accordingly, he convicted him of an offence under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life as stated above. Sri Mohd. Rasheed Ahmed, learned Counsel for the appellant, raised two contentions before us, (1) that the entire incident including the stabbing took place only in front of the house of the accused and (2) that on account of the grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased the accused stabbed him, and that the offence committed by the accused is not one under section 302, Indian Penal Code, but only under section 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) We shall consider the Validity of these two contentions. The evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that the deceased questioned P.W. 1 near the house of the accused, and that when the accused asked the deceased why he and others are not able to take the barbers to task for not rendering service to the washermen and that the deceased should do it if he had any manliness, the deceased grew angry with the accused and slapped him. P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were also present along with P.W. 1, separated the deceased and the accused, and the accused went into' his house and the deceased went his way. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is substantially to the same effect, and they deposed that shortly afterwards they heard that the deceased was stabbed lying with the injury. In the cross-examination of P.W. 2 it was elicited that the distance between the place where the accused was slapped and the place where the deceased was found lying with a bleeding injury under the tamarind tree was about 35 yards and the witness pointed the distance. The question whether the whole incident took place in front of the house of the accused or at a distance of about 35 yards from the place assumes importance for this reason. The prosecution contends that the incident consisted of two parts, the first part in front of the house of the accused, and the second incident resulting in the stabbing at a distance of 35 yards and even granting that there was some provocation to the accused, there was enough time for it to have subsided and there was no justification whatever for the accused to stab the deceased. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the appellant argues that this division of the incident into two parts is opposed to facts, and is intended to refute the contention that the offence was only under section 304, Indian Penal Code. It was argued that as the accused was abused in obscene language and beaten with a sandal in the open street in front of the P.Ws. and several others, the accused lost his control over his passions, and stabbed the deceased in front of the house of the accused, and immediately after he was beaten with the sandal.