KATTA RAMUDUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

A                              KATIA RAMUDU
                                         v.
                       STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                 MARCH 3, 1997

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

          Penal Code, 1860:

          S.302-Murde~Accused inflicting a knife blow on the chest of the ·
C victim cutting the right ventricle through and through-Victim died instant-
    ly-Oral evidence to the effect that before inflicting the injury accused had
    uttered to do away with the deceased-Held, in the circumstances the offence
    is clearly one of murder-High Court committed no error in confirming the
    conviction of accused u/s 302 and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life
    passed by trial court.
D
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    247 of 1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in Cr!. A. No. 32 of 1995.
E
          Ms. K. Sharada Devi (SCLSC) for the Appellant.

          G. Prabhakar for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F         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.
G        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
H village in Khammam District. It is the prosecution case that all of them are
                                       632
                       KATTARAMUDUv. STAIB                                633

'Yerukala' by caste. The deceased and PW-6 used to commit thefts and             A
they were ex-convicts. A-1 along with the deceased, also used to commit
the offences. While the investigation 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 constables. At
about 11 a.m. on January 17, 1992, they reached Bhimavarppadu village            B
and went into a Hotel at Junction. While PWs. 6 and 10 stayed back, the
deceased went to the house of PW-1. The deceased informed PW-1 that
he was called by the Sub-Inspector of Police. PW-1 then told him that he
could not walk because he was having pain in the legs. They proceeded
towards the coffee hotel at the Junction. It is the proseciition case that
when PW-1, the deceased and PW-3, who joined them on the way reached             C
the Bhimvarappadu junction, the appellant and A-2 came on two cycles
from behind and caught -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. There-         D
after, 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" x l" penetrating through chest
wall tapering towards lower and exposing cut muscles and cut ribs 2"             E
medial to left nipple. Clotted blood present. Sharp edge weapon. Internal
Injuries: On opening the skin over the chest wall 7th and 8th ribs complete-
ly cut and 6th rib partially found cut just lateral to left margin of sternum
corresponding to external injury No. 3. On opening the chest wall, an
oblique injury of 1-1/2" through and through present over the right verticle.    F
Pericardium is found torn. Extravasation of blood into surrounding tissues
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 G
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. Sharada
Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the ap-
pellant was not in know whether the deceased would be coming there as H
    634                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A an 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 no 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
B   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
C   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 neces-
    sary 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
D   "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.
E          The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.