1 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SC/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
Monday, the 10th day of May, 2021.
Present: Sri K.Prabhakara Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum-VII-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.
SESSIONS CASE NO.130 OF 2020.
(PRC No.40 of 2020 on the file of I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal – Crime No.416 of 2019 of Police Station Mills Colony.)
1.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, Police Station Mills Colony.
2.Name and description of the : Chilla @ Pastham Yakalaxmi, accusedW/o. Rajkumar, age 22 years, Caste: Budigajangalu, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.19-10-500, Budiga Jangala colony, Shambunipet, Warangal.
3.Prosecution conducted by: Addl. Public Prosecutor.
4.Accused defended by: Smt. M. Kavitha, Advocate. (Legal Aid Counsel)
5.Offences charged: Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.
7.Finding of the Court: Found guilty.
8.Sentence or Order: The accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
The accused is in judicial custody from 13.12.2019 and the remand period of the accused is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
This Sessions Case is coming on 16.04.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the state/complainant and of Smt.M.Kavitha, Advocate (Legal Aid counsel) for accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:
2 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1)The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Police Station Mills
Colony of Warangal city has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2)The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:
i.On 12.12.2019 at 12.00 hours, the complainant/LW.1-Chilla Raju came to
Mills Colony police station of Warangal city and lodged a written complaint stating that they are two brothers and a sister to their parents. His brother
Chilla Raj Kumar (deceased), aged 27 years, occuptation coolie is residing in
Budigajangala colony, Shambunipet and his marriage was solemnized about five years ago with the accused, and they are blessed with a son aged about 5 years and daughter, aged about four months. He further alleged in the said complaint that his brother (deceased) used to come to his house in intoxicated condition and picked up an altercation with his wife i.e., the accused. As usual on 12.12.2019 morning his brother left from his house and returned back by consuming liquor, due to which some altercation taken place between his brother and the accused at about 11.30 A.M., in the said altercation the accused/Yakalaxmi picked up an axe at their house and axed his brother/deceased on his head and caused bleeding injuries, subsquently caused his death and requested for necessary action against the accused-Ch.Yakalaxmi.
ii.On receipt of the above complaint, the LW.16 i.e., Station House Officer of Police Sttion Mills Colony has registered a case in crime No.416 of 2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and issued F.I.R., and took up the investigation.
iii.During the course of investigation, the LW.16-Station House Officer,
Police Station Mills Colony examined and recorded the statement of LW.1-
Ch.Raju at Police station, later he visited the scene of offence, at where he 3 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
secured the presence of the mediators i.e., LW.8-Gandam Kumar and LW.9-
Miryala Sampath, he observed the scene of offence in the presence of above stated mediators and drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence. Later he also got photographed the scene of offence and deceased with the assistance of LW.7-Jannu Bixapathi. Later he collected the bloodstained earth and controlled earth through cotton swabs in order to send the same to R.F.S.L.,
Warangal for analysis and report.
iv.Thereafter the Investigating officer shifted the dead body to the M.G.M.
Hospital, Warangal, at where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW.10-Thurpati Rajaram, LW.11-Pastham Nagaraju and prepared inquest report and also collected the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, later referred the dead body of the deceased for autopsy.
v.LW.14-Dr.J. Surender, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem examination report stating that the cause of death due to “head injury”.
vi.The Investigating officer also examined and recorded the statements of
LW.2-Chilla Laxmi, LW.3-Ubidhi Komuramma, LW.4-Gandham Shankar, LW.5-
Pastham Sujatha, LW.6-Pastham Sandya, LW.7-J.Bixapathi. Later he arrested the accused on 13.12.2019, thereafter he secured the presence of LW.12-Balla
Srinivasulu, LW.13-Bairipati Ramesh and interrogated the accused in their presence, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and he also seized an axe from her possession under a cover of panchanama, later sent her to the judicial custody.
vii.The Investigating Officer also forwarded the material objects to the
R.F.S.L., Warangal for analysis and report, after due analyzation the LW.15-
Y.Neeraja has issued her report.
4 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
viii.After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet stating that his investigation has established that the deceased-Chilla Raj Kumar and accused are husband and wife, the deceased addicted to liquor and come to his house in intoxicated condition, and used to pick up quarrel with the accused and he harassed her both mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity and alleged that the accused is having illegal contacts with others, due to which the accused placed the issue in their locality people, who held panchayats several times and the said elders admonished the deceased, but there was no change in his attitude. As things stood thus, on 12.12.2019 morning hours the deceased left his house at about 8.00 A.M., and came to his house in intoxicated condition at about 11.00 A.M., due to fear and on seeing the status of the deceased, the accused shifted their son to the house of neighbour, the deceased as usual picked up quarrel and asked about his son, later he beat the accused indiscriminately, while the altercation is going on, the son of the deceased came to their house, on seeing the son of the deceased, beat his son indiscriminately by keeping in his house, due to which the accused became wild, picked up an axe and beat the deceased on his head for four times and caused his death. Later the accused kept the deceased in the house and went outsdie by bolting her door from outside. Later, LW.3-U.Komuramma suspected and visited the house of the deceased, removed the door bolt and entered into the house and she noticed the deceased dead body in the pool of blood. Later the accused herself admitted her guilt before the LW.6-P.Sandya. He further submitted in the charge sheet that his investigation has established that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, as such he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.
