FAIR
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT:- SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
THURSDAY, THE 17 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
SESSIONS CASE NO. 198 OF 2018
(On committal by I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Karimnagar by her Order in PRC No.46 of 2017, dt.19.03.2018).
Name of the Complainant: The State through the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-II Town P.S. (Cr. No.105/2017 of P.S., Karimnagar-II Town).
Name of the Accused: Gurrala Laxman, S/o Yellanna, aged 41 yrs., Madiga, R/o Kamalapur Village, Navipet Mandal of Nizamabad District, now at Vidyanagar, Karimnagar.
Charges: Under Sec.498-A, 404 and 302 of IPC.
Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty”
Finding of the Court: The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 302 and 404 of IPC., and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) of Cr. PC.
Sentence or Order: The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Sec.404 of IPC. All the three sentences shall run concurrently.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 2
Prosecution conducted by: Sri M. Surender, Public Prosecutor, Prl.
Sessions Court, Karimnagar.
Accused defended by: Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-II Town P.S., laid charge sheet in Cr. No.105/2017 of Karimnagar-II Town P.S., against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 404 and 302 of IPC.
2.00.The case of the prosecution is that the accused subjected his wife Smt. Shashikala (the deceased) to cruelty by harassing her mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity and ultimately, on the intervening night of 14/15.04.2017, at Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar proper, he killed his wife by strangulating her to death, took away her gold ornaments and fled away.
2.01.Basing on the report given by PW.1, i.e. mother of the deceased, PW.15/Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.
No.105/2017 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A and 302 of
IPC., issued Express F.I.R. and sent to the Court and its copies to all the concerned. PW.11 sent a requisition to PW.14/Tahsildar to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased and then rushed to the scene of offence. PW.14 visited the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9/T. Padma,
P.W.12/Gajjela Suguna and Ellaiah (LW.14). PW.15 got photographed the dead body of the deceased and the scene of offence through the
Photographer (LW.8) who reported died. PW.15 then examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 6 and others and prepared Crime
Details Form in the presence of PW.12/Gajjela Suguna and Morza Yellaiah (LW.14) and sent the dead body to Govt. Hospital, Karimnagar for
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 3 postmortem examination. During the course of further investigation,
PW.15 examined and recorded the statements of PW.8/Kanakam
Thirupathi and PW.13/Elagandula Laxman @ Komuraiah. On 19.04.2017, at 10.00 hours, PW.15 apprehended the accused at Court Chowrastha,
Karimnagar, secured the presence of PW.11/Syed Khadeer Ahmed and
Shaik Saleem (LW.15) and on interrogation, the accused confessed in their presence that he killed her wife by strangulating her to death, suspecting her fidelity and took away her gold ornaments and later, the accused produced two gold pusthelu weighing six grams, pair of gold ear studs weighing 2.600 grams, pair of mateelu weighing 2.900 grams, pair of silver leg chains weighing 59 grams, which were got weighed with the help of goldsmith PW.7/Sagurthi Nagaraju. PW.15 recorded the confessional statement of the accused and seized the above gold ornaments under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of above panchas. The accused further confessed that he threw the nylon rope used in the commission of offence in an earthen pot (Ranjan) beside his rented portion and led PW.15 and the panchas to his rented house and produced the said nylon rope and the same was seized by PW.15 under the cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of above panchas. After completing the formalities of arrest, PW.15 sent the accused for judicial remand. PW.10/Dr. K. Ravinder Reddy, Civil
Asst. Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Karimnagar conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem
Report opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation. After completion of investigation, PW.15 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 404 and 302 of IPC.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 4 3.00.The learned I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Karimnagar, took up the case on file as PRC No.46/2017.
4.00.On appearance of the accused before the learned Magistrate
Court, copies of case documents have been furnished to him, as envisaged under Sec.207 of Cr. PC. As the offence under Sec.302 of
IPC., is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar under Sec.209 of Cr.
PC., for trial.
5.00.This Court numbered the case as Sessions Case No.198 of 2018 and made over the same to the Court of IV-Addl. Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar for disposal according to law.
6.00.On appearance of the accused before the Court of IV-Addl.
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, charges under Sec.498-A, 404 and 302 of
IPC., were framed against him, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu language. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.
7.00.When the trial was in progress, this case was withdrawn from the Court of IV-Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and transferred to this
Court as per Order, dt.18.10.2019.
8.00.In all, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os. 1 to 5 and closed their evidence.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 5 9.00.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr. PC., and he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He stated that on 14.04.2017, he went to the house of his younger brother G. Gangaram to attend agricultural work, that having come to know about the death of his wife, he came back to
Karimnagar, and that a false case is foisted against him. He reported defence evidence on his behalf.
10.00.On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined.
11.00.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the accused through video conferencing.
12.00.Now the point that arises for determination is :-
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 302 and 404 of IPC., beyond reasonable doubt ?
