THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
CRIMIAL APPEAL No. 392 of 2010
% 23.04.2014
Between:
# Shukala Satish. Versus $ State of Andhra Pradesh.
.... APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT < Gist:
> Head Note:
! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :- Smt.Gayathri Reddy ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :- Additional Public Prosecutor ? Cases Referred:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 392 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) In Sessions Case No.101 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, the appellant herein was tried as the sole accused for the offence of causing the death of Padala Srinu of Bypireddipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District on the early hours of 14.12.2007. It was alleged that the deceased, Srinu, was being engaged as Cleaner on various lorries and that on the preceding night i.e. on 13.12.2007, the accused, Driver of a lorry, took the deceased to work as a Cleaner. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. She stated that while going on duty, the deceased gave her Rs.100/-, which, in turn, was paid by the accused.
P.W.1 is a person running a Vulcanizing Shop in the locality. At about 8.00 a.m., he is said to have gone to nearby tea stall and there, two coolies i.e. P.Ws.6 and 7, who were working in the neighbouring brick kiln, informed him that they found a person of Bypireddipalem Village with injuries on the road side and they dropped him in his house in an auto-rickshaw. On hearing this, P.W.1 is said to have gone to the house of Srinu, who is acquainted with him and that Srinu is said to have informed him that the accused took him on the lorry and in the night, they reached the native place of the accused and when the accused went to his house for taking dinner, Srinu slept in the lorry and about 3.00 a.m., the accused has woken up Srinu and verified about the missing parts of a T.V. On Srinu pleading ignorance about the parts, the accused is said to have beaten him with iron rod and laid near the brick kiln.
P.W.1 and P.Ws. 2 and 3, daughter and father of Srinu, are said to have taken the injured Srinu to the Government Hospital, Narsipatnam and on being told that the condition is serious and the patient must be taken to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. They are said to have come back to the Village and unable to arrange for the transport of Srinu, P.W.3 kept him in his house itself and Srinu succumbed to the injuries at about 4.30 p.m. on 14.12.1997.
Narrating all these facts, P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, before Nathavaram Police Station at 9.00 p.m. Crime No.61 of 2007 was registered alleging offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The police arrived at the spot where the dead body of Srinu was lying. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted and inquest and post-mortem were caused. After completing the investigation, the prosecution has filed a charge sheet. On denial of the charge by the accused, the trial was conducted wherein, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were filed. M.Os.1 to 4 were taken on record. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
Through its judgment, dated 12.01.2010, the trial Court convicted the accused of the offence alleged against him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month was also imposed. Hence, this appeal.
Smt.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the very filing of the complaint, Ex.P1, by P.W.1 was totally unnatural, particularly when the father of the deceased was very much there. She contends that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have seen the commission of offence and even the circumstantial evidence is very weak. Learned counsel submits that P.Ws.6 and 7 did not state that they have accompanied the deceased to his house or that passed on the information to P.W.1. She contends that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, daughter and father of the deceased, is not of any help to the prosecution and their version that the deceased has informed them about the manner in which the injuries were caused, is un-believable.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the sequence of events was presented by the prosecution in a coherent manner and the trial Court has taken the same into account. She contends that the deceased was alive for hours together and when he was taken to the Government Hospital at Narsipatnam, P.W.11, the Doctor, who examined the patient, issued a certificate marked as Ex.P11, in which it was clearly mentioned that the injuries were caused by the accused herein. She contends that P.Ws.2 and 3 consistently stated that the accused informed them about the manner in which the injuries were received. She further submits that the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 is not tainted with any factors and the trial Court has arrived at the correct conclusions.
This is an unfortunate case where the deceased died solely on account of lack of proper medical care. He received injuries at about 3.00 a.m. on 14.12.2007 and he was dropped at his house by P.Ws.6 and 7. Though he was taken to the Government Hospital at Narsipatnam, P.W.11 is said to have advised that the patient must be taken to King George Hospital at Visakhapatnam. The only reason for not taking the deceased to that place is said to be lack of funds with P.W.3, the father of the deceased. A person, who was very much coherent, all through, had to breath his last by 4.30 p.m. solely on account of lack of medical care.
