THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (ANDHRA PRADESH) Vs. HANMADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar, who charged him with an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) The accused in a wordy quarrel on a very trivial matter concerning the return of Rs. 10/- paid towards cart-hire gave a blow to the deceased, who was his brother, with a stick on his head. The deceased fell down and died. P.W. 1. wife of the deceased, who had witnessed the incident called the step-brother of the deceased and his son (P.W. 3 and 4) and informed them as to what had happened. They immediately took the deceased inside the house. The deceased was in an unconscious state and the next day morning he expired. This fact was also reported to the Talari who came and took the accused to the Chavdi where he was tied up. He then went to the Police Patel and reported the matter. The Police Patel came there and sent the report Ex. P-2 to the police. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 9 T. Kameshwara Rao, arrived on the scene and held an inquest and sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination. P.W. 8 is the constable who took the corpse to the doctor, P.W. 2, who conducted the post-mortem. According to him there was a lacerated injury on the scale 2 1/2 above towards the centre above the left parietal protuberance measuring 1 1/2 " " 1/2 " x ? .. "" underlying the above injury there is a fracture of the skull, i.e., of the posterior aspect of the left parietal bone in the manner described in the diagram given in the report. It is seen as a crack with the width of 1/15". There is also a big extra dural blood clot in the left temporal and lower perietal area, 3" in diameter. There is rupture of the anterior branch of the left side menengial artery. This injury, according to the doctor, caused the death. The deceased was also found to have an enlarged spleen. In cross-examination he stated it was not possible to say merely from the fact of the deceased having an enlarged spleen that he had fever at that time. He also admitted that normally only rupture of the scalp will not result in death. In the circumstances of the case, however, not only the skull was ruptured but the injury was sufficient to fracture the parietal bone and create a compression on the meningeal arteries which resulted in his death. There can be no doubt that the cause of death was the injury on the head caused by a stick.

(3.) The accused was arrested and produced before the Munsif Magistrate of Gadwal, who remanded him to judicial custody on 16-5-1958. On 17-5-1958, the accused was produced before him and he made a confession admitting that he had given a blow on the head of the deceased with a stick. The evidence of P.W. 1 was disbelieved by the Sessions Judge who also held that Ex. P-4, the confessional statement, was inadmissible in evidence because the Magistrate. P.W. 7. did not disclose his indentity.