13.00.It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 to 5 and the evidence of PWs.1 to 15 is consistent and corroborates with each other and also with the documentary evidence and their evidence establishes that the accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife, used to harass her mentally and physically and on the night of incident, he beat her and strangulated to her death with a nylon rope, took away gold ornaments from her person and fled away and therefore, prayed to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.
498-A, 404 and 302 of IPC.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 6 13.01.On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the murder of his wife, and that on the date of incident, the accused was at his native Village Kamalapur in Nizamabad District along with his younger brother to take the share of his crop and to discuss about leasing of their land to others for cultivation and thus the prosecution failed to prove that it was the accused who killed his wife and therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.
13.02.The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi, reported in 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.)
172 (A.P.) I the case between Sugali Dungavath Lakshma Naik @ Anda and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held that when the prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence, all links in chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence and the circumstances so proved should not be compatible with any hypothesis except with the guilt of the accused. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, reported in 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 96 (A.P.) in the case between Thadepalli
Srinivasa Murthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, establishment of motive is an essential and initial ingredient to be established by the prosecution. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at
Hyderabad, reported in 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 859 (A.P.) in the case between Shaik Khadar Basha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held that where there is missing of link in chain of circumstances to connect the accused that he is living together with the deceased on the date of offence, no inference can be drawn against the accused under
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 7
Sec.106 Evidence Act. He further placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in 2010 (1) Acquittal 393
(A.P.) in the case between Smt. Kolakaluri Kotamma Vs State of A.P., wherein it is held that mere circumstances that appellant was found absent from her house for two or three months after the incident would not prove the guilt of the appellant. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, reported in 2010 (1)
Acquittal 244 (A.P.) in the case between Parsineni Venkateswarlu Vs
State of A.P., where the conviction of the accused was set aside on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the accused was in the company of the deceased prior to incident or at the time of the incident.
He further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 150 in the case between
Kanaparthi Saidulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held that where there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the accused being only person in the company of the deceased and disappeared from the scene, conviction of the accused cannot be sustained in law.
14.00. POINT :-
The criminal law was put into motion basing on the report lodged by PW.1, who is mother of the deceased. In Ex.P-1 report, PW.1 stated that on 30.01.2015, she performed the marriage of her daughter
Shashikala with the accused (Gurrala Laxman) and at the time of marriage, she presented gold weighing two tulas and net cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- and other articles. Since their marriage, her daughter and the accused started living at Karimnagar and for the past five months they have been living in a rented house at Karimnagar, and that
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 8 her son-in-law was not attending to any work and preparing for D.S.C.
Ever since the marriage, her son-in-law was suspecting the fidelity of her daughter whenever she speaks to anybody and keeping the same in mind, he used to harass her daughter mentally and physically and on one occasion, the matter was reported to Women Police station, Karimnagar and counseling was done. Six months after the marriage, her son-in- law beat her daughter and sent to her house for five times and five times panchayahts were held in the presence of elders by name Kanakam
Thirupathi and Elagandula Laxman and all the times, her son-in-law admitted his guilt and assured to look after her daughter well and took her back into his company.
14.01.It is further stated by PW.1 in Ex.P-1 report that by that time her daughter was carrying five months’ pregnancy. On 15.04.2017, at about 02.00 P.M., the house owner of her daughter by name Iruguralla
Nampalli informed her on phone that her daughter was found dead on a cot in the bedroom of her rented house. Thereupon, she immediately rushed to the rented house of her daughter at Vidyanagar and found her daughter dead on a cot in the bedroom. When they searched for her son-in-law, they came to know that he was not found in the house since morning. They noticed a strangulation mark on the neck of her daughter and golden ornaments were missing from the person of her daughter. Lastly, it is stated by PW.1 in Ex.P-1 report that her son-in- law, having developed grudge against her daughter by suspecting her fidelity, killed her by strangulation on the night of 14.04.2017, took away her gold ornaments and fled away and therefore, she requested for necessary legal action in the matter.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 9 15.00.As stated supra, PW.1 is mother of the deceased. PW.2 is brother of the deceased. PW.3 is owner of the house wherein the accused and the deceased resided as tenants. PW.4 is wife of PW.3.
PWs.5 and 6 are co-tenants of the accused and the deceased. PW.7 is the goldsmith who weighed the gold ornaments recovered from the possession of the accused in pursuance of his confession. PW.8 and
PW.13 are elders of the panchayaths who mediated between the accused and the deceased to resolve their dispute. PW.9 is the mediator for the inquest. PW.10 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination and issued Postmortem Examination Report marked as Ex.P-
4. PW.11 is the mediator for confession-cum-seizure panchanama.
PW.12 is the mediator for Crime Details Form marked as Ex.P-8. PW.14 is the Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased as in Ex.P-3. PW.15 is the Investigation Officer who, on receipt of report lodged by PW.1 marked as Ex.P-1, registered the case in
Cr. No.105/2017 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A and 302 of
IPC., and issued Express F.I.R. marked as Ex.P-9, investigated into the crime and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 404 and 302 of
IPC.