5 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
3)The learned I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and case is registered as P.R.C. No.40 of 2020.
4)On production of the accused from the Central Prison, Warangal, the learned Committal Magistrate has supplied the copies of all documents to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the I-Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Warangal committed the above said case to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal under Section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C.,
as the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5)The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and registered the case as Sessions Case No.130 of 2020 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6)After receiving the case file, this Court addressed a letter to the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal to produce the accused before this
Court. Accordingly the accused was produced before this Court, on questioning the accused stated that she has no means to engage the counsel, as such at the intervention of the District Legal Services Authority, Warangl,
Smt.M. Kavitha, Advocate, Warangal has been appointed as counsel to defend the case of the accused herein.
7)Thereafter upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel
for the accused, this Court has framed the charge under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused, the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
8)As the accused is under trial prisoner, in order to speedy disposal of the case, this Court immediately fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the prosecution witnesses.
9)During the trial, the prosecution has choosen to examine Pws.1 to 12 and got marked Exts.P1 to P10 and also marked MOs.1 to 3.
10)After completion of the prosecution evidence, as there was incriminating substance against the accused, she was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the same to her in Telugu language, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence, as such the case is posted for arguments.
11)Heard on both sides.
12)The learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW.1 is the brother of the deceased-Chilla Raj Kumar, who came to know about the death of his deceased brother, rushed to the house of deceased, later he immediately went to Mills
Colony police station and submitted Ex.P1 written report dt.12.12.2019, basing on it the PW.12, who is the Investigating Officer, issued Ex.P10 FIR, took up investigation, during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of mediators, later shifted the dead body to the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, at where he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P8 Inquest report, later shifted the dead body for postmortem examination.
a)He further submitted that by examining PW.7-Dr.J.Surender and exhibiting Ex.P7-P.M.E.report, the prosecution has established that the deceased was died due to the head injury and said injury may be possible if
MO.1/Axe (goddali) is used.
b)He further argued that the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused immediately on the next day of the incident i.e., 13.12.2019, then he 7 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
interrogated the accused in the presence of PW.6 and LW.13-B.Srinivasulu, who are independent witnesses, by then the accused has confessed that she killed her husband on 12.12.2019 during morning hours by using MO.1-Axe in furtherance of her confession MO.1-Axe was seized from the house of the accused and deceased under the cover of panchanama dt.13.12.2019 and PW.6 clearly deposed in his evidence that the accused has confessed about the offence committed by her and seizure of MO.1-Axe in pursuance of her confession.
c)The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW.3, PW.5, PW.8,
PW.11 and PW.12 are the neighbours of the deceased and accused, who clearly deposed in their evidence about the motive of the offence and they are not shaken during the cross examination by the counsel for the accused and absolutely there is no necessity to them to speak false against the accused.
d)He further submitted that PW.1 is the brother, PW.2 is wife of PW.1 also clearly deposed about the motive for the offence.
e)He further submitted that PW.9-Y.Neeraja, Asst. Director, R.F.S.L.,
Warangal, issued Ex.P9 opinion stating that MO.1 is containing human blood.
f)He finally submitted that the accused is none other than wife of the deceased, but she failed to explain the things within her knowledge regarding the death of her husband and her conduct also clearly proves her involvement in killing her husband, as such she is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
13)The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that PW.1 in order to knock away the property of his deceased brother, falsely implicated the accused in this case though she did not commit the alleged murder of her husband. She further argued that as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the deceased used to quarrel with several others when he 8 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
intoxicated with liquor, due to it the third parties who are having inimical terms with him might have killed the deceased-Raj Kumar.
a) She further submitted that there are no eye witnesses when the accused allegedly killed her husband and this case was purely based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution failed to establish the links in order to prove the involvement of the accused in this offence and the evidence of prosecution witnesses is suffering from several material contradictions, omissions and developments.
b)She further submitted that the accused is an innocent and she is no way concerned with the alleged murder of her husband, as such she is entitled for acquittal.
c)In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the accused has relied on the following decisions:
i. (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 677 between SUJIT
BISWAS v. STATE OF ASSAM, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held that:
“mere abscondence of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondence is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction.” ii.2019 (1) ALT (Cri.) 335 between VADDE YADUL v. STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH.
iii.2019 (1) ALD (Cri.) 665 between SHAI PASHAMIYA V. STATE
OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
9 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
d)The above referred (ii) and (iii) decisions are rendered relating to value of circumstantial evidence in the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana held that:
“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive undoubtedly plays a very much prominent role and indeed, it constitutes one of the strong links in the chain of circumstances, but the same is not the be-all and end-all. The other links in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the offence must necessarily be established in order that the Court reaches to the irresistible conclusion that they are incompatible with the innocence of the accused.”
e)The learned counsel for the accused finally submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prosecution relied on the planted and interested witnesses, as such their testimony cannot be relied upon to believe the case of the prosecution and the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
14)Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”
POINT:
15)PW.7-Dr.J.Surender who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Raj Kumar found the following external injuries.
i.Laceration of two present over right occipital region skin deep 0.5x1 cms, 0.5x1cms respectively.
ii.Laceration of 0.5x1.5 cms present behind left ear with skin deep.
iii.Twin lacerations present over left occipital region 0.5x0.5, 0.5x1cms with skin deep respectively.
iv.Laceration present just behind the left ear 0.5x0.5cms with skin deep.
v.Contusion present over lateral side of upper thing 10x8cms.
