Harijana Hanumantharayappa Vs. State of A.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2001
Petitioner: Harijana Hanumantharayappa
Respondent: State of A.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2001
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 17, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 304 – Culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder – Accused enraged due to marriage of his sister with PW – Panchayat convened – Panchas ruling in favour of marriage – Accused taking away his sister to a distance and inflicting as many as 14 injuries with knife – Accused chased and caught with blood stained knife – If he did not intend to cause death – No sudden fight or heat of passion on sudden quarrel – If section 304 attracted. Held that case was clearly of murder under section 302 as accused is to be attributed with intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Held:
Ordinarily, an accused should be attributed with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he has infact caused. The accused was armed with a deadly weapon like a knife. He inflicted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased one of which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and has, infact, proved fatal. The intention of the accused could not have been anything else except causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death. It cannot be said that the accused committed the crime in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel’ within the meaning of exception 4 or due to deprivation of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation’ within the meaning of exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned sessions judge and the High Court have not erred in holding the act of the accused amounting to murder within the meaning of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and hence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The accused – appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the court of additional sessions judge, Hindupur. An appeal preferred by him before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has been dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence. The accused – appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
2. Shorn of details, briefly stated the prosecution case is that deceased – Harijana Rangamma was the sister of the accused. She had love affair with Harijana Obulesu (PW 2) and they married each other which was not to the liking of the accused and his family members. This led to the holding of a village panchayat on the next day of the marriage. At the village panchayat relatives of both the sides and the eldermen of the village were present and participated. The panchayat resolved in favour of the marriage and allowed the same to be registered. At the end of the panchayat the accused expressed his desire of talking to the deceased and saying so took her away at a distance of about 30-50 feet from the place where the panchayat was being held. There, below a tamarind tree the accused had some talk with the deceased and then he took out a knife and dealt multiple blows, fourteen in number on the body of the deceased. These multiple blows resulted in several incised wounds spread over different parts of the body of the victim. One of the injuries was an incised wound of 2″x1″ muscle deep over the back over the spinal cord at the level of T-10 vertically. This injury, as the post-mortem report reveals, caused fracture on 5th rib and laceration of 1″ x ¼” over the left ventricle of the heart and proved fatal. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and soon died.
3. The village people who were holding the village panchayat, on hearing the shouts of the deceased, chased the accused and caught hold of him along with the blood stained knife. The accused was tied to the tamarind tree with the help of a rope. The incident was reported to the police. An offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination where fourteen injuries including the internal injury, as already stated hereinabove were found by Dr. B. Rajasekhara Babu, C.I.S. (PW 6). In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries could have been caused by the knife which was seized from the accused. Injury no. 13 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4. There is overwhelming ocular evidence coming from PWs 1 to 5 who were all panch persons and were participating in the village panchayat. Harijana Thippanna (PW 1) is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Harijana Obulesu (PW 2) is the husband of the deceased. Gollahalli Mudlappa (PW 3), Boya Urgappa (PW 4) and G.N. Ramanjaneyule (PW 5) are village people not related with either the deceased or the accused. The testimony of the eye witnesses has been found reliable by the learned sessions judge as also by the High Court. We have, with the help of Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellant, carefully gone through the statements of all the eye witnesses and find them worthy of credence, also not shaken in any manner in the course of cross examination. From the overwhelming evidence adduced, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only the appellant who had caused multiple injuries on the body of the deceased one of which proved to be fatal.
5. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were other witnesses present and should have been examined by the prosecution. In our opinion, prosecution case does not suffer from any infirmity by non-examination of other witnesses who would have only repeated the evidence which was already adduced. In the opinion of the sessions court, as also the High Court, the testimony of the eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has been found to be reliable so as to sustain the finding of guilty. No dent can be said to have been caused in the prosecution case merely because more witnesses could have been examined, who would have merely duplicated the evidence already adduced, but were not examined.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged at the end of his submissions that the accused cannot be attributed with the intention of causing the death of his own sister while inflicting the injuries. He also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the offence is covered either by exception 4 or exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the offence found to be proved should be held to be one punishable under part I or part II of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The submissions so made are liable to be rejected. Ordinarily, an accused should be attributed with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he has infact caused. The accused was armed with a deadly weapon like a knife. He inflicted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased one of which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and has, infact, proved fatal. The intention of the accused could not have been anything else except causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death. It cannot be said that the accused committed the crime ‘in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel’ within the meaning of exception 4 or due to deprivation ‘of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation’ within the meaning of exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned sessions judge and the High Court have not erred in holding the act of the accused amounting to murder within the meaning of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and hence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. No fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the learned sessions judge and upheld by the High Court. The conviction of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment are maintained and the appeal is dismissed.