P.W. 3, the father of the deceased, was also working as a lorry driver. The deceased was married and had children, that included P.W.2, a girl of 12 years old. The wife of the deceased was said to be residing elsewhere, may be on account of matrimonial differences. The deceased did not have any regular or permanent avocation as such. He was being engaged as Cleaner on Trucks, occasionally by the needy persons.
P.W.1 is a person acquainted with the deceased and was running a Vulcanizing shop in the Village. He came to know about the deceased sustaining injuries when he was in a tea stall in the locality. The information is said to have been furnished by P.Ws.6 and 7, the persons working in the nearby brick kiln. On receiving the information, P.W.1 proceeded to the house of the deceased. He is also said to have interacted with the deceased, who was in a coherent condition at that time. P.Ws.2 and 3 have taken the deceased to the Government Hospital at Narsipatnam. P.W.11, the Doctor, who examined the deceased, issued a certificate, Ex.P11. In column No.4 thereof, which relates to the place at which the injury or the accident occurred, the following was mentioned:
“Alleged to have been injured due to beaten with iron rods by known person (Sateesh, Mulagapudi) near Mulagapudi.”
He has also issued a referral letter, Ex.P12, to the Chief Medical Officer, King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam.
P.W.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased. She stated that on the night of 13.12.2007, her father was taken by the accused by paying Rs.100/- and that the said amount was handed over to her by her father. She further stated that in the early hours of 14.12.2007, her father was brought by the workers in the brick kiln in an injured condition. On the same lines is the evidence of P.W.3, the father of the deceased.
In the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing substantial or contradictory was elicited. For all practical purposes, their version accorded with the one presented in Ex.P1. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the workers in the brick kiln and who noticed the deceased in an injured condition by the side of the road near the kiln. After verifying from the deceased, they are said to have arranged for dropping him at his house. In the cross-examination of these witnesses also, nothing substantial was elicited. Srinu, ultimately, died at 4.30 p.m. on 14.12.2014.
It is, no doubt, true that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence needs to be examined carefully. It would have been a different matter altogether, had the accused denied any acquaintance whatever with the deceased or the factum of the accused taking the deceased with him on the night of 13.12.2007. No suggestions to that effect were made in the cross- examination of several witnesses. On the other hand, in the statement made in the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that he took the deceased as a cleaner on his vehicle. He stated that both of them reached his native place and while he was taking dinner, the deceased slept in the lorry. After that, the accused has simply stated that he proceeded to Rajahmundry and there, he was arrested.
The deceased is said to have interacted at least with three persons, namely P.Ws.1 to 3. All of them have stated that the accused beat him on the suspicion that he has stolen some T.V. parts, which were in the cabin of the lorry. All these witnesses have stated that the accused attacked the deceased with rod. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are in conformity with this version. Therefore, the fact that the accused attacked the deceased with iron rod on the suspicion that the deceased has stolen some T.V. parts is proved beyond any pale of doubt. This also established that the cause of death of the deceased was only the injuries caused by the accused.
One fact that however impresses us is that the accused did not entertain any idea of killing the deceased. The record discloses that the employer of the accused own about 35 lorries. He asked the accused to bring some T.V. parts. The accused purchased them and kept in the cabin, but the packet was missing, by the time he finished dinner at his native place. Suspecting that the deceased may have stolen those parts, the accused roughed him up, may be in the process of attempting to recover the parts. That, however, proved to be fatal to the deceased coupled with the failure to avail the medical facilities. We are of the view that the case fits into Part-II of Section 304 I.P.C.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction ordered against the appellant-accused in S.C.No.101 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam is modified from the one under Section 302 I.P.C. to be the one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. The sentence handed out to the appellant-accused is reduced to be the one of Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) years. The sentence as to fine shall remain as it is.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt: 23.04.2014 M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Note: L.R. copy to be married. kdl