16.00.Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Padala Veera Reddy Vs State of
A.P. and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 10 (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
17.00.The motive for the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, is that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, i.e. the deceased
Shashikala, whenever she spoke to or saw anybody and used to harass her mentally and physically and several panchayaths were also held in that regard. The rented house where the incident took place was in the exclusive possession and occupation of the accused and the deceased.
The incident had occurred on the intervening night of 14/15.04.2017 when no other person had a chance to enter into the house where the accused and the deceased were residing. The dead body of the deceased was lying on the cot with contusion over the neck and swelling as noticed by PWs.1 to 6 and gold ornaments from the person of the deceased were missing. The medical evidence of PW.10, the injuries found by him on the dead body of the deceased at the time of his examination establishing use of violence and the Postmortem
Examination Report issued by him in Ex.P-4 with an opinion that the death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia due to strangulation. The
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 11 accused was absent in the house when the dead body of the deceased was found lying on a cot in the bedroom of the house. The evidence of
PWs.1 to 5 is that on 15.04.2017, the accused made a phone call to PW.3 and enquired about the phone number of PW.6 and the evidence of PW.6 that the accused made a call to him and enquired about the condition of the deceased but refused to come to the house. The accused took the plea of alibi pretending innocence on the ground that he was at his native village in Nizamabad District on the date of alleged incident. The accused made a confessional statement during interrogation and the police recovered gold ornaments at his instance and also recovered nylon rope used in the commission of offence in pursuance thereof in the presence of PW.11.
17.01.Now it has to be seen whether the circumstances stated above are closely linked with one another to establish the guilt of the accused or otherwise. Therefore, it has to be examined thoroughly as to whether the evidence let in by the prosecution completely and conclusively establishing the links of the entire chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused.
18.00.In order to prove the motive for the offence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PWs.3 to 6, PW.8 and PW.13.
The evidence of PWs.1 and 2, i.e. mother and brother of the deceased, is that after the marriage, the deceased Shashikala and the accused lived at Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar in a rented house belonging to
Nampalli (PW.3), and that six months after the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity. They further deposed that their caste elders by name Thirupathi
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 12 and Laxman conducted panchayath between the accused and the deceased on five occasions and on each and every occasion, the accused took back the deceased with an assurance that he will look after her well and on one occasion, counseling was made to the accused in the police station with regard to the above harassment. PWs.1 and 2 further deposed that about two years four months back, Nampalli (PW.3) informed them over phone about the death of the deceased in the bedroom and immediately they rushed to the house of the accused and the deceased and found the dead body of deceased Shashikala lying on a cot in the rented house and they found a contusion over her neck.
PWs.1 and 2 categorically deposed that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating with a rope by suspecting her fidelity and her gold ornaments and silver anklets (M.Os.1 to 4) were found missing and they suspect that the accused fled away with the above ornaments after killing the deceased.
18.01.PW.8 and PW.13 are elders of the panchayaths held between the accused and the deceased. PW.8 deposed that the marriage between the accused and the deceased Shashikala took place in the year 2015 and she died about 2 ½ years back. PW.8 further deposed that after the marriage, the deceased and the accused lived at Karimnagar in a rented house. He further deposed that prior to the death of the deceased,
PW.1 approached him and Laxman (PW.13) and stated that the accused was harassing her daughter Shashikala by suspecting her character and as such, he along with Laxman (PW.13) held panchayaths five times and on each and every occasion, the accused admitted his guilt and assured that he will look after his wife well and took her back on the said assurance. He further deposed that on 15.04.2017, at about 02.00 P.M.,
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 13 he received a phone call from Dharmender (LW.3) that the said
Shashikala died in her house and immediately he rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying on a cot and he found a contusion injury around the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that he came to know that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating her neck and also took away M.Os.1 to 4, and that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased.
18.02.PW.13 deposed that the deceased Shashikala got married with the accused in the year 2015 and they lived happily for a period of six months at Karimnagar. He further deposed that the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other and they came to the house of PW.1, and that he was informed by Dharmendar (LW.3) about the disputes between the accused and the deceased and the said Dharmender requested him and PW.8 to conduct panchayath between them. He further deposed that he and PW.8 pacified the accused for five times in the panchayaths and the accused used to state that he will never harass the deceased and used to take her back to his house. He further deposed that on 15.04.2017, they came to know that the accused killed the deceased on 14.04.2017 and absconded with gold ornaments of the deceased.
