LexVADLA CHANDRAIAH versus STATE OF A.P
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- .. V ADLA CHANDRAIAH A v. STATE OF A.P DECEMBER 7, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860; Exceptions I and 4 to Sections 300, 302, 304 Part- II: Homicide/murder-Quarrel between a fruit vendor and a police constable C for non-payment of price of fruits-Intervention by accused and his son, carpenters-Sudden fight lasted for I 0-15 minutes-Accused hacked the Constable with a badze causing his death--'Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 302 !PC and sentenced him accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: High Court erred D in appreciating evidence and thereby a wrong question posed-As to presence of motive, once clear evidence with regard to 'grudge' available, Court should have taken the same to its logical end-Accused was only having a tool, he was not otherwise armed-Injuries caused to deceased by ac-::used with the tool is due to sudden provocation-Sudden provocation not in doubt-Post mortem report reveals that injuries inflicted on the deceased by E accused not sufficient in· the ordinary course of nature to cause his death- Hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of appellant altered from s.302 to s.304 Part-II !PC-Sentence modified to the period already undergone/suffered by him-Directions issued-Sentencing. The qu~stion which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether in the absence of any motive and in particular the fact that the accused-appellant was not even known to the deceased, the fight which took place between them was a sudden one and the injuries which resulted in the death of other party to the fight, were inflicted in heat of passion, F a case under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. was made out or not. G A Police Constable, since deceased, allegedly picked up guavas from a fruit vendor but did not pay the price thereof. A quarrel ensued between them. Appellant, a carpenter, who was doing some work in nearby area, intervened. The quarrel/fight between them continued for 10-lS minutes. 343 II 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. A The appellant hacked the deceased with a badze causing his instantaneous death. He along with his son was charged for commission of murder of the constable. Trial Court relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses found accused-appellant alone guilty of committing the offence punishable u/ s 302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There has been a total misappreciation of evidence on the part of the High Court and a wrong question had been posed. Participation of the accused-appellant was not in dispute. Presence of motive was there; once C it was found that there had been no clear evidence with regard to 'grudge' the court should have taken the same to its logical end. (348-A) 1.2. lfthe quarrel continued for a long time, it would be presumed that there was no premeditation. If on an issue the appellant quarrelled with a constable, the deceased, who might have been of the opinion that he was not D required to pay for the fruits, tampers run high because of the attitude of the deceased. (348-F, GJ 1.3. The issue as to whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Part-II thereof or not should bejudged keeping in vie~v the factual backdrop of the case. For the said purpose, the term 'evidence E brought on records' must be considered in its entirety. (348-H) 1.4. Deceased was a constable. He took up four guava fruits which PW- 8 was selling. PW-8 and the deceased must have fought for payment of price. Appellant who along with his two sons had been carrying on carpentry work must have come to the rescue of PW-8. While doing so, a quarrel must have F ensued which even, according to the prosecution witnesses, continued for 10 or 15 minutes. If that be so, the question is ifthe appellant bearing any grudge as against the deceased or there being no cause for sudden provocation would not arise. Appellant was only having his tool. He was not otherwise armed. The tool in his hand was required to be used in his occupation. It might have G been used to cause injuries but sudden provocation therefor may not be much in doubt. [349-A, B, CJ H 1.5. Post-mortem report did not state that the injuries inflicted on the deceased by the ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.