10 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
vi.Contusion present over left occipital region extending to the upper part of neck 8x6cms.
vii.Contusion present over right upper part of neck 5x4cms.
viii. Multiple small abrasions present over the neck and upper part of chest and lateral side of right arm.
ix.Multiple abrasions present over left cheek and right cheek.
x.Sternum fracture present as its upper 1/3rd.
xi.Sub Arachnoid haemorrhage present over left occipital lobe 4x6cms.
xii.Sub Arachnoid haemorrhage present over right temporal lobe 2x3cms.
He further stated that the above all injuries are antimortem in nature, to the best of his knowledge the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury and it may possible if MO.1-Axe (Goddali) issued. Accordingly he issued Ex.P7-
Postmortem examination report stating that the deceased died due to head injury about 6 to 12 hours prior to postmortem examination.
16)In the cross examination by the counsel for the accused, the PW.7 deposed that all the above noted injuries are fresh in nature, the death of the deceased might have been caused in between 3.00 A.M., and 9.30 A.M., on 12.12.2019. He also further clarified that the above noted injuries are not possible if a person used his/her hand.
17)Basing on the evidence of PW.7 Dr.J. Surender, coupled with Ex.P7-
Postmortem Examination report issued by him, it can be safely inferred that it is the homicidal death of the deceased-Ch.Raj Kumar.
18)Upon perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, there are no direct witnesses when the accused allegedly killed her husband. This case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. In such event, the heavy burden lies on the shoulder of the prosecution.
11 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
Now this Court will scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused to bring her guilt for the offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
19)PW.1 is elder brother of the deceased-Ch.Raj Kumar. As per his chief examination, the accused is wife of his deceased brother-Ch.Raj Kumar, their marriage took place about 6 or 7 years ago, they were blessed with a son and daughter, and they used to reside at Budigajangala colony of Shambhunipet of
Fort Warangal mandal. He further deposed that PW.2 is his wife, PW.11-
U.Komuramma, PW.3-G.Shanker, PW.12-P.Sandya are the neighbours of the accused and deceased, the LW.5-P. Sujatha is the younger sister to him and the deceased.
20)PW.1 further deposed that his brother-Ch.Raj Kumar died on 12.12.2019 at his house situated at Budigajangala colony, the accused killed his brother by using an axe. He further deposed that about 11.30 A.M., he came to know through one P.Nagaraju i.e., LW.11 who made a phone call to him stating that his brother died at his house, then immediately he rushed to the house of his brother on the motorcycle and noticed that several persons were already gathered there. Later, he entered into the house and found the dead body of his brother-Ch.Raj Kumar in a pool of blood. He also noticed a injury on the back side of the head of the deceased. Later the accused confessed before him and other gathered public that she killed her husband as he came in a drunken condition and created nuisance in the house and she further confessed that she killed her husband by using an axe.
21)PW.1 further deposed in his chief examination that he immediately rushed to Police station Mills colony and submitted Ex.P1 written report dt.12.12.2019, later police visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of mediators, thereafter the dead body was shifted to MGM 12 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
Hospital, Warangal for postmortem examination. He further deposed that police examined and recorded his statement for the above said incident.
22)The cross examination of PW.1 revealed that he is a Hamali worker at
Grain Market, Warangal, the distance between his house house and said Grain
Market may be around 8 to 9 K.Ms., he studied upto 10th class, Ex.P1 contents were scribed on his dictation and he knew the contents therein. He further deposed in his cross examination that the distance between his house and the house of deceased is about 1K.M. He again reiterated in his cross examination by the counsel for the accused that the deceased was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with the accused as and when he consumed the liquor.
23)The cross examination of PW.1 also revealed that he is not a eye witness to the alleged incident, he did not state before the police that he received a phone call from P. Nagaraju about the death of his brother. The witness clarified in the cross examination that due to shock he was unable to state the same to the police. He denied the suggestion that he submitted Ex.P1 at about 3.00 P.M. He also denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the accused that the accused did not confess about the commission of the offence at any point of time as deposed in his chief examination and he did not see the accused at the scene of offence on 12.12.2019. He also denied the suggestion that in order to grab the house property of his parents, he falsely implicated the accused in this case.
24)In the further cross examination dt.15.3.2021, PW.1 deposed that the
Photographer visited the scene of offence and photographed the same, the police arrived to the scene offence after 10 minutes after presenting the Ex.P1.
The police observed the scene of offence for about 30 minutes, later the dead body was shifted to the Mortuary in between 1.00 P.M., and 1.15 P.M. He further stated in his cross examination that he received the death intimation of his brother at about 11.30 A.M., buy then he was present at his house and he 13 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
reached the house of the deceased within 10 minutes after receiving the said information.
25)PW.2 is wife of PW.1, she also deposed the same as in the lines of PW.1 that the deceased was killed by the accused by using an axe and she further deposed that on the date of incident she was present in her house due to non- availability of coolie works, after knowing the incident she immediately rushed to the house of the deceased. PW.2 also deposed that the deceased used to consume liquor and quarrel with the accused, then she along with others admonished him, but there was no change.
PW.2 denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the accused that the accused did not commit the murder of the deceased.