18.03.PW.1 was cross-examined about her family, marriage settlement between the accused and the deceased, the assurance given by the elders that after the marriage accused would live in Karimnagar, presentation of gold ornaments and dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage and the houses where the deceased and the accused lived together after the marriage, including the house of Nampalli (PW.3) where the deceased and the accused lastly resided together since 3 to 5
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 14 months prior to the death of the deceased. PW.1 further stated that the accused himself used to drop the deceased in their house after harassing her physically and mentally. PW.1 further stated that PWs.8 and 13 are not her relatives but they belong to her caste and they are the elders in the panchayaths on both sides but no document was reduced into writing about the panchayath. She denied the suggestion that she foisted a false case against the accused as he used to visit his village against their will.
18.04.PW.2 was also cross-examined on similar lines as that of
PW.1. He stated that no elders were present on behalf of the accused.
He too denied the suggestion that they got differences because the accused wanted to go to his native village for doing agriculture as he failed to get job. He also denied the suggestion that they foisted a false case, as they have got some differences with the accused with regard to shifting of his residence from Karimnagar to his native place.
18.05.In the cross-examination, PW.8 stated that first panchayath was conducted six months after the marriage at the house of Laxman (PW.13) who acted as elder on behalf of the accused, though he did not state to the police that Laxman was elder on behalf of the accused, and that three months thereafter second panchayath was conducted. He further stated that he does not remember whether any written resolution was passed in five panchayaths held at the house of Laxman (PW.13).
He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any panchayath between the accused and the deceased.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 15 18.06.PW.13 stated in his cross-examination that on behalf of the accused there were no elders in the panchayaths, and that generally there will be a compromise deed recorded during the course of panchayath but no compromise deed was recorded in the panchayaths.
Though there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW.8 and PW.13 with regard to the place where those panchayaths were held, PW.13 denied the suggestion that he and PW.8 never held panchayaths between the accused and the deceased.
18.07.PW.3 is the owner of the house wherein the accused and the deceased resided as tenants and PW.4 is wife of PW.3. PW.5 and PW.6 are also tenants in the house owned by PW.3. PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 in one voice deposed that they came to know through PWs.1 and 2 that the marriage of the accused and the deceased took place two years prior to the death of the deceased and the accused used to harass the deceased frequently by suspecting her character and several panchayaths were took place with regard to the above issue and they further came to know that on the night of 14/15.04.2017, the accused with an intention to kill the deceased, strangulated her with a rope and took away her gold ornaments and the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased.
Though PW.4 deposed that she came to know through PWs.1 and 2 that the marriage of the accused and the deceased took place two years prior to the death of the deceased, she does not know the relations between the deceased and the accused, and that she does not know the reason for the death of the deceased. As such, PW.4 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination, PW.4 denied the suggestion that he stated to the police as in Ex.P-2 that on 15.04.2017, at about 12.00 noon, the accused
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 16 called Prameela (PW.5) and stated that he was outside and requested her to give the phone to the deceased Shashikala. However, PW.4 admitted that she came to know that the accused used to suspect the character of the deceased Shashikala and harassed her physically and mentally and beat her and that, several panchayaths were held and on 14/15.04.2017 night, the accused with an intention to kill his wife strangulated her neck with a rope and caused her death and fled away snatching her gold pusthelu, gold ear studs, gold mateelu and silver anklets.
18.08.From the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, PW.8 and PW.13, it is clear that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and harass her mentally and physically. As stated above, PW.3 is owner of the house and PW.4 is his wife while PWs.5 and 6 are tenants of PW.3 and co-tenants of the deceased and the accused. Except making a suggestion to PWs.4 to 6 that they are deposing falsely at the instance of
PWs.1 and 2, no ill-will or any strong motive was suggested to them for deposing falsely against the accused. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accused had motive to kill the deceased as he used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, i.e. the deceased Shashikala, and used to harass her mentally and physically.
19.00.In order to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 as well as upon the evidence of PW.9 who acted as mediator for the inquest panchanama, PW.10/Civil Asst. Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, PW.12 who acted as mediator for the scene of offence panchanama and preparation of Crime
Details Form by the police, PW.14/Tahsildar who conducted inquest
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 17 panchanama in the presence of PW.9 and PW.12. Initially, it was PW.4 and PW.5 who went inside the house and found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot and PW.4 called her husband (PW.3) over phone and informed about the non-response of the deceased. PW.3 rushed to his house and found the deceased Shashikala dead on a cot with contusion injuries around the neck which appear to be caused with a rope. PW.3 then informed the matter to PWs.1 and 2 who came to his house and found the deceased Shashikala lying on a cot in the rented house and they found a contusion around her neck and later PW.1 preferred a complaint before the police, which is Ex.P-1. PW.15 is the
Investigation Officer, who, basing on Ex.P-1 report given by PW.1, registered a case in Cr. No.105/2017 under Sec.498-A and 302 of IPC., issued Ext.P-9 F.I.R., visited the scene of offence and got the dead body of the deceased photographed with the help of photographer under
Ex.P.10. PW.15 observed the scene of offence and prepared Crime
Details Form marked as Ex.P-8 in the presence of PW.12 and one Morza
Ellaiah (LW.14). PW.14 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.9, PW.12 and Ellaiah (LW.14) and during the inquest proceedings, on the basis of the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, the panchayathdars unanimously opined that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating her neck by suspecting her character and took away the gold ornaments present in the house.
