Dismissed

Ghun Bahadur, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Feb 2012CRLA/396/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused against conviction and sentence for murder. The Court found that prosecution witnesses corroborated the version of the offence, including eyewitness testimony, recovery of the weapon, and medical evidence linking the head injury to death.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge were confirmed.

Ghun Bahadur, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

Crl.A.No.396 of 2008

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)

¶4

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.324 of 2007 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Hyderabad on 14.12.2007.

¶5

The appellant herein is the accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶6

According to the prosecution that one Bhuvendra Bahadur, Laxman and Girirajdev kota are working as security guards in Heritage Polymer. The accused and others were working as security guards in Viswa plastics, which is a portion in the godowns of Heritage polymers. On 09.10.2006 at about 22.00 hours the accused instead of his attending duty in the said company went to the company, where the deceased, P.Ws.7, 8 and others are working, in a drunken condition and picked up a quarrel with them, on that the deceased, P.Ws.7 and 8 admonished him and sent him away. Due to which the accused felt humiliated and decided to kill the deceased Girirajdev. Accordingly on the same night i.e. 10.10.2006 at about 03.00 hours, he went to the deceased by scaling over the compound wall of the company as the main gate was found to be closed and took a crowbar with an intention to kill him, thumped over his forehead with crowbar and fled away from the scene of offence by throwing the crowbar by the side of the compound wall, as a result of which the deceased became unconscious and he was shifted to Sai Baba Hospitals for treatment, but the medical officer declared him as brought dead. On the information received by P.W.1, he lodged a complaint with the Dundigal police, basing on which P.W.9 has registered a case in crime No.253 of 2006 and took up the investigation,

¶7

visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.6, Doctor, has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to head injury. On 11.10.2006 he arrested the accused and as per his confession he recovered a crowbar, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence in the presence of P.W.5 and another. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet against the accused.

¶8

The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused and he pleaded not guilty for the said charge.

¶9

In order to establish the said charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked on their behalf.

¶10

The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused.

¶12

Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶13

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T:

¶14

The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the complainant, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the incident and he has lodged the complaint only

¶15

on the information furnished to him, and that P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 8 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and they were not present at the time of incident and they came to the spot only after the incident and on finding the dead body of the deceased, they falsely implicated the accused in this case.

¶16

The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses for the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident, subsequently the accused came back and attacked the deceased with crowbar and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.7 and 8 and the crowbar, which was used by the accused in the commission of offence, was recovered at the instance of the accused by P.W.9 in the presence of P.W.5. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused.

¶17

According to the prosecution, the 1^st incident has taken place between the accused and the deceased and others on 09.10.2006 at 9.00 p.m. and at that time the accused came to the company in a drunken condition and he was admonished by the deceased, P.Ws.7 and 8 and they sent away the accused. Due to the humiliation caused by them, the accused decided to kill the deceased and returned back at 3.00 hours on 10.10.2006 and went to the deceased by scaling over the compound wall and attacked the deceased with a crow-bar and thumped over his forehead with the said crowbar and fled away form the scene of offence by throwing the crowbar by the side of the compound wall.

¶18

Admittedly, P.W.1, who is the director of Heritage polymer and who lodged the complaint with the police, is not an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, he received a telephone that Giriraj was beaten by the accused and that Giriraj sustained head injury. On his enquiry his staff member told that the accused beat the deceased with crowbar, as such he lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the police. According to him, Manohar

¶19

Bahadu, P.W.3, G.Laxman Lama, P.W.8 and deceased are his employees as security guards and there are three godowns in their company and No.1 godown was given to Viswa Products on lease and he do not know, who are the security guards of the said Viswa product.