26) PW.3 is one of the neighbour of the deceased and accused, who deposed in his chief examination that the deceased-Ch.Raj Kumar died about one year ago in his house, about one year ago at about 11.00 A.M., he heard some hue and cries of the vicinity people stating that Chilla Raj Kumar (deceased) was died, upon hearing the same he proceeded to the house of the deceased, where he found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood with injury on the back side of his head, he also noticed an axe (goddali). Later within 45 minutes, the accused came there and stated before them that she killed her husband-Ch.Raj Kumar by using an axe. PW.3 further deposed that prior to his death, the deceased was addicted to consuming much liquor and frequently quarreled wit the accused. He further deposed that police visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded his statement.
27)In the cross examination of PW.3, he deposed that on the date of incident he did not attend hamali works and present at his house, he knew the deceased since his childhood. PW.3 further deposed in his cross examination that one Komuramma i.e., PW.11 informed him about the death of the 14 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
deceased-Raj Kumar, immediately he rushed to the house of the deceased, on opening the door he noticed the dead body of the deceased and he has not made any call to the police or dialed “100”.
28)PW.3 further deposed that PW.1, who is brother of the deceased, visited the scene of offence, later lodged a complaint in the police station. He further deposed in his cross examination that on the same day of the incident the police visited the scene of offence, at where they have examined and recorded his statement. PW.3 further deposed that when he reached to the scene of offence, the accused was not present. He also further deposed that the accused and deceased used to quarrel with each other and some panchayats were took place before the elders. PW.3 further deposed that the police apprehended the accused at the scene of offence itself on the same day.
29)PW.3 did not state before the police that after 45 minutes the accused arrived at the scene of offence and stated before him and other vicinity people that she killed the deceased.
30)The above said evidence of PW.3 is relevant to the extent that the deceased addicted to consuming much liquor and used to quarrel with the accused, for which some panchayats were held in the presence of elders namely Komuraiah, Bixapathi and Yellaiah. His evidence is also relevant to the extent that he along with PW.11-U.Komuramma saw the dead body of the deceased for the first time in the house of the accused at about 11.00 A.M.
PW.3 is not direct witness to the alleged incident.
31)PW.4 is the Photographer, who photographed the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence under Ex.P2 (four photographs) and also taken Ex.P3 (four photographs) over the dead body of the deceased at the
Mortuary of MGM Hospital. He handed over the Exts.P2 and P3 to the police along with Ex.P4 Compact disc (C.D.). In his cross examination he clearly 15 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
deposed that he took the photographs at the scene of offence at about 12.00
P.M., later took the photographs at MGM Hospital at about 12.30 P.M., and he received remuneration for the above said services rendered by him.
32)PW.5 is one of the mediator for the observation of scene of offence, who deposed that he is neighbour of the deceased and accused, he came to know that the deceased died on 12.12.2019 in his house and he was killed by his wife.
Later, the police visited the place of offence, by that time he was present, the police observed the scene of offence in the presence of him and LW.8-Gandham
Kumar, prepared a crime details form along with rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5. He further deposed that the police also lifted the blood of the deceased and controlled earth at the scene of offence.
33)In the cross examination by the counsel for the accused, PW.5 deposed that he knew the contents of Ex.P5, after filling up all the columns in Ex.P5, then only he signed in it at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that on 12.12.2019 he attended mason work and he was not present at scene of offence and he deposing false as per the directions of the police.
34)The evidence of PW.5 is relevant to the extent that on 12.12.2019 the
Inspector of Police, Mills colony police station visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared Ex.P5 crime details form along with rough sketch and lifting of blood of the deceased and controlled earth at the scene of offence.
35)PW.8-Turpati Rajaram also one of the neighbours of the deceased and accused, who deposed in his chief examination that the deceased died about 14 months ago in his house as he was beaten to death by an axe. The police visited the house of the deceased, shifted the dead body to MGM Hospital, Warangal, at where the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence along with PW.1, PW.2 and P. Nagaraju and prepared Ex.P8 Inquest 16 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
report. The police seized MO.2-night pant, MO.3-blue colour drawer wore by the deceased at the time of incident.
36)In the cross examination by the counsel for the accused, PW.8 deposed that he knows the contents of Ex.P8 as those were read over to him by the
Circle Inspector of Police. In the cross examination of PW.8, he deposed that two hours after the incident the accused herself came to the scene of offence and confessed before them that she killed her husband, by the time of said confession around 10 to 15 vicinity people were present along with him. The said statement of the PW.8 was not denied by the counsel for the accused.
37)PW.11-U.Komuramma, who saw the dead body of the deceased-Raj
Kumar for the first time, deposed in her chief examination that her house is situated opposite to the house of the deceased and accused intervening by a road, about one year back in between 10.00 A.M., and 11.00 A.M., one of her hens went on to the above said road, then she followed it to catch the same, then she noticed the main door of the house of the deceased was closed and also notice chappals in front of the door, then she went there and opened the door, noticed that the deceased-Raj Kumar was on the floor of the room and he died. Then she raised hue and cries, upon hearing the same the neighbours came there, by that time the accused was not present in the house. Later police visited the spot and examined her about the incident. She further deposed that she do not know who killed the deceased. She further stated that the accused came to the scene of offence after the arrival of police, by then the accused stated before them that she killed her husband.