PW.9, who is the panch witness to the inquest, spoke about her presence during inquest panchanama marked as Ex.P-3.
19.01.Above all, the evidence of PW.10 Dr. K.V. Ravinder Reddy, who conducted postmortem examination, is that on 16.04.2017, at 09.15
A.M., he received a requisition from Tahsildar, Karimnagar to conduct
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 18 autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Shashikala and accordingly, he commenced PME at 09.30 A.M. and on his examination, he found the following injuries - (i) Contusion 5x5 cms., over right chest anterior; (ii)
Right massive hemothorax; (iii) Fracture C1, C2 vertebrae; (iv) 1 cm.
width 25 cms., length ligature mark encircling the neck and (v) Fracture hyoid bone right cornu, and that all the above injuries were ante mortem. PW.10 further deposed that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge is Asphyxia due to strangulation and the approximate time of death is 24-48 hours prior to Post Mortem Examination and that
Ex.P-4 is the PME Report. PW.10 further deposed that the above type of injuries are possible in the case of strangulation caused with a rope.
19.02.In the cross-examination, PW.10 stated that he did not mention in Ex.P-4 with regard to his findings about the cause of death.
He stated that the injury No.1 itself indicates that the injury would have been caused prior to 24 hours prior to PME. He further stated that it is not possible that the injury No.1 can be traced within 24 hours (within 24 hours, it will be appearing reddish) and in such case, it will be mentioned as fresh injury. He further stated that as per Medical Jurisprudence of
Narayana Reddy, the above findings will be given. He further stated that on the same day, he handed over Ex.P-4 to the concerned section in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the above mentioned injury is not mentioned as per Narayana Reddy Jurisprudence. Though he admitted that he mentioned the date of conclusion of postmortem as 15.04.2017 at 10.30 A.M., he volunteered that he concluded PME on 16.04.2017 at 10.30 A.M., but due to clerical mistake, it was mentioned
as 15.04.2017. Ex.P-4 shows that it was signed by PW.10 on 16.04.2017
and as stated by him, he handed over Ex.P-4 on the same day to the
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 19 concerned section in the hospital. Therefore, the explanation offered by
PW.10 that the date of conclusion of postmortem mentioned as 15.04.2017 is a mistake can be accepted.
19.03.Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.12,
PW.14 and PW.15 coupled with the contents of Exhibit P-3 Inquest
Panchanama, Ex.P-4 Postmortem Examination Report, Ex.P-8 Crime
Details Form and Ex.P-10 photographs, it is proved that the death of the deceased Shashikala was a homicidal one.
20.00.From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it comes forth that there was no eye witness to the murder, as the deceased was found dead in the house on the next day of the incident. In order to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased, the prosecution placed reliance on three sets of evidence. One is the circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 to 6. The second piece of evidence is that of PW.7 who saw the accused in the custody of police along with two panchas and who weighed gold and silver ornaments (M.Os.1 to 4) and informed the particulars to police. The third piece of evidence is that of PW.11
before whom the accused said to have confessed the guilt of committing
murder of the deceased and committing theft of gold and silver ornaments of the deceased and in pursuance of his confession,
PW.15/Investigation Officer recovered the said gold and silver ornaments marked as M.Os.1 to 4.
20.01.The evidence of PW.15 is that on 19.04.2017, at 10.00 A.M., he apprehended the accused in front of Rajarajeshwara Kalyana
Mandapam, near Court Chowrastha, secured the presence of PW.11 and
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 20
Shaik Saleem (LW.15) and on interrogation, the accused confessed his guilt of committing the murder of his wife by suspecting her character and the ornaments of the deceased (M.Os.1 to 4) were recovered from the accused under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama (Ex.P7). PW.15 further deposed that the accused led them to his house and produced crime weapon (M.O.5) in the presence of panch witnesses which was seized under the cover of Ex.P-7, and that Ex.P-6 is the relevant portion as to the information given by the accused of the confession panchanama. He further deposed that he got weighed and tested the ornaments of the deceased, i.e. M.Os.1 to 4, with the help of
PW.7.
