STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusTHUMMALA ANJANEYULU

               [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 925


              STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                             A
                             v.
                THUMMALA ANJANEYULU
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1616 of 2005)
                   NOVEMBER 25, 2010
                                                                  B
   [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                  PRASAD, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:
                                                                  c
      s.304(Part-I )-Accused, who was ogling at some females
in a Panchayat, when confronted, took out a knife and stabbed
the victim resulting in his death - Conviction by trial court u/
s.302 -Acquittal by High Court- Held: The evidence of PW's
4 to 6 who are truly independent witnesses ought to be
                                                                   0
believed in the facts of the case - There is no reason to
disbelieve their testimony - They have given categoric
statements as to the manner in which the incident had
happened - The High Court has not discussed the evidence
of these witnesses and has disposed of the matter in a some
what sketchy manner - The promptness of the FIR and the E
fact that the presence of PWs. 4 to 6 finds mention in it, clearly
speaks for the truthfulness of the prosecution story - As
regards the conviction, the victim and the accused and the
witnesses had gathered at the place to organize a Panchayat
to settle a land dispute relating to some other persons, who F
were not, in any manner, connected with either party and it was
at that stage that the accused was apparently provoked by the
remarks of the victim on which he suddenly took out a knife
which he was carrying and caused one injury in chest of the
victim - There was no intention on the part of the accused to G
cause the very injury which he caused and ultimately led to
the death of the victim - The accused would thus be liable
for conviction u/s. 304 (Parf-1), /PC and not uls. 302 /PC - He

                             925                                  H
    926    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   is accordingly convicted uls. 304 (Part-I), /PC and sentenced
    to 7 years R. I.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1616 of 2005.
B
        From the Judgment & Order dated 05.01.2004 of the High
    Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
    1753 of 2001.

          D. Mahesh Babu for. the Appellant.
c
          T. Anamika (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for the Respondent.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

                                 ORDER
D
         1. This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the
    State of Andhra Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High
    Court of that State whereby the respondent herein, the sole
    accused, has been acquitted for an offence punishable under
E   Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution story is as under:

         2. The accused Thummala Anjaneyulu by name, developed
    intimacy with Suguna, daughter-in-law of PW-2. On the 6th of
    January .1997 PW-2 found the respondent and his daughter-
    in-law in his cattle shed and that too in a compromising position.
F   PW-2 raised an alarm on which the respondent ran away leaving
    behind a lungi and underwear belonging to him. Suguna was
    thereupon made to leave PW-2's house the next day. At about
    4 p.m. on the 7th January 1997, the deceased Bhoomaiah went
    to the house of PW-6 for the purpose of organizing a Panchayat
G   between G.Kistaiah and G. Ramulu with respect to some
    agricultural land. PW-3, the wife of the deceased, and another
    lady, Manemma by name, and his sister-in-law also fo)lowed
    the deceased to oversee the outcome of the Panchayat.
    Several other persons too were present at that time including
H
  STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. THUMMALA                    927
              ANJANEYULU

the accused and PWs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. During the Panchayat        A
proceedings the deceased suspected that the accused was
casting an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma aforesaid. He
thereupon confronted the accused and asked him as to why
he was looking at the ladies whereupon the accused took out
a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest   B
which resulted in a serious injury to him. Bhoomaiah was
immediately removed (in a tractor belonging to PW-1, his
younger brother) to Eldurti for medical aid but he succumbed
to his injuries on the way on which the body was taken to the
Eldurti Police Station instead. PW-1 also gave a report Ex.P1    c
which was registered as a FIR by PW-10 the Sub-Inspector of
the Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302
of the IPC. The Police Officer also visited the place of
occurrence and made the necessary enquiries and also
dispatched the dead body for its post-mort~m examination to      D
the Government Hospital, Medak and further handed over
investigation to PW-11. The accused surrendered to the police
and during the course of his remand made a disclosure
statement leading to the recovery of the alleged murder
weapon. On the completion of the investigation by PW-11, a
charge-sheet was filed and the accused was ultimately brought    E
to trial.