38)In the cross examination of PW.11, she deposed that the police came to the scene of offence after 30 minutes from the time when she noticed the deceased for the first time in his house. She also further stated in her cross examination that the police took away the accused with them on the same day from the scene of offence and the accused was not present at the time of 17 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
funerals of the deceased and she was specifically not informed about the incident to any one except raising the hue and cries, and she is the first person who saw the dead body of the deceased on the date of the incident.
39)PW.11 denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the accused that when PW.11 came to the scene of offence the police were already present there. She further deposed that in a casual manner she opened the doors of house of the deceased and accused and on the date of the incident itself the police examined and recorded her statement at the scene of offence. PW.11 denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed before her and other people who gathered at the scene of offence that she killed her husband..
40)The above said evidence of PW.11 is relevant to the extent that she saw the dead body for the first time and later she raised hue and cries, upon hearing the same the neighbours gathered, the PW.1 came to the scene of offence after knowing the incident and on the same day the accused confessed
before her that she killed her husband.
41)In her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the PW.11-
U.Komuramma stated that she noticed the dead body of the deceased for the first time, later the accused came there, when she questioned how the said incident was occurred, for which the accused stated to the PW.11 that a quarrel took place between her and the deceased, in the said quarrel the deceased beat her and her son, during the said quarrel she beat her deceased husband’s head by using an axe, as a result her husband died then and there, later she left the scene of offence.
42)The same was reiterated by the PW.11 in her chief examination as well as in her cross examination. PW.11 nowhere shaken during the cross examination by the counsel for the accused and she consistently deposed the acts of the accused on the relevant date, time and place. PW.11’s house is situated 18 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
opposite to the house of the deceased and accused, and there are no any inimical terms between the PW.11 and the accused, as such there is no necessity to PW.11 to speak falsehood against the accused. Though PW.11 was extensively cross examined by the counsel for the accused, no worthwhile substance was derived to discredit her testimony, as such this Court is accepting the evidence of PW.11 to believe the fact that immediately after the incident the accused has confessed to PW.11 that she killed her husband by using an axe due to disputes arose before the incident.
43)PW.12 is also one of the neighbours of the deceased and accused, as per her chief examination the deceased-Raj Kumar was addicted to liquor, used to quarrel with his wife i.e., the accused frequently suspecting her fidelity by stating that the son was not born to him and also used to beat the accused and her son, as such the accused used to drop her son at her house, and on the date of the incident also the accused dropped her son in her house stating that the deceased went to consume liquor, on his return he may beat her son, later at about 9.00 A.M., the deceased-Raj Kumar came to her house and asked about his son, for which she replied to him that his son was not present in her house, then the deceased left her house. After some time, the son of the deceased also left her house. Later at about 11.30 A.M., she came to know that the deceased-Raj Kumar was died in his house. Then she immediately rushed to the house of the deceased-Raj Kumar and found the dead body in his house, by then the accused stated before her and others that she killed her husband-Raj
Kumar as he beat her after consuming the liquor. She further deposed that two days after the incident the police examined and recorded her statement.
44)In the statement recorded by the police under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., PW.12 stated that when she reached the scene of offence she found the presence of accused and on questioning, the accused stated that she killed her husband by using an axe as she is unable to bear the harassment of her husband.
19 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
The same was reiterated by the PW.12 in her chief examination.
45)In the cross examination of PW.12, she further deposed that the deceased-Raj Kumar used to return home in drunken state on every day and used to quarrel with his neighbours after consuming the liquor. PW.12 also deposed in her cross examination that the accused used to took her son on every day to Anganwadi school for feeding and she did not observe on 12.12.2019 whether the accused took her son to Anganwadi school for feeding.
46)PW.12 further deposed in her cross examination that by the time she reached to the scene of offence, she found the presence of large number of people, by then she has not found the presence of the accused, by then she did not return to her house and she further deposed that the police took the accused along with them on the same day of the incident.
47)The above said evidence of PW.12 is revealing that on the date of the incident the accused dropped her son in the house of PW.12, later the deceased visited the house of PW.12 at about 9.00 A.M., and returned back his house, later PW.12 came to know at about 11.30 A.M., that the deceased was killed in his house. The above said evidence of PW.12 is inspires the confidence of the
Court to the extent that there were disputes between the accused and her husband, on the date of the incident PW.12 lastly seen the deceased at about 9.00 A.M., and found him dead at about 11.30 A.M.. The evidence of PW.12 is also revealed that on the date of incident the accused was present at her house
I.e, scene of offence. The evidence of PW.12 is also revealed that the accused confessed before her that she killed her husband by using an axe. Absolutely there are no any omissions, contradictions and developments in the evidence of PW.12 to discredit her testimony regarding the alleged incident.
48)PW.6 is the mediator for the seizure of MO.1-axe basing on the confession of the accused. As per the evidence of PW.6, on 13.12.2019 at 20 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
about 8.00 A.M., while he went to the house of the deceased, he found the presence of LW.12-B.Srinivasulu i.e., another mediator, the Circle Inspector of
Police, Sub Inspector of Police, other constables and the accused along with her two children at the house of the deceased. Then the police asked him and
LW.12-B.Srinivasulu to question the accused as to how the offence was took place. Then they took the accused aside and questioned her about the incident, for which she stated before them that the deceased husband was addicted to alcohol, frequently suspected her character and continuously harassing her by quarreling with her frequently, as such she was fedup with the attitude of her husband, and on 12.12.2019 the deceased consumed the liquor and beat her and due to the said attitude of the deceased husband she got vexed and picked up an axe (goddali) which was available in their house and hit the deceased on the back side of the head by using the said axe, due to which the deceased has fallen down on the floor with bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Later she left the house and on 13.12.2019 she came to the house, the police apprehended her. PW.6 further deposed that the accused had shown axe to them which was used in the commission of the offence, and it was marked as MO.1 as he duly identified the same in his evidence. He further deposed that the police seized the MO.1 axe under the cover of confession- cum-seizure panchanama dated 13.12.2019 i.e., Ex.P6 i.e., relevant portion in the above said panchanama dt.13.12.2019.