20.02.PW.7 is the goldsmith who weighed and tested the gold ornaments (M.Os.1 to 4). His evidence is that on 19.04.2017, in the morning hours, the police, Karimnagar-II Town called him near
Rajarajeshwara Kalyana Mandapam, beside the Court Complex,
Karimnagar, where he saw the accused in the custody of police along with two panchas and some other policemen. He further deposed that the police asked him to weigh the gold ornaments and accordingly he weighed two gold pusthelu having six grams weight, one pair of gold ear studs having 2.600 grams weight, one pair of gold mateelu having 2.900 grams weight and one pair of silver anklets having weight about 49 grams and he informed the said particulars to the police. PW.7 identified M.Os.1 to 4 as the ornaments he weighed and tested at the instance of the police. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness of police.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 21 20.03.PW.11 is the panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. He deposed that on 19.04.2017, at 10.00 or 10.15 A.M., the Circle Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-II Town called him to act as panchayathdar for the arrest of the accused by name Laxman, and that he along with one Shaik Saleem (LW.15) was also present on that day and acted as panch witness. He further deposed that he went to
Rajarajeshwar Kalyana Mandapam near Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar and saw the accused along with the police and when he questioned the accused, he confessed his guilt of committing the murder of the deceased and also committing the theft of gold and silver ornaments of the deceased. He further deposed that pursuant to the confession, the accused showed them the gold ornaments, which are M.Os.1 to 4, and that, in their presence ornaments of the deceased were weighed and tested by the gold appraiser and confession-cum-recovery panchanama was prepared. He identified that Ex.P-5 is his signature on the confession panchanama, dt.19.04.2017, and that Ex.P-6 is the relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama as to the information of the crime weapon, i.e. nylon rope. He further deposed that pursuant to the confession, the accused led them to his house situated at Vidyanagar,
Karimnagar and produced a nylon rope, which is M.O.5, said to be used in the commission of offence, and that Ex.P-7 is the seizure panchanama of M.O.5. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he never acted as panch witness for the confession of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 5, and that panchanamas were prepared in the police station and he signed on them at the behest of the police in the police station.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 22 20.04.The principles which govern admitting in evidence the confession of an accused about an offence under Sec.27 of the Evidence
Act are :-
1. A fact should have been discovered in consequence of information received from the accused;
2. He should have been accused of an offence;
3. He should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; and
4. The fact so discovered should have been deposed by the witness.
If the above conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such discovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence.
20.05.The evidence of PW.7, PW.11 and PW.15 coupled with the contents of Exs.P-6 and P-7 amply establish that the accused herein was apprehended by the police on 19.04.2017 and on interrogation, he confessed committing murder of the deceased by strangulating her to death with a nylon rope (M.O.5) by suspecting her fidelity and taking away her gold and silver ornaments and in pursuance of such confession, gold and silver ornaments (M.Os.1 to 5) were seized from him and then he led the police and panch witnesses to his house from he produced nylon rope (M.O.5) used by him in the commission of offence.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence of PW.7,
PW.11 and PW.15 is corroborating on all material aspects as to the confession of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 5 from him and thus there is no difficulty in admitting their evidence under Sec.27 of the
Evidence Act.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 23 21.00.The murder of the deceased had taken place in the intervening night of 14/15.04.2017 in the house owned by PW.3 having several portions and in one such portion situated on the first floor, the accused and the deceased were residing as tenants. The rented house where the incident took place was in exclusive possession and occupation of the accused and the deceased. On the next day, i.e. on 15.04.2017, the deceased was found lying dead on the cot in her bedroom with contusion injury around her neck evidencing use of violence on her.
In the case between Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 872 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the offence was committed in a dwelling house, burden lies on the inmates to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. Therefore, the burden is shifted on the defence to prove that the murder was committed by any other person, as such, there may not be any second opinion that any other person other than the accused would be responsible for committing murder of the deceased.
22.00.The accused took the plea of alibi and examined his younger brother as DW.1 to say that he was not present in the house at
Karimnagar on the date of incident. DW.1 deposed that they had
Ac.5-00 ½ gts., of land at Kamalapur Village of Nizamabad District and they have leased out their land to third parties for cultivation and they will get the crop/paddy after harvesting. He further deposed that the accused got married and he resides at Karimnagar and yearly twice the accused will come down to Kamalapur Village and take his share of the crop and discuss with them for leasing the land to third parties. He further deposed that on 14.04.2017, the accused came down to
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 24
Kamalapur at about 05.00 P.M., and on the next day they went to the lessee, took the crop and in the meantime they received a telephone call from Karimnagar about the death of the deceased and on that, he and the accused came down to Karimnagar to the house of the accused.
22.01.In the cross-examination, DW.1 stated that the accused came down to Kamalapur for taking the proceeds/crop of January from one K.
Srinivas Reddy. He further stated that generally the crop generated of 200 bags and they will get 50 bags of paddy, but he admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that they get 50 bags of paddy from the lessee. He further stated that except themselves and Srinivas
Reddy, there are no third parties to prove the fact of lease. He denied the suggestion that they do not possess Ac.5-00 gts., of land, and that the accused was present at Kamalapur on 14.04.2017 and 15.04.2017.
He also denied the suggestion that they received the phone call about the death of the deceased on 15.04.2017.
22.02.DW.1 is none other than the younger brother of the accused.
Though he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false in order to help his brother to come out of the case, no document is produced to show that the accused and DW.1 are having Ac.5.00 gts., of land at
Kamalapur in Nizamabad District. The accused did not examine Srinivas
Reddy from whom he and DW.1 said to have received crop of their share.