     3. The prosecution in support of its case relied on the
evidence of PW-3 to PW-6, PW-3 being the wife of the
deceased, and PWs. 4, 5, and 6 being co-villagers of both the F
accused as also the deceased. The doctor, who had conducted
the post-mortem examination, had, in the meanwhile passed
away, and the post-mortem report was accordingly not proved
by the prosecution. When the appeal came up before a Division
Bench of the High Court, this flaw was noticed and by its order G
dated 17th September 2003, a direction was issued that the
post-mortem report be proved by somebody who was familiar
with the hand writing of the deceased doctor. The post-mortem
report was, accordingly, proved by one Dr. P.Chandrasekhar.
                                                                 H
    928   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         4. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-2 with
    regard to the motive and that he had seen his daughter in law
    Suguna in a compromising position with the deceased a day
    prior to the murder and the eye witness account of the other
    four witnesses held that the case against the respondent was
B proved beyond doubt. The trial court also noticed that the FIR
  · did not refer to either PW-3 or Manemma as being present
    although the names of PWs. 4, 5 and 6 and several other
    persons, who had not been examined, had figured as eye
    witnesses. The Court observed that the prosecution story as
c given in the FIR was slightly discrepant vis-a-vis the statements
    in court inasmuch that in the FIR the story projected was that
    the accused had stabbed Bhoomaiah on account of annoyance
    as Suguna had been sent away whereas in the evidence in
    court, it appeared that this story had been deviated from and
    the murder was attributed to the fact that the respondent had
0
    be!'!n ogling at PW-3 and Manemma during the Panchayat. The
    Court observed that in the light of the above facts, the presence
    of PW-3 was· doubtful. The trial court, however, held that
    notwithstanding-this apparent discordance there was absolutely
    no reason whatsoever for the other witnesses to have falsely
E named the accused as the assailant as they were truly
    independent. The trial court, accordingly, convicted the
    accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to
    imprisonmenlfor life. An appeal was, thereafter, taken by the
    accused to the High Court and the High Court, has, by the
F impugnegjudgment, acquitted the accused primarily on the plea
    that there was rio evidence as to whether a Panchayat had
    been called to settle the dispute between Kistaiah and Ramulu
    and as PW3's name had not been mentioned in the FIR or in
    the inquest report as an eye witness, her presence was doubtful.
G The High Court, while referring to PWs.4, 5 and 6 held that they
    too could not be believed for the simple reason that there
    appeared to be some discrepancy as to the motive for the
    attack. This is what the Court had to say:

H
   STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. THUMMALA                      929
               ANJANEYULU ·

    ''The fact that the names of PWs.4,5 and 6 were mentioned A
    in Ex.P1 at the earliest point of time as eye witnesses to
    the occurrence lend credence to the fact that they were
    present at the scene of occurrence where the offence took
    place, but then it does not necessarily mean or lead to the
    conclusion that they are speaking the truth. All the above B
     mentioned three witnesses consistently spoke in their
    evidence to the effect that the immediate provocation for
     the attack on the deceased was the questioning the
    deceased as to why the appellant was looking at PW.3
     and Manemma at the scene of occurrence recorded                c
    earlier, the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 regarding the occasion
     for the assault will have to be discarded. The inevitable
    conclusion would be that the prosecution has not come out
    with the true version. The benefit necessarily go to the
     accused/appellant. In view of the conclusion reach by us, . 0
    we do not propose to go into the merits of the other
    submissions made by the learned counsel for the
    appellant."

    5. The present appeal has been filed by the State of
Andhra Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High Court.            E

     6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record very carefully. It is true that PW-3's
name does not figure in the FIR and there appears to be some
uncertainty with regard to the motive for the murder. But we have   F
no doubt that the evidence of PW's 4 to 6 who are truly
independent witnesses ought to be believed in the facts of the
case. It will be seen that the High Court has not discussed the
evidence of these witnesses and has disposed off the matter
in a some what sketchy manner. We have gone through the
                                                                    G'
evidence of these witnesses with the help of the learned
counsel. We see no reason to disbelieve their testimony. They
have given categoric statements as to the manner in which the
incident had happened. We must highlight that these witnesses
were completely independent and had no axe to crime either
                                                                    H
    930   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A in favour of the prosecution or the defence. They unanimously
  deposed to the manner in which the accused, provoked by the
  statement made by the deceased that he was looking at PW3
  and Manemma in an ugly manner, had caused one injury and
  while running away from the spot had threatened those who
B were close by with dire consequences in case they intervened.

       7. The spontaneity of the FIR also supports the eye witness
  account. The incident happened at about 4 p.m. in village
  Yeshwantraopet about 12 km. away from Police Station, Eldurti.
C An attempt was made to remove the injured to the hospital but
  he died on the way, on which the dead body was taken to the
  police station and the FIR was lodged at 8 p.m. The
  promptness of.the FIR and the fact that the presence of PWs.
  4 to 6 finds mention in it, clearly speaks to the truthfulness of
  the prosecution story.
D
       8. The learned counsel for the accused has, however,
  submitted that even assuming for a moment that the
  prosecution story was correct and the accused liable for
  conviction, it was not still a case of murder as there was no
E evidence to show that the accused had intended to cause the
  very injury which had been caused and had led to the death of
  the deceased and he was, therefore, liable only for a charge
  of manslaughter and not murder. The facts of the case
  undoubtedly support the argument of the learned counsel. As
F per the prosecution story, the deceased and the accused and
  the witnesses had gathered oµtside the house of PW6 to
  organize a Panchayat to settle a dispute between Kistaiah and
  Ramulu, who were not, in any manner, connected with either
  party and it was at that stage that the accused was apparently
G provoked by the remarks of the deceased that he should not
  cast an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma on which he had
  suddenly taken out a knife which he was carrying and caused
  one injury in the chest. We are of the opinion that there was no
  intention on the part of the accused to cause the very injury
  which he caused which ultimately led to the death of the
H
   STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. THUMMALA                   931
               ANJANEYULU

deceased. The- accused wou,ld thus be liable for conviction     A
under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 302
thereof. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the
acquittal recorded by the High Court and convict the accused
for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC
and sentence him to 7 years R.I. The appeal is allowed to the   B
above extent.

R.P.                                        Appeal allowed.