¶20

According to the prosecution, the accused is the security guard at Viswa product. P.W.2 is working as Operator in Viswa product company. According to him, he know the accused working as watchman in the Viswa product company and he also know the deceased. On 09.10.2006 when he was attending to duty, the accused came in a drunken condition at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., at that time the deceased and P.W.8 were on security guard duty, the accused quarreled with them, then himself and one Srinivas intervened and sent away the accused from the premises. Again at about 2.45 or 3.00 a.m., he heard the galata, when he came out from the plant he saw the accused running away from the scene holding crowbar in his hand and the deceased laying on the ground and P.W.8 was making hue and cry and he found a bleeding injury on the head of the deceased. On his enquiry P.W.8 told that the accused beat the deceased with a crowbar. Then with the help of P.W.8 and another, he shifted the deceased to the hospital, where the Doctor declared him as brought dead. In the cross-examination, he stated that Viswa product godown is facing towards East and the security room is facing towards West and the accused jumped the wall situated towards South and ran away.

¶21

P.W.3, Security guard of Heritage Company, is another witness to the incident and he has stated that on 09.10.2006, himself, P.W.8, P.W.7 and the deceased were on security guard duty, at about 9.30 p.m. the accused came in drunken condition to the godown premises, they objected the accused as to why he came in a drunken condition. On that the accused quarreled with the deceased Giriraj and P.W.8 sent away the accused from the premises. While leaving the premises the accused threatened them with dire consequences. At about 2.30 or 3.00 a.m.

¶22

while he was taking rest in his room, P.W.8 and Srinivas came to him and told that the accused beat the deceased with crowbar on his head and the deceased was laying down with blood and the accused ran away and immediately he went there and found the deceased with bleeding injury on his head. Then himself and others shifted the deceased to the Hospital, where the Doctor declared him as dead. In the crossexamination, he admitted that there was no quarrel or enemity between the accused and deceased prior to the incident and the accused was working in Viswa plastic and himself, deceased and P.W.8 were working in Heritage Polymers.

¶23

The other witness, who was present at the time of incident, is P.W.7, M.Balvinder, who is working as Security guard in Heritage polymer, according to him on 09.10.2006 between 9.00 or 10.00 p.m. P.W.3 and P.W.8 were on duty at Heritage Polymer, at that time the accused came there in a drunken condition, then himself, deceased and P.W.8 objected the accused for attending the duty in drunken condition, and the accused quarreled with them. Then, they all sent away the accused. After completion of his duty, he went to his room for taking rest and at about 2.30 or 3.00 a.m., one Sreenu came to him and informed that the accused beat the deceased, then immediately he rushed to Security guard room and observed the injury on the head of the deceased. On enquiry, he came to know that the accused beat the deceased and they took the injured to Sai Bhavani Hospital, where the doctor declared him as brought dead. In the cross-examination he stated that when the accused came in a drunken stage, P.W.8 and others have not beat him, but they pushed him away and there are no ill-feelings or enemity between the deceased and accused.

¶24

From the above evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 7 the prosecution could able to establish the incident that has taken place between the accused and the deceased on 09.10.2006 at 9.30 p.m.

¶25

According to the prosecution, the accused was sent away from the spot after the 1^st incident and he again came back at 2.30 or 3.00 a.m. and attacked the deceased with crowbar and caused injury on his head and P.W.8, Laxman Lama, is the eyewitness to the said incident. According to P.W.8, on 09.10.2006 himself and the deceased were on security guard duty at Reddy polymers, at about 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. the accused came to duty in a drunken condition, then himself and the deceased objected him for coming in drunken condition. On that the accused beat the deceased, then he intervened and sent away the accused from the premises. Again at about 3.00 a.m. the accused came to the premises armed with crowbar and beat the deceased with the said crowbar on his forehead. As a result of which, deceased sustained bleeding injury and fell down on the ground. He raised cries, on that P.Ws.3 and 7 came there and they all shifted the deceased to the Hospital, where the Doctor declared him as dead. In the crossexamination he stated that after sending the accused from the premises, they have closed the gate and so the accused must have entered into the premises either break open the lock of the gate or scaling the compound wall and he stated that the accused came by scaling the compound wall. He admitted that immediately after jumping the wall the accused beat the deceased with crowbar. He admitted that at that time he was in front of security room at a distance of 7 yards from the deceased and the accused came there in opposite direction to him and attacked the deceased and as the accused was holding crowbar, he did not intervene due to fear. He further admitted that after the incident the accused went away along with crowbar by jumping the Northern side wall. Thus, P.W.8 has witnessed the incident of accused attacking the deceased and causing the injury on his forehead with a crowbar and the same was further confirmed in the cross-examination.