In the absence of any independent evidence or documentary evidence, the oral evidence of DW.1 cannot be believed to be true.
22.03.On the other hand, the evidence of PW.3 is that on 15.04.2017, at about 10.30 to 11.00 A.M., the accused called him over phone and requested him to pass the phone to his wife, and that PW.3
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 25 informed the accused that he is doing work in another place. PW.3 further deposed that at about 12.00 noon, the accused again called him and requested him to give phone number of PW.5/Prameela and as such, he gave the number of PW.5/Prameela to the accused and subsequently
PW.3 came to know that the accused called PW.5/Prameela over phone and requested her to give the phone to his wife. PW.3 further deposed that PW.5/Prameela and his wife/PW.4 went to the portion of the accused and found that the doors were closed and inspite of their call, no response was received. PW.4 and PW.5 corroborated the evidence of
PW.3. PW.3 further deposed that on the information given by his wife/PW.4, he rushed to his house and found the deceased Shashikala dead lying on a cot.
22.04.The evidence of PW.6 is that on 15.04.2017, at about 2.00
P.M., when he went to his house for lunch, he observed some gathering at the house of PW.3 and on enquiry, he came to know that the deceased
Shashikala was lying dead on a cot in her bedroom and he observed swelling around her neck. He further deposed that in the meantime, police came there and he called the accused over phone and in response, the accused enquired about the condition of the deceased and also asked whether there was any swelling around the neck of the deceased and the accused further enquired him whether she was taken to the hospital.
He further deposed that in reply, he asked the accused to come to the scene of offence in order to shift Shashikala to the hospital, but the accused refused to come and stated that he will send the money but do not want to come to the scene of offence. In the cross-examination,
PW.6 stated that at the request of C.I. of Police, he made a phone call to
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 26 the accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not make any phone call to the accused.
22.05.From the above conduct of the accused, it is clear that he was aware of the death of the deceased and as such, he enquired about her condition pretending ignorance about her death. When the accused made a phone call initially to PW.3 and then to PW.5 and when PW.6 made a call to the accused, he did not inform about his location and from where he is speaking with them over phone. Admittedly, there is no call data collected by the police in order to establish the conversation between the accused and PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. However, from the conduct of the accused, it is clear that he knew that some untoward incident had happened and as such, he wanted to know the condition of his wife but did not disclose his location from where he was speaking to them over phone and did not assign any reason for his absence from the house. If at all the accused was really at his native place in Nizamabad
District, as deposed by DW.1, the accused would have informed the same to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 over phone and explained the purpose of his visit to his native place. It is the specific evidence of D.W.1 that they received the phone call about the death of the deceased. In the cross- examination, PW.15/Investigation Officer stated that one can trace the location basing on the date of the phone, but volunteered that after committing the offence, the accused switched off his phone. It is not the defence of the accused that some unknown assailants entered into his house, killed his wife and snatched away her gold ornaments.
22.06.Alibi is not an exception, special or general, envisaged in the
Indian Penal code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized in Sec.11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 27 with the fact in issue are relevant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case between Dudh Nath Pandey Vs State Of
U.P. reported in 1981 AIR 911, observed that the plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place and such plea succeeds only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. But, in the present case, the evidence of the defence witnesses, i.e. DW.1, is not consistent and reliable to prove the presence of the accused at his native Village Kamalapur in Nizamabad District on 14/15.04.2017. Moreover, there is no explanation by the accused as to why he was absconding till 19.04.2017, inspite of knowing about the death of the deceased.
23.00.Thus, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that accused and the deceased used to reside as tenants in one of the portions of the house owned by PW.3. The accused used to harass the deceased mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity and several panchayaths were also held in that regard, as deposed by PWs.1 and 2, PW.8 and PW.13. The deceased was killed on the intervening night of 14/15.04.2017 and it was a homicidal death, as is evident from the evidence of PW.9 and Ex.P-3 Inquest as well as the evidence of
PW.12 and Ex.P-8 Crime Details Form and most importantly from the evidence of PW.10 and Ex.P-4 Postmortem Examination Report issued by him. On the next day, i.e. on 15.04.2017, the accused made phone calls to PW.3 and PW.5 to talk to his wife and when PWs.4 and 5 went to the house of the deceased, the house was locked and there was no response and as such, they informed the matter to PW.3 who rushed to
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 28 his house and found the deceased lying dead on a cot in the bedroom.