1. The accused – appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the court of additional sessions judge, Hindupur. An appeal preferred by him before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has been dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence. The accused – appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
2. Shorn of details, briefly stated the prosecution case is that deceased – Harijana Rangamma was the sister of the accused. She had love affair with Harijana Obulesu (PW 2) and they married each other which was not to the liking of the accused and his family members. This led to the holding of a village panchayat on the next day of the marriage. At the village panchayat relatives of both the sides and the eldermen of the village were present and participated. The panchayat resolved in favour of the marriage and allowed the same to be registered. At the end of the panchayat the accused expressed his desire of talking to the deceased and saying so took her away at a distance of about 30-50 feet from the place where the panchayat was being held. There, below a tamarind tree the accused had some talk with the deceased and then he took out a knife and dealt multiple blows, fourteen in number on the body of the deceased. These multiple blows resulted in several incised wounds spread over different parts of the body of the victim. One of the injuries was an incised wound of 2″x1″ muscle deep over the back over the spinal cord at the level of T-10 vertically. This injury, as the post-mortem report reveals, caused fracture on 5th rib and laceration of 1″ x ¼” over the left ventricle of the heart and proved fatal. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and soon died.
3. The village people who were holding the village panchayat, on hearing the shouts of the deceased, chased the accused and caught hold of him along with the blood stained knife. The accused was tied to the tamarind tree with the help of a rope. The incident was reported to the police. An offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination where fourteen injuries including the internal injury, as already stated hereinabove were found by Dr. B. Rajasekhara Babu, C.I.S. (PW 6). In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries could have been caused by the knife which was seized from the accused. Injury no. 13 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4. There is overwhelming ocular evidence coming from PWs 1 to 5 who were all panch persons and were participating in the village panchayat. Harijana Thippanna (PW 1) is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Harijana Obulesu (PW 2) is the husband of the deceased. Gollahalli Mudlappa (PW 3), Boya Urgappa (PW 4) and G.N. Ramanjaneyule (PW 5) are village people not related with either the deceased or the accused. The testimony of the eye witnesses has been found reliable by the learned sessions judge as also by the High Court. We have, with the help of Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellant, carefully gone through the statements of all the eye witnesses and find them worthy of credence, also not shaken in any manner in the course of cross examination. From the overwhelming evidence adduced, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only the appellant who had caused multiple injuries on the body of the deceased one of which proved to be fatal.
5. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were other witnesses present and should have been examined by the prosecution. In our opinion, prosecution case does not suffer from any infirmity by non-examination of other witnesses who would have only repeated the evidence which was already adduced. In the opinion of the sessions court, as also the High Court, the testimony of the eye-witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has been found to be reliable so as to sustain the finding of guilty. No dent can be said to have been caused in the prosecution case merely because more witnesses could have been examined, who would have merely duplicated the evidence already adduced, but were not examined.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged at the end of his submissions that the accused cannot be attributed with the intention of causing the death of his own sister while inflicting the injuries. He also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the offence is covered either by exception 4 or exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the offence found to be proved should be held to be one punishable under part I or part II of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The submissions so made are liable to be rejected. Ordinarily, an accused should be attributed with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he has infact caused. The accused was armed with a deadly weapon like a knife. He inflicted multiple injuries on the body of the deceased one of which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and has, infact, proved fatal. The intention of the accused could not have been anything else except causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death. It cannot be said that the accused committed the crime ‘in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel’ within the meaning of exception 4 or due to deprivation ‘of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation’ within the meaning of exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned sessions judge and the High Court have not erred in holding the act of the accused amounting to murder within the meaning of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and hence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. No fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the learned sessions judge and upheld by the High Court. The conviction of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment are maintained and the appeal is dismissed.
