P P Vs. BALAKRISHNA ALIAS BOBBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1975 in which the accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: The accused and his friend Yadgiri went to Khaja Restaurant at about mid-night during the night intervening between 5th and 6th June, 1975 and took a cup of tea and snacks. The restaurant-keeper demanded the payment of the bill but it was not paid. The accused not only refused to pay the bill but assaulted Mohd Ilyas, the restaurant-keeper. Mohd Ilyas rang up the police. The accused and Yadgiri started running away from the restaurant. Mohd Ilyas asked his employees to chase the accused One of the employees, Shark Abdullah overtook the accused at some distance in Jail street. Immediately thereupon the accused took out the knife and stabbed Shaik Abdullah (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in bis chest and escapped. Shaik Abdullah ran for some distance and collapsed.

(2.) He was taken to Gandhi Hospital where he was declared to have been dead. The accused was arrested on 6th June 1976 at 10 p.m. The police investigation followed At the conclusion of ths police investigation he was charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The prosecation examined as many as 18 witnesses. The learned trial Judge foand that the accused had stabbed the deceased as a result of which the deceased died but that he had done so in exercise of his right to private defenc He therefore acquitted the accused. It is that order of acquittal which is challenged by the State of Andhra Pradesh in this appeal. P.Ws. 1 to 6 have deposed that the accased stabbed with his knife the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. The plea of private defence raised by-the accused suggests that a fatal injury had been caused by him with his knife to ths deceased. The prosecution evidence amply bears out the prosecution case. Mohd Ilyas, P.W. 1 runs Khaja Restaurant near market in Seunderabad. At the relevant time on the material date he was at the counter. The accused and Yadgiri went to his restaurant and ordered a cup of tea and a bun. The bill which they were required to pay was 60 paise. The witness asked the accused to pay the amount and the accused told him that he would pay to the father of the witness. The witness insisted on payment of money. Thereupon the accused caught hold of his left hand and gave him jerks as a result of which his wrist watch fell down. He also slaped the witness twice on his face. Sanaullah, P.W. 3 advised this witness to call the police. Meanwhile the accused and Yadgiri left the restaurant. Yadagiri said that he would pay the amount and asked the witness not to inform the police Thereupon the accused turned to the restaurant and dashed his head against the head of Sanaullah, P.W 2. Obviously at the development of this scene the other employees of the restaurant gathered together at the counter. The accused and Yadgiri started running away from the restaurant. The employees working in the restaurant chased the accused and Yadgiri. He informed the market police station of the incident. About 5 or 6 minutes later the workers who had chased the accused brought Shaik Abdullah with a stab injury in his chest. They told him that the deceased was stabbed by the accused with a knife. He thereupon sent the deceased in a cycle-rickshaw to Gandhi Hospital.

(3.) Narsing (PW3) Baburao (PW4) and Mohd Jaffar (PW5) accompanied the deceased. Some other persons also accompanied him. Sometime thereafter the persons who accompanied the deceased returned to the restaurant and told the witness that the deceased had died. The police thereupon went to his restaurant, The witness went to the market police station and lodged the information of the offence. Ex. P. 1. In his cross-examination he has stated that if a customer is unable to pay the bill for whatever he has consumed, the practice of the restaurant is to take some article from the customer as and by way of security. The employees working in the restaurant had chased the accused because he had asked them to catch the accused and bring him back. They did not chase the accused with arms. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was manhandled by his employees.