49)In the cross examination of PW.6, he deposed that his house is at a distance of 1K.M., from the house of the deceased, apart from him LW.12-
B.Srinivasulu, around 10 to 16 vicinity people were gathered at the scene of offence, but they stood away from the place of confession and seizure panchanama. They found the accused in the custody of the police, later the accused herself confessed everything in their presence and same was reduced into writing. The PW.6 further admitted in his cross examination that the police 21 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
took the accused into custody on 12.12.2019 by suspecting her involvement in the case. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not confess anything in their presence and MO.1 was not seized under Ex.P6 proceedings.
50)The above said evidence of PW.6 is established that basing on the confession of the accused, the police seized the crime weapon i.e., MO.1 used by the accused in the commission of the offence. His evidence also reveals that the police took the accused into custody on 12.12.2019 by suspecting her involvement in the case. The said evidence corroborates with the evidence of
PW.1, PW.2, PW.11 and PW.12, who also clearly deposed that the accused was present at the scene of offence and confessed that she killed her husband on 12.12.2019.
51)PW.10 is the Investigating Officer in this case, who deposed about the receiving of Ex.P1 from PW.1, later issuing of Ex.P10-FIR, thereafter he visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of PW.5, LW.8-
G.Kumar and prepared the crime details form under Ex.P5. Later he collected the controlled earth and bloodstained earth at the scene of offence, and he also got photographed the scene of offence along with the dead body through
PW.4, thereafter he shifted the dead body to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he conducted inquest in the presence of PW.8 and others, and also got photographed the dead body through PW.4. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW.2, PW.3, PW.11 and PW.12.
52)Later, he arrested the accused on 13.12.2019 at her residence, interrogated her in the presence of PW.6 and LW.12-B.Srinivasulu and recorded her confession statement, and seized MO.1 axe i.e., crime weapon under cover of Ex.P6 proceedings, later he sent the accused for judicial custody.
53)He further deposed that he also seized MO.2, MO.3 during the course of inquest and sent the MO.1 and MO.2 along with controlled earth and 22 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
bloodstained earth to the R.F.S.L., Warangal for analysis and received the report, later he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
54)In the cross examination by the counsel for the accused, PW.10 i.e.,
Investigating Officer denied the suggestion that he arrested the accused on 12.12.2019 and detained in the Police station. The said suggestion gives strength to the evidence given by PW.11, PW.12 that the accused was present at the scene of offence, she confessed about the offence, later the police took her with them.
55)There are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, which were suggested to PW.10 and he admitted the same. Such discrepancies are minor, which were not shake the case of the prosecution.
56)The evidence of PW.9-Smt.Y.Neeraja, who analyzed MOs.1 to 3 and issued Ex.P9-Opinion stating that she found human blood on item No.1, 2 and 4 i.e., MO.1, MO.2 and controlled earth.
57)On overall scrutinizing the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clearly established the fact that the deceased is the husband of the accused herein, the deceased addicted to liquor, frequently used to beat the accused and her children by suspecting her fidelity and the accused fed up with the attitude of the deceased, and on 12.12.2019 the accused killed her husband by using MO.1 axe.
58)It is not a disputed fact that the accused and her deceased husband are lived in the scene of offence house.
59)The learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.364 of 2009 between WAMAN
AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA stating that merely because the 23 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
above said witnesses are relatives to the deceased, their testimony cannot be thrown out. In the above said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon a decision of same Court between STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. NARESH AND
OTHERS reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 wherein it was held that:
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care.”
60)The learned Public Prosecutor has relied also on a decision reported in 2015 CRL.L.J. 3152 between KIRITIPAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, wherein it was held that:
“on the fateful evening of 11.11.2008, Anjali came in the motorcycle of A.1-Kiriti Pal from her beauty parlour. She went to the room of her house and called PW.6-Anju Majhi to help her “wearing saree by holding its kuchi” and thereafter wearing some gold ornaments, Anjali went with A.1-Kiriti Pal on his motorcycle. PW.6 Anju Majhi tenant in the ground floor had spoken about deceased-Anjali wearing saree, leaving the house with A.1 in his motorcycle. In her evidence, PW.6 stated that she asked Anjali where she is going and that Anjali told her that she is going to Rajnagar for attending the function of Prosenjit and Chiranjib. When PW.6 asked Anjali about the time of her return, Anjali replied saying that she will come back at night around 9.00-9.30 P.M. PW.6 stated that Anjali did not come back till 10.00-10.30 P.M. On hearing the horn of motorcycle she opened the main gate and she saw only A.1-Kiriti Pal. PW.6 further stated that A.1-Kiriti Pal asked her as to whether key of Anjali’s room is with PW.6 and PW.6 answered in negative. PW.6 asked A.1-Kiriti Pal about Anjali and he told her that “Didi is making a gossip with one person. He will take her later” and by saying so A.1-Kiriti Pal left the place.”
Anjali was last seen in the company of the accused No.1 is also spoken by
PW.10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at paragraphs No.14 and 15 held that, “Para No.14: from the evidence of PW.6, 7 and 10, prosecution has thus established that Anjali was last seen alive in the company of A.1-Kiriti Pal on the evening of 11.11.2008 and that at about 10.00/0.30 P.M., A.1-Kiriti Pal came alone. The theory 24 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
of “last seen alive” comes into play when the time gap between the way the accused and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead was so small, the possibility of any other person committing the murder becomes impossible. On the next day morning at about 9.30 A.M., body of deceased- Anjali was found in Babuibona Jungle an isolated place which is 25 K.Ms., away from her residence. The place where the dead body was found was connected with Rajnagar Suri road. The time when Anjali left with A.1-Kiriti Pal and the time she was found dead is so proximate which, in our view, points to the guilt of A.1.
Para No.15: Having regard to the time gap being small, it is for the A.1 to explain the circumstances how and where and in what manner he parted company with Anjali. Thus, on the principle that the person who is last found in the company of another is dead or missing, the person with whom he was last found alive has to explain the circumstances in which he parted the company as pointed out by the trial Court and the High court, A.1 has failed to discharge the onus and failed to offer any explanation as to how, as to when and how and in what manner he parted the company of Anjali, is a strong mitigating circumstance against the A.1-Kiriti Pal. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the A.1- Kiriti Pal failed to offer any explanation, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the case of State of U.P., v. Satish, ((2005) 3 SCC 114, AIR 2005 SC 1000), this Court had stated the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”
61)The learned Public Prosecutor further relied on a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in MAHAVIR SING v. STATE OF HARYANA in CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.2231 OF 2010, wherein it was held that:
“Undoubtedly, it is settled legal proposition that last seen theory comes into play only in a case where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen alive and when the deceased was found dead. Since the gap is very small there may not be any possibility that any person other than the accused may be the author of the crime. In the instant case, if we examine the medical report minutely, it becomes evident that the deceased Suraj Mal had been murdered one week prior to the postmortem. Thus, it becomes evident that he had been killed in a very proximity of time when the deceased was seen alive with the appellant and Jagbir Singh, co-accused.
It has been pointed out that there had been some discrepancies in the inquest report as well as in the depositions of the witnesses. However, no material contradictions could be brought to our notice. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in every case.” 25 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
Further, it was held at Paragraph No.11 that, “This Court in A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302 held;
In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. “Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility”. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. “Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.” The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the prosecutions’ case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discarded. Where the omission/s amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.”
62)In a decision reported in ROHTASH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.896 OF 2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:
“It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety.”
In the same decision, at paragraph No.21 and 22, it was held on the aspect of motive as follows; “Para No.21: The evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive 26 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same. (Vide Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1989 SC 733).
Para No.22: It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to decide whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. (Vide Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 762).”
In the same decision on the point of last seen together theory at
Paragraphs No.24 and 25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “Para No.24: In cases, where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. (vide Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077).
Para No.25: In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court held as under:
Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife, and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. (See also: Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 10). Thus, the doctrine of last seen together shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him.”
63)The learned Public Prosecutor further relied on a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.427 OF 2014, dated 27 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
25.07.2019 between RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR v. STATE OF SIKKIM, at para
No.15 it was held as follows; “In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer3, the Court held as under:
8. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof.
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Illustration (a) says A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has, 3 AIR 1956 SC 404 committed, A must prove that B has committed the crime.
9. this lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word especially stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be iterpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attaygalle v. Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 169) and Seneviratnev R. ((1936) 3 ALL ER 36, 49).”
64)In a decision between RAJU MANJHI v. STATE OF BIHAR in Criminal
Appeal No.1333 of 2009, dated 2.08.2018, while discussing the scope of 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it was held that:
“it is true no confession made by any person while he was in the custody of police shall be true against him. But the Evidence Act provides that if when an accused being in the custody of police makes a statement that reveals some information leading to the recovery of incriminating material or discovery of any fact concerning to the alleged offence, such statement can be proved against him.” 28 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
65)The learned Public Prosecutor relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in AIR (2011) SC 2302 between A. SHANKER v. STATE
OF KARNATAKA, para No.27 that:
“In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. “Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility”. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. “Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.” The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the prosecutions’ case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discarded. Where the omission/s amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.”
66)He also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between
C. MUNIAPPAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU decided on 30.08.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.127 to 130 of 2008 at para No.44, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that, “there may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating Officer and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the 29 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
investigating agency or omissions etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.”
67)In the present case, merely because PW.1, PW.2 are the close relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be thrown out. The other witnesses i.e.,
PW.3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.8, PW.11 and PW.12 are neighbours and independent witnesses and they have clearly deposed the motive for the offence and they have last seen the deceased with the accused. More particularly PW.12-
P.Sandya clearly deposed in her evidence that on the date of the incident during morning hours, the accused dropped her son in her house, later at about 9.00 A.M., the deceased came to her house, thereafter she came to know that the deceased-Raj Kumar was died in his house at about 11.30 A.M., then she immediately rushed to the house of the deceased and found the dead body in his house, by then the accused stated before her and others that she killed her husband-Raj Kumar as he beat her after consuming liquor. If the accused not killed her husband, she might have lodge complaint to the police immediately but her conduct is against to the behaviour of an ordinary person.