¶26

P.W.9, investigating officer, after registering the crime, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence Panchanama,

¶27

Ex.P.2 and drawn sketch, Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.4 and subsequently held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.4. Thereafter on 11.10.2006 at 3.00 p.m. Bahadurpally police apprehended the accused and produced before him. On interrogation, the accused confession about the offence in the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.5 and another and led them to Heritage polymer and took out the crowbar, M.O.1 from the bushes and the same was seized under Ex.P.6. P.W.9 has sent the blood stained clothes, blood stained earth and M.O.1 to the FSL for obtaining report through Court. Ex.P.10 is the FSL report.

¶28

P.W.4, the mediator has also supported P.W.9 with regard to conducting scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P.2 and drawing the rough sketch, Ex.P.3 in his presence. P.W.4 also acted as mediator for the inquest and at that time police seized the blood stained clothes of deceased. M.O.2 is the pant, M.O.3 is the T-shirt, M.O.4 is the baniyan and M.O.5 is the drawer of the deceased. As per Ex.P.2 observation panchanama and Ex.P.3 rough sketch, blood stains were found at the scene of offence.

¶29

P.W.5, who is the mediator for the confession and recovery of M.O.1, has also supported the version of P.W.9, investigating officer with regard to the confession of the accused and recovery of M.O.1 from the bushes of heritage polymers godowns. He identified the M.O.1 crowbar.

¶30

The investigating officer, P.W.9, has sent the blood stained clothes, which were seized from the dead body of the deceased, blood stained earth and M.O.1 to the FSL. As per FSL report, Ex.P.10, the clothes of the deceased and the crowbar are containing human blood, but the blood group could not be determined. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the recovery of M.O.1, which was used in the commission of offence at the instance of the accused.

¶31

P.W.6, Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has found the following antimortem injuries over the dead body of the deceased.

¶32

1. Irregular laceration over the right eye 8 cm X 2 cm bone exposed and eye ball thrown.

¶33

2. Irregular laceration over the left side of fore head above left eye 6 cm X 2 cm bone exposed.

¶34

3. Fracture of the frontal orbital bones of skull, irregular open present below the 1 and 2 injuries exposing the brain matter.

¶35

4. Fracture of Nasal bones & bridge of Nose, present irregular open exposing the brain matter.

¶36

5. Small laceration of 3 cm X ½ cm muscle on right side of nose present, brain tissue showed subdural and cerebral hemorrhage in the fracture bones midbrain tissues.

¶37

He opined that the cause of death was due to head injury.

¶38

Thus the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 8 with regard to the deceased sustaining injury on his forehead was supported by the medical evidence of P.W.6 and the postmortem report, Ex.P.7. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused caused the head injury to the accused with the crowbar and the deceased died due to the said head injury. Thus, the lower Court has rightly found the accused guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and the said finding recorded by the lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.324 of 2007 on 14.12.2007 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Hyderabad against the accused is hereby confirmed.

¶40

_______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA.

¶41

_____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Date:28-2-2012 Ksp

Ghun Bahadur, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghun Bahadur, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

D. Subbarao Vs The Director General of Police

Singam Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

M. Chegamma Vs The Superintendent of Police

The State of a.P., Vs Palepu Dharma Rao

Sandaka Durga Rao , Babi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Naga Prasad alias Naga Venkata Durga Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh