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

PETITIONER: KATTA RAMUDU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated 18.10.1995  passed by the Division Bench of the High  Court of  Andhra Pradesh  in Criminal  Appeal  No. 32/95.      The appellant-accused, according to the prosecution, is the uncle  of accused No.2. They were residents of Velleturu Village of  Krishna  District  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  One  V. Nageswara  Rao   alias  Naguru,   (hereinafter  called   the "deceased"),  was   a  resident  of  Sattupalli  in  Khammam District. PW-9  is the  widow of  the deceased.  PW-1 is the native of  Veeramallu village in Khammam District. It is the prosecution case  that all  of them are ’Yerukala’ by caste. The deceased  and PW-6  used to  commit thefts and they were ex-convicts. A-1  along with  the  deceased,  also  used  to commit the  offences. While  the investigation  247 in Crime No. 110  of 1991,  for an  offence under Section 395, was in progress, PW-16,  the sub-Inspector  of Police  had sent for PW-1 through  the deceased  and two  constable. At  about 11 a.m. on January 17, 1992, they reached Bhimavarppadu village and went  into a  Hotel at  Junction. While  P-Ws, 6  and 10 stayed back,  the deceased  went to  the house  of PW-1. The deceased informed PW-1 1 the told him that he could not walk because he  was having  pain  in  the  legs.  The  proceeded towards  the  coffee  hotel  at  the  Junction.  It  is  the prosecution case  that when PW-1, the deceased and PW-3, who joined them  on the  way reached the Bhimvarappadu junction, the appellant  and A-2  came on  two cycles  from behind and cought hold  of the  deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that  A-1 came  near the  deceased put  a  towel around the  neck of  the deceased and pulled him. It is also said to have been uttered by the appellant that the deceased should be done to death on that date. Thereafter, A-2 caught hold of  the deceased after twisting his hands towards back. Thereupon, A-1,  the appellant  took out  a knife  from  his waist and stabbed the deceased. According to the evidence of PW-15, the  doctor, who  conducted autopsy, the deceased had three injuries of which Injury No.3 is "an eliptical oblique injury of  2-1/2"x1" penetrating through chest wall tapering

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

towards lower  and exposing  cut muscles  and  cut  ribs  2" medical to  left nipple.  Clotted blood  present. Sharp edge weapon. Internal  Injuries: On  opening the  skin  over  the chest wall  7th and  8th ribs  completely cut  and  6th  rib partially found  cut just  lateral to left margin of sternum corresponding to  external  injury  of  1-1/2"  through  and through present  over the  right  verticle.  Pericardium  is found torn.  Extravasation of blood into surrounding Lissues in respect  of all  the injuries  mentioned noticed. All the injuries are ante-mortem."      As per  the evidence  of PW-15, the injury to the heart was caused with a sharp object and the injury was sufficient to cause  death in the ordinary course of nature which would come under  clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The question, therefore, is:  whether the  offence is  one  of  murder  or culpable homicide  not amounting  to murder?  Ms. K.  Sharda Devi, learned  counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the  appellant was  not in  know whether  the  deceased would be  coming there  as in  informer to  the police;  the deceased had several enemies and that they were in search of him. As  a consequence,  it was not known that he would meet the deceased  and in  consequence, he  had not  intention to kill the  deceased. we cannot appreciate the argument of the learned counsel.  Notice is  confined only  to the nature of the offence  committed by  the appellant  and, therefore, we have to  proceed on  the basis  of the evidence on record as accepted by  the courts  below and  then to consider whether the facts  bring out  the offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C.      In the  light of  the aforestated  facts and in view of the nature  of injury  inflicted upon  the deceased,  it  is axiomatic that  when the  appellant had  inflicted injury by piercing sharp  edged weapon  into the heart of the deceased as consequence  of which  the deceased  died instantly,  the necessary inference  would be  that he  inflicted the injury with intention to do away with the deceased. In the light of the  PW-15,   doctor’s  evidence  and  material  prosecution evidence spoken  to by the witnesses and the words of "doing away with  the deceased" as uttered before the commission of the crime,  the  offence  is  clearly  one  of  the  murder. Accordingly, we  do  not  think  that  the  High  Court  has committed any  error in  confirming the  conviction  of  the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed.