L.N. Reddy, J.�The accused was alleged to have committed murder of his father-in-law on 6.7.2008 at 1.00 p.m., in his house at Horispet Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District. The complaint, Ex. P1, in this behalf was submitted by his mother-in- law, PW1, at 3.00 p.m., before the Station House Officer, Adavuladeevi Police Station. She stated that she had two daughters and one son and the eldest daughter, by name Krishna Kumari, was married to the accused and the couple were blessed with two children. According to PW1, the accused used to harass his wife, Krishna Kumari, and in that context, whenever attempt was made to settle the dispute, he became inimical towards his father-in-law i.e., the deceased. Both of them are said to be not in talking terms. On 5.7.2008, PW1 and her husband, the deceased, are said to have come to Kothaharispet to see the ailing elder brother of the deceased. After calling upon him, PW1 and the deceased are said to have come to the house of the accused to see their daughter. They are said to have slept in the night at that house. On the next day, Krishna Kumari is said to have gone to Repalle to see her daughter, who is staying in Hostel. PW1 is said to have served lunch to the deceased so that they can go to their native place. After completion of the lunch, the deceased is said to have gone to the backyard of the house to answer a nature call and when he sat for urination, the accused is said to have taken a crowbar and hit the deceased first on the head and thereafter on the jaw. PW1 is said to have gone to the spot and implored the accused by holding his feet, but she was kicked by the accused. On hearing the cries of PW1, PWs.2 and 3 are said to have come to the place and when all of them have taken the injured to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw of PW6, he died after they travelled a distance of about 2 Kms. She prayed for necessary action in this behalf.
2. Crime No. 21 of 2008 was registered by the police and the investigation was taken up. As a first measure, the scene of offence panchanama, Ex. P4, was prepared and inquest, Ex. P3, and postmortem, Ex. P2, were conducted. A confessional statement is said to have been recorded from the accused. Ultimately, a final report was submitted and based on the same, the trial Court framed the charges. Since the accused denied the allegation made against him, the trial was conducted, wherein PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 7 were also taken on record.
3. Through its judgment, dated 7.12.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty of committing the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed. Hence, this appeal.
4. Smt. Gayathri Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court rested its conclusion only on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and the presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful. She contends that the post-mortem report and the evidence of PW7 discloses that there was only one serious injury on the head that was the cause of the death of the deceased and had there been any intention on the part of the accused to cause murder of the deceased, the pattern of injuries would have been different. She further submits that though PWs.1 to 3 are said to have taken the injured to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw, clothes stained with the blood of the deceased were not at all recovered from any one and the stains in the auto-rickshaw were not preserved. She further submits that the case, at the most, may have been the one of inflicting injuries without any intention to cause the death and the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C., cannot be sustained.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a rare case, in which, a gruesome murder was caused by none other than the son-in-law of the deceased and it took place right in the presence of PW1, the mother-in-law. She submits that in the extensive cross-examination of PW1, the defence was not able to point out anything to improbablize whatever has been stated in Ex. P1 or the chief-examination of PW1. She submits that it is only with a clear intention to kill the deceased, that the accused has taken a crowbar and hit him that too when he was sitting while answering the nature call. She contends that the deposition of PW7 is to the effect that three injuries are noticed on the body of the deceased and even one of them is sufficient to cause the death and the same cannot be interpreted in such a way that there existed only one injury. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record from the proper perspective and no other conclusion is possible.
6. The deceased is none other than the father-in-law of the accused. From what is stated by PW1 either in Ex. P1 or in her deposition, it is evident that the relationship between both of them is not that cordial. At one point of time, the accused is said to have tried to attack the deceased.
7. The purpose for which PW1 and the deceased came to the village of the accused on 5.7.2008 is that the brother of the deceased was said to be ailing. Having called upon his brother, the deceased and his wife, PW1, naturally went to the house of their daughter in the evening and spent night in that house. In Ex. P1, it was mentioned that though PW1 and the deceased wanted to go to their place in the morning itself, it is the accused, who asked them to stay back for lunch. Krishna Kumari, the daughter of PW1 and the deceased, is said to have gone to Repalle to see her daughter, who was staying in a Hostel. The result is that there were only three persons in the house i.e., accused, deceased and PW1. After the lunch, the deceased is said to have gone to the backyard of the house to answer the nature call. At that time, the accused is said to have taken a crowbar and hit the deceased on the head and jaw. PW1 is said to have gone to the spot and implored the accused by holding his feet, but she was kicked by the accused.
8. In the lengthy cross-examination of PW1, none of the aspects mentioned by her were shown to be either improbable or non-existent. The only suggestion made to her was that the deceased accidentally came into contact with bamboos of the hut of the accused, sustained injuries and died on account of the same. The suggestion is not only too feeble, but also is totally irrelevant and out of context. On the other hand, indirectly, the defence admitted that the death of the deceased occurred right in the premises. The suggestion does not fit into the result of the post- mortem. When two deep injuries which are found to have caused only through MOI, crowbar, the question of the person receiving such serious injuries just on coming in contact with bamboos of the hut, does not arise.
9. Much argument is advanced as to the probability of PWs.2 and 3 being at the scene of offence. The evidence on record discloses that they were at a distance of 100 yards from the scene of offence and on hearing the cries of the deceased, they came there. They did not attribute any acts and omissions on the part of the accused. Their role was confined only to the one of helping PW1 in taking the deceased in the injured condition to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw of PW6.
10. In his evidence, PW6 stated that on being required by PWs.2 and 3, he took his auto and when the injured was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. From this witness also, nothing was elicited to suspect the role played by him. PW4 is the sister of PW1 and PW5 is her son. Since none of them were present at the scene of offence, their evidence would not be of much use. As observed earlier, PW7 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy and he stated in the chief-examination as under:
"Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death. Injury No. 1 caused like weapon like MOI."
Nothing serious was elicited from this witness.
11. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW11. Most of the cross-examination of this witness was about the alleged omissions on the part of PWs.1 to 3. However, no contradictions whatever were suggested between their evidence in the Court on the one hand and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the other. With this evidence before it, the trial Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the accused caused the death of the deceased. We do not find any defect in the same.
12. Learned Counsel for the accused advanced extensive arguments to the effect that the attack by the accused cannot be said to be the result of any premeditation or that he wanted to kill the deceased. Elaborating further, she contends that if there existed any intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased, he would have availed the opportunity of the deceased sleeping in his house during the intervening night of 5/6.7.2008 and the attack that caused the death of the deceased may be out of any sudden provocation, but not with an intention to kill.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed this argument.
14. However, we find that the fact though there existed some differences between the accused and the deceased, they are so trivial that no complaint to any police station was made, nor any Panchayats were conducted in that behalf. Further, PW1 and the deceased stayed back for lunch on the request of the accused himself. We are of the view that the case fits into Part I of Section 304 I.P.C. Though the accused knew very well that the injuries caused by him would result in the death, he did not have any intention to kill the person who is none other than his father-in-law that too in the presence of his mother-in-law.
15. Therefore, the criminal appeal is partly allowed, altering the conviction of the accused to be the one under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and altering the sentence to be the one of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence as to fine ordered by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in SC No. 5 of 2009 shall remain. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