On being informed by PW.3 about the death of the deceased, PWs.1 and 2 came to the rented house of the deceased and found her dead. PWs.1 to 6 noticed a contusion around the neck of the deceased and her gold and silver ornaments were missing. The accused was not present in the house when the dead body of the deceased was found by PWs.1 to 6 with injuries. On 19.04.2017, when the accused was apprehended by
PW.15, he confessed the guilt of committing the murder of his wife with a nylon rope (M.O.5) by suspecting her fidelity and snatching away her gold and silver ornaments (M.Os.1 to 4) in the presence of PW.11 and
PW.7 and pursuant to his confession, M.Os.1 to 4 were seized by PW.15 from his possession and the accused also led the police and PW.11 to his house from where nylon rope (M.O.5) used by the accused in killing his wife was also recovered under Exs.P-6 and P-7. Though the accused took the plea of alibi, he failed to prove that he was at his native village
Kamalapur in Nizamabad District on 14/15.04.2017. The accused failed to explain that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased or under what circumstances the dead body of the deceased was found lying with injuries in the bedroom of their rented house. The accused failed to discharge his burden to prove that the murder of his wife was committed by any other person to form any second opinion that any other person other than the accused had committed murder of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has established all the links in the chain of circumstances and proved through cogent evidence that the accused used to harass his wife, i.e. the deceased Shashikala, mentally and physically by suspecting her fidelity, which falls under first fold of explanation of cruelty defined under Sec.498-A of IPC., and ultimately on the intervening night of 14/15.04.2017, it was the accused who killed his
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 29 wife strangulating her neck with a nylon rope and took away her gold and silver ornaments.
24.00.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 302 and 404 of IPC., beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.
25.00.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 302 and 404 of IPC., and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr. PC.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of September, 2020.
Prl. Sessions Judge Karimnagar.
-: ORDER OF SENTENCE :-
26.00.The accused is examined under Sec.235 (2) of Cr. PC., regarding the quantum of sentence. He stated that his mother is 82 years old and except him there are no other persons to take care of her.
He further stated that he had no movable or immovable properties and prayed to take lenient view while imposing punishment.
27.00.The accused is informed that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.498-A of IPC. is, imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine; the punishment prescribed for the offence underSec.302 of IPC. is, death or imprisonment for life and also fine; and the punishment prescribed for the offence under Sec.404 of
IPC. is, imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 30 28.00.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a rarest of rare case to impose the punishment of death. Therefore, imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC., and the mandatory alternative punishment of imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC., and imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine for the offence punishable under Sec.404 of IPC., is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
29.00.Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC.
29.01.The accused is further sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT
FOR LIFEand to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC.
29.02.The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Sec.404 of IPC.
29.03.All the three sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine is
Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only).
30.00.The period of remand already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Sec.428 of Cr. PC.
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 31 31.00.M.Os.1 to 4, which are given to PW.1 for interim custody, shall be retained by her and M.O.5 Nylon rope and the unmarked non- valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after the expiry of appeal time.
32.00.The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana, at Hyderabad and he can approach the Legal Services
Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services
Authority, Karimnagar District for Legal Aid, if necessary.
33.00.The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the Judgment to the accused as required under Sec.363 Cr. PC., enabling him to prefer an appeal.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of September, 2020.
Prl. Sessions Judge Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION :
PW.1: Thungapalli Durgamma
PW.2: Thungapalli Srinivas
PW.3: Iruguralla Nampalli
PW.4: Iruguralla Munemma
PW.5: Kothuri Prameela
PW.6: Chandragiri Srinivas
PW.7: Sagurthi Nagaraju
PW.8: Kanakam Thirupathi
PW.9: Tatipalli Padma
PW.10 : Dr. K.V. Ravinder Reddy
PW.11 : Syed Khadeer Ahmad
PW.12 : Gajjela Suguna
PW.13 : Elagandula Laxman @ Komuraiah
S.C. No. 198 of 2018 32
PW.14 : Ch. Srinivas
PW.15 : T. Mahesh
FOR THE DEFENCE :
D.W.1 : Gurrala Gangadhar
Exhibits marked :
FOR THE PROSECUTION :- Ext.P1Dt.15.04.2017Report lodged by P.W.1. Ext.P1-ADt.--Endorsement made by P.W.15 on Report of P.W.1. Ext.P2Dt.15.04.2017161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ext.P3Dt.15.04.2017 Inquest Panchanama. Ext.P4Dt.16.04.2017Post Mortem Examination Report. Ext.P5Dt.19.04.2017Signatures of P.W.11 on Confession Panchanama. Ext.P6Dt19.04.2017Relevant portion of Confession-cum-seizure Panchanama as to the information of the crime weapon i.e. nylon rope. Ext.P7Dt.19.04.2017Seizure Panchanama. Ext.P8Dt15.04.2017Crime Detail Form. . Ext.P9Dt.15.04.2017First Information Report. Ext.P10Dt--Six Photographs of the deceased. .
FOR THE DEFENCE :
--Nil—
MATERIAL OBJECTS :
M.O.1 : One pair of Pusthelu
M.O.2 : One pair of gold ear rings
M.O.3 : One pair of gold mateelu
M.O.4 : One pair of silver anklets
M.O.5 : One yellow colour nylon rope.
Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. -:-