http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SANKARA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/02/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: With Criminal Appeal No. 8/91.                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI,J.      Both these  appeal arise  out of  the judgment  of  the andhra Pradesh  High Court  in Criminal  Appeal No. 1031/87. Criminal Appeal No. 691/90 if filed by S. Nagamalleswara (A- 3) and  S. Babu Rao (A-4). Criminal Appeal No. 8/91 is filed by V. Mankyala Rao (A-2).      The appellants  have been  convicted under  Section 302 IPC  for  causing  death  of  K.  Sivaramakrishnaiah.  Their conviction is  based upon the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and the two  dying declarations  - Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.13. The High Court confirmed their conviction mainly relying upon the two dying declarations.  It held  that though PWs.1, 2 and 3 are partisan witnesses  their evidence could be utilised for the purpose of corroboration.      Learned counsel  for the  appellants was  not  able  to point out  how PWs.2  and 3  who were  not  related  to  the deceased could  be regarded  as partisan witnesses. As their services were  hired for  the day  for cultivating  his land they were  with the deceased while he was returning from his field and  when the incident took place. Nothing was brought on record  to  show  that  they  has  any  enmity  with  the deceased. The  trial court  had rightly placed reliance upon their evidence.  As stated  earlier, the High Court has also relied  upon  their  evidence  though  for  the  purpose  of corroboration. The dying declaration Ex.P.15 was recorded by the Investigation officer at about 7.15 p.m. and Ex.P.13 was recorded by  the Judicial Magistrate at about 9.30 p.m. Both the dying  declarations have  been found as genuine and true and nothing could be urged by the learned counsel for taking a contrary  view. The  evidence of  PWs.2 and  3 and the two dying declarations  Ex.P.15 and  Ex.P.13  clearly  establish that the  appellants were  responsible for causing the death of K. Sivaramakrishnaiah.      It  was  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants that  as no  injuries were  caused on  the  vital parts of  the deceased, they should not have convicted under Section 302  IPC. This contention cannot be accepted because the medical  evidence clearly  shows that  the deceased  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

died due to the injuries caused to him and the injuries were sufficient in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Though not  on the  vital parts,  the injuries  caused  were serious.  Therefore,   the  appellants   have  been  rightly convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.      As we  find that they have been rightly convicted these appeals are dismissed.      The  appellants   were  released  on  bail  during  the pendency of  these appeal.  Their bail is cancelled and they are ordered  to  surrender  to  custody  to  serve  out  the remaining part of their sentence.