68)All the testimonies of the above said witnesses clearly showing the finger towards the accused that she killed her husband on 12.12.2019.
69)In view of the above said discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution proved the fact that on 12.12.2019 the accused killed her husband by using MO.1 as she fed up with the attitude of her deceased husband.
Now this Court will scrutinize whether such act of the accused is comes under the definition of murder or culpable homicide?
30 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
70)In the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, wherein he clearly stated that:
“on 12.12.2019 morning hours, the deceased left his house at about 8.00 A.M., and came to his house in intoxicated condition at about 11.00 A.M., due to fear and on seeing the status of the deceased, the accused shifted their son to the house of her neighbour, the deceased as usual picked up quarrel and asked his son, beat the accused indiscriminately, while the altercation is going, the son of the deceased came to their house, on seeing the son of the deceased, beat his son indiscriminately by keeping in his house, due to which the accused became wild, picked up an axe and beat the deceased on his head for four times and caused his death.”
71)As can be seen from the evidence of PW.7-Dr.J.Surender, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, he found serious injuries only on the head of the deceased.
72)Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
“Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
73)In a case between SHIVARATHRI VENKATAIAH AND ANOTHER v. STATE
OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR reported in 2008 (1) ALT (Cri.) 295 (AP), wherein our Hon’ble composite High Court held that:
“culpable homicide with knowledge, but without intention to cause death.
In the said case, PW.5 trying to cut the tree adjacent to the land of the deceased, for which the wife of the accused No.1 objected the deceased, questioned the accused No.2 in the evening about 31 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
the said matter, by then the accused No.2 abused the deceased, dragged the deceased by caught holding the collar, by then the accused No.1 gave a blow by the blunt side of the axe on the head of the deceased causing his death in Hospital.
In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court held that committing amounts to culpable homicide with the knowledge, but without intention to cause the death, as such Section 304 Part-II is applicable to the facts of the said case.”
74)In a case between HARI SHANKER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in
AIR 1999 SC 2629 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:
“the quarrel between the two took place all of a sudden and in the heat of the moment the appellant had picked the stove and had thrown it towards the deceased. Since the appellant had thrown a burning stove on the deceased, he would have opinion that his act was likely to cause burns resulting in death. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.”
75)In the present case also, the accused beat the deceased husband by uing an axe when the deceased beating the accused and her son indiscriminately, as such the accused committed the said act in a heat of moment without any intention to kill her deceased husband. As such, considering the facts of the present case and in view of the above said legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the accused has committed culpable homicide which not amounts to murder and her act is punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly the point is answered.
76)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2021.) Sd/-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SC/STs (POA) ACT-CUM- VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
32 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
77)The accused produced from Central Prison, Warangal. Heard the accused and her counsel on quantum of sentence. The accused submitted that she has a son aged about 4 years and daughter aged about 2 years and they are with her in the Central Prison, Warangal and none other to lookafter the welfare of her children, hence requested to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence.
78)Upon perusal of the case diary, the accused is aged about 22 years as on the year 2019, as such she is aged 23 years at present. There are no previous criminal antecedents against the accused. The incident was took place in the heat of action. Having considering the age of the accused and her children, and her social and economical background, this Court is inclining to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence though the punishment is provided upto 10 years under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
79)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and convicted under Section 235(2) of
Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
i.The free copy of judgment is immediately furnished to the accused.
ii.The accused is further informed that she is having right to prefer the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad by utilizing the services from the High Court Legal Services Authority, High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad within 30 days from the date of this judgment.
33 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
iii.The accused is in judicial custody from 13.12.2019 and the remand period of the accused is given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
iv.The material objects i.e., MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2021.)
Sd/-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SC/STs (POA) ACT-CUM- VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined.
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 Chilla Raju-None- PW.2 Chilla Laxmi PW.3 Gandham Shanker PW.4 Jannu Bixapathi PW.5 Miryala Sampath PW.6 Byripati Ramesh PW.7 Dr. J. Surender. PW.8 Turpati Rajaram PW.9 Y. Neeraja PW.10 D. Naresh Kumar, CI of Police. PW.11 U. Komuramma PW.12 P. Sandhya
Documents Marked
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is Written report dt.12.12.2019.-Nil- Ex.P2 is (4) Photographs taken at crime scene. Ex.P3 is (4) Photographs taken at Mortuary of MGM Hospital. Ex.P4 is Compact disc (C.D.). Ex.P5 is Crime details form dt.12.12.2019. Ex.P6 is relevant portion in Confession-cum- seizure panchanama of the accused. Ex.P7 is Postmortem Examination report dt.12.12.2019. Ex.P8 is Inquest report dt.12.12.2019. Ex.P9 is Opinion of PW.9 dt.25.01.2020. Ex.P10 is FIR.
34 of 34 SC No.130 of 2020/VII-Addl.S.J.Court, Warangal.
Material Objects marked.
MO.1 Axe MO.2 Night pant wore by the deceased. MO.3 blue colour drawer with letter as Jockey wore by the deceased.
Sd/-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SC/STs (POA) ACT-CUM- VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL.