PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. BANDI PEDDA VENKATA NARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the first accused of murder. He was in fact convicted of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. On another charge in relation to an offence committed against another person (P.W. 1) he was convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, the sentences to run consecutively.

(2.) Now, with all respect to Mr. C.R. Pattabhiraman's arguments, we do not think there is any room for doubt with regard to the facts of this case which are simple enough. There is a wealth of evidence to establish them and we only propose to set out shortly what they amount to. The accused lives opposite to P.W. 1 as will be seen in the plan. Accused 1 was bathing in the street opposite to his house, thereby causing slush in the road. P.W. 1 protested and asked him to go and bathe in his backyard. It seems to us a not unreasonable request. The accused said that he proposed to go on bathing where he was, whereupon P.W. 1 caught hold of his water-pot. So did accused 1 and in the process the pot broke. Accused then went to his house shouting abuse and brought out M.O. 1, a rice pounder which is two yards long and between 2" and 3" in diameter. We have compared it with one of the maces carried by the chobdars of this Court. It is about 6" longer and slightly thinner than the top of one of those maces. It is a very heavy piece of wood and would appear to require the use of two hands by an ordinary man. With this rice pounder, the accused struck P.W. 1 on the head, and P.W. 1 is not able to, tell us, very much more because he stated that he did not recover consciousness until about an hour later. P.W. 1 was fortunate. He had "A contused transverse wound 1 inch by 1/4 inch skin deep, on right parietal eminence 4 1/2 inches above right ear" described in Ex. F as not of a serious nature. The next thing that happened was that the deceased woman, the aunt of P.W. 1 ran up crying out that her nephew was being killed, whereupon accused 1 struck her on the head also with M.O. 1. She fell down unconscious and bleeding and died on 6 May, 1936, this occurrence being on the 29 April. In her case, her skull was fractured. The fracture is described as follows in Ex. E: There is fissured stillat fracture of the frontal bone commencing from coronal section 1 1/2 inches to right of middle line, runs obliquely down to left orbital foramen passes through orbital plate ends at ethnoid bone. Measures 5 1/2 inches. Then: From the middle of frontal part there was a fissured fracture transversely to the right 1 1/2 inches and then down to orbital ridge 1 1/2 inches and on the right orbital roof H inches and ends at ethnoid bone. There was a clot under the fracture, the membranes were congested, and the doctor states that she died of meningitis due to the injuries received. There was a slight depression of the brain under the clot.

(3.) Now, the only question that can arise in this case - because, as we have already said, we are quite satisfied about the facts to which several witnesses have spoken is what offence has accused 1 committed? The learned Sessions Judge deals with that in paragraph 7 of his judgment. The following are some of the observations he makes in that paragraph: From the lie of the case according to the showing of the prosecution itself, it is manifestly clear that there was no intention on the part of the first accused to cause Yerikalamma's death.