Partly allowed

Shaik Saidavali, Krishna Dist. v. Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Feb 2024CRLA/522/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court on special appeal held that the heat of the moment during a verbal altercation negated premeditation. The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the murder conviction and sentence, convicting the accused of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The finding and conviction under Section 302 IPC were set aside. The accused was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 200.

Shaik Saidavali, Krishna Dist. Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶3

APHC010249802015

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

3474

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶10

and

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶12

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.522 of 2015

¶13

Between:

¶14

SHAIK SAIDAVALI, KRISHNA DIST.

¶15

...APELLANT(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by

¶18

...RESPODENT(S)

¶19

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAGGAIAHPET

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Smt. D.S.LAKSHMI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Dushyantha Reddy,

¶22

Additional Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶27

and

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.522 of 2015

¶30

JUDGMNT : ( Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy )

¶31

Sole accused in SC No.246 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, is the appellant herein. He was tried and convicted by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Nandigama, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶32

The substance of the charge is that on 29.04.2011 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused hacked his father Shaik Mastan Saheb (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on his neck with an axe and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

¶33

Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

¶34

PW.1 is the brother, PW.2 is the daughter and PW.3 is the nephew of the deceased. The accused is none other than the son of the deceased. All of them are residents of Gudimentla village, Chandarlapadu Mandal of Krishna District. The deceased was having certain extent of agricultural lands and a house in the said village. The accused and the deceased used to reside in different portions of the house situated in the same location. The deceased intended to sell certain extent of house site in favour of one of the villagers, for which, the accused objected for

¶35

¶36

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶37

the same. On 29.04.2011 in the early hours, the deceased went to the mosque for offering prayers (namaz) and after completion of prayer, he came back to the house between 7.00 and 7.30 a.m. At that time, the accused, who was arranging the wooden planks in the front yard, asked the deceased not to sell the vacant house site, for which the deceased replied stating that he will sell the house site. More verbal altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. Immediately, the accused took out an axe and gave one blow on the neck of the deceased. PW.2, who is the daughter of the deceased, witnessed the said incident. She immediately rushed to PW.1, who is the younger brother of the deceased and informed him. PW.1 immediately came to the scene and found his elder brother with a cut injury over the neck and he was alive at that time. PW.3, who is the nephew of the deceased, came to the scene of offence, after hearing the cries of PW.2. The accused also remained there without going anywhere. It is also stated that when PWs.1 and 3 questioned the accused, he stated that he hacked on the neck of the deceased, as the deceased is intending to sell the vacant house site in favour of third parties. At about 9.30 a.m., PW.1 went to the police station and gave a report Ex.P.1 to the Police. PW.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the report Ex.P.1 from PW.1, registered it as Cr.No.40 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIRs. Ex.P.16 is the copy of the FIR. Having received the message, PW.11 Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet, who is the in-charge of Nandigama circle, went to the scene of offence immediately. PW.10 was also present at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of PW.9 and others, prepared observation report Ex.P.12. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P.17 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed through PW.7. He examined PWs.1 to 6 at the scene of offence and recorded their statements. He also

¶38

¶39

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶40

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9 and another, which is Ex.P.13. He also seized MO.1 axe, MO.2 blood stained shirt, MO.3 blood stained earth and MO.4 controlled earth at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW.8 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nandigama, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock. Ex.P.11 is the post-mortem certificate. As the accused was confined in the back side room, PW.11 arrested him, who made confession about the weapon and on the said confession, MO.1 axe was recovered, which was kept at the back side of the house. After completion of the investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet.

¶41

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18, apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 4. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him from the prosecution witnesses, but he did not choose to examine any witness in his defence.

¶42

Smt. D.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of PW.2 cannot be relied upon, as she did not witness the actual incident and after attack, she came there and thereafter, she went to PW.1 and informed the same. She further contends that the evidence of PW.2 is not at all helpful to the prosecution, as she did not witness the attack on the deceased. So far as the information given by the accused to PWs.1 to 3 is concerned, the same is not admissible in evidence. Finally, she contends that it was not a premeditated attack and the action was sudden without any intention. The accused gave only one blow preceded by a quarrel between him and the deceased and there is no intention on

¶43

¶44

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶45

the part of the accused to kill the deceased. She further stated that the conduct of the appellant in not running away from the scene of offence after attack shows that there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of his father. Therefore, she states that the offence may not fall under Section 302 IPC and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304 Part I IPC.

¶46

On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyantha Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clinchingly establishes the guilt of the accused, particularly, the evidence of PW.2, who is an eye witness. There is nothing against PW.2 to depose false against the accused. There is no suggestion from the accused that there is enmity between the accused and PW.2. He further contends that ocular version of PWs.1 to 3 has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW.8 and the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶47

This Court perused the entire material on record. PW.2 in her evidence categorically stated that it is the accused, who hacked the deceased with an axe on his neck. Immediately after seeing the incident, PW.2 rushed to PW.1, who also came immediately and found the deceased alive. It is only, thereafter, the deceased lost his breath. PWs.1 and 2 specifically stated that by the time they reached the scene, blood was oozing from the throat of the deceased. As such, in view of the evidence PWs.1 to 3, coupled with the evidence of PW.8, it can be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶48

Coming to the nature of the offence, even according to the evidence of PW.2, the attack happened out of the altercation between the accused and the

¶49

¶50

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶51

deceased. At that juncture, the accused was arranging wooden planks in the front yard. The possibility of the accused causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control due to the heated argument, the accused dealt one blow on the neck of the deceased cannot be ruled out. As such it is not a case of premeditation and the accused may not be having intention to kill the deceased but he may be having knowledge that the injury may cause death of the deceased.

¶52

In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Nandigama in SC No.246 of 2012 dated 04.04.2015 is hereby set aside. Instead the appellant/ accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TEN (10) years and also to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The period already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.

¶54

____________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY_

¶55

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶56

Date: 26.02.2024 BSS

¶57

¶58

KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.522 of 2015

¶59

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶60

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.522 of 2015 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

¶61

¶62

Date: 26.02.2024

¶63

BSS

Shaik Saidavali, Krishna Dist. v. Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Saidavali, Krishna Dist. v. Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Velladuli Govindaiah., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Teki Bangari at Bangarayya Vs State of A.P.

D.Ravi Kumar, Chittor Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Giddangi Ghouse (A2) Kadapa Dt and 4 Otrs., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep Pp.

Kottam Amapalli Gangaiah (A1) Kadapa Dt and Anr., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Ponnada Siva Kumar, Visakhapatnam Vs P.P., Hyd