Crl.A. No.

769 of 2014

SC No.222 of 2013

Name of the accused- Sagar Subbal

Offences U/s 302 IPC

Facts

 On 30.08.2012, at 19:30 hours the police received telephonic message from Oxygen
hospital that one patient by name Amar Bahadur Thapa (herein after deceased),
Security Guard of G.K. Developers was admitted in the hospital with injuries over his
throat. The police visited the hospital and recorded the Statement of the deceased
wherein he stated that he worked as a watchman at GK Apartment and has been
staying in its cellar room. About two days ago one Sagar from Nepal has also joined
as Security Guard in the same apartment, who on seeing the money of the deceased
kept on asking hand loan of Rs 100 from him which he refused. Sagar had grudge on
the deceased for this and on 30.08.2012 while the deceased was resting Sagar came to
him and forcibly cut his throat with a blade.
 Based on this the police registered a case under Sec 307 IPC and took up
investigation. On 01.09.2012 they received information that the deceased succumbed
to injuries and thus section was altered. The accused was apprehended on 06.09.2012.

Issues

 Whether the accused has committed an offence punishable Under Sec 302 of IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt?

List of Prosecution Witnesses

PW 1 D. Daniel(Pg- 8)

PW 2 Yuva Raj(Pg- 10)

PW 3 Vinod Roy(Pg- 11)

PW 4 K. Partha Sarathi (Pg- 12)

PW 5 Thikaram Sharma (Pg- 13)

PW 6 K. Venkatesh(Pg- 14)
PW 7 P. Sridhar Rao(Pg- 15)

PW 8 Dr. K. V. Ramana Murthy (Pg- 16)

PW 9 A. Ramulu (Pg- 18)

PW 10 B. Pushpan Kumar(Pg- 19)

PW 11 A. Satyanarayana(Pg- 21)

List of Defence Witnesses-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-l : Inquest Report (Pg- 27)

Ex.P-2 : Signatures of P.W-5 on scene of offence panchanama (Pg- 44)

Ex.P-3 : Signatures of P.W-5 on rough sketch(Pg- 47)

Ex.P-4 : Admissible portion of confession of the accused(Pg- 36)

Ex.P-5 : Postmortem examination report(Pg- 39)

Ex.P-6 : Scene of offence panchanama(Pg- 45)

Ex.P-7 : Rough Sketch(Pg- 47)

Ex.P-8 : First information report(Pg- 48)

Ex.P-9 : Section alteration memo(Pg- 51)

Ex.P10 : FSL Report(Pg- 52)

Ex.P11 : Statement of the deceased(Pg- 54)

Exhibits Marked For Defence- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1- Laser Blade

M.O.2- Blood stained blue colour shirt

M.O.3- Blood stained banian

M.O.4- Blood stained saree

Reasons for Conviction

 Circumstantial Evidence
 Deposition by PW 2 (Yuva Raj) the supervisor of the Company that in the date of
event the accused and deceased where alone resting in their room. While he was
discharging his duty he saw the deceasing coming out with bleeding injuries. Upon
enquiry deceased informed him that accused cut his throat when he refused to
pay him Rs 100/-and he took a saree from the ground and tied it around the neck of
the deceased to reduce bleeding.
 Deposition by PW 3 (Vinod-another worker) that there was quarrel between the
accused on the day when offence was committed and deceased and that he also
saw the deceased coming out from the room with injuries and informed him that
accused cut his throat upon his enquiry.
 Deposition by PW 8 (Dr. K.V.Ramana Murthy) who conducted the Post Mortem
Examination and opined that deceased died due to cut throat injury.
 The Postmortem report(Ex.P.5) show that the injured was in a position to speak.
 Deposition by PW 11(A. Satyanarayana the SI who was deputed by the Inspector of
Police [PW 10]to record the Statement of the deceased) that the deceased stated that
he was injured by the accused as a grudge of him refusing to pay Rs.100/- to the
accused.
 Deposition by PW 10 (B. Pushpan Kumar), Inspector of Police that he received
message from Oxygen Hospital that one Amar Bhahadur Thapa was admitted with cut
throat injury and he deputed PW11 to record the statement and he registered a case on
that basis. He recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of PW6 and 7
and seized the laser blade MO-1.
 PW 5 and PW 6 turned hostile

Judgment

Accused found guilty of offence u/s 302 IPC and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo
LifeImprisonmentand to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence U/s.302 IPC.
Grounds of Appeal

 The Court below ought to have seen that there was no eye witness to the commission
of offence. Both witnesses PW2 and PW3 present at the work place at a distant place
from the alleged place of offence at the relevant time.
 The Court below ought to have seen that the deceased sustained injury to the throat
and was not in a position to speak.
 The Court below ought to have seen that PW 3 deposed that deceased became
unconscious after informing him about the incident. But the deposition is contrary to
PW 11 deposition, that he recorded the statement of deceased on 30.08.2012.
 The Court below ought to have seen that PW 11 deposed that deceased gave statement
that the accused had attacked him on 30.08.2012 at 12 noon while he was sleeping in
the room and cut his throat. But as per PW 2 and PW3 the alleged incident occurred
on 30.08.2012 at 5:30 pm.