IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA: AT
MACHILIPATNAM
Present: Sri M.R.Seshagiri Rao, B.A.,B.L.,
I-Addl. Sessions Judge
Wednesday this the 26 th day of November, 2014
SESSIONS CASE NO. 589/2012
Complainant::The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Bandar Rural Circle, Machilipatnam.
Accused::Parise Vasu, S/o Rangarao, 35 years, Gowda, Patha Reddipalem village, Koduru Mandal, Now at R.Gollapalem, H/o Rudravaram village, Bandar Mandal.
Charges::U/Ss 498-A and 302 IPC Plea of accused::Not guilty Finding of Court::U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C., I find the accused not guilty for the charge No.2 U/s 498A IPC. Accordingly acquit him for the same. However, U/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C., I find the accused guilty for the charge No.1 i.e., U/s 302 IPC. Accordingly proceed to convict him. Result::In the result, this accused is sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
This case coming on 24.11.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Suri Babu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and of Sri D.Narasimha Rao, State brief counsel for accused and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This is a case filed by Inspector of Police, Bandar Rural Circle U/s 302 IPC and U/s 498-A IPC in Cr.No.45/2012 of Bandar Taluk P.S.,
2)Facts are the accused is a cooly, resident of Patha Reddipalem village of Koduru Mandal, that ON 26.03.2012 he murdered his wife Bhagya
Lakshmi, who is native of R.Gollapalem village, h/o Rudravaram, that about 12 years prior to this incident deceased Bhagya Lakshmi was given in marriage to this accused, that they started living in Patha Reddipalem village, that the accused is a tapper by profession and also does cooly work, that after birth of two 2 daughters the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased, started beating and ill treating her on flimsy grounds, that about 10 months prior to this case incident the accused attacked the deceased with a knife, but his parents viz.,
Parise Rangarao and P.Venkateswaramma L.Ws.10 and 11 stopped him and sent the deceased to her parents house, that accused also beat his parents on that ground, resulting their leaving to K.Kothapalem village due to fear of the accused.
Thus, deceased along with her daughters P.W.4 and L.W.7 Revathi came away to her mother’s house in R.Gollapalem, P.W.1 is her mother, P.Ws.2, 3 and L.W.3
Sanjeevarao are the brothers of the deceased, L.W.4 Venkateswara Rao is father of the deceased, D.W.1 is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. Few days after deceased and children coming to R.Gollapalem the accused also came here and started living in R.Gollapalem village by undertaking to look after the deceased and children properly, that he started residing in a portion taken on rent from
P.W.6, however, the accused continued his harassment on his wife suspecting her character alleging that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with her neighbours, that on 25.3.2012 unable to bear with the harassment deceased and her children came away to P.W.1’s house, that on the following morning i.e., on 26.3.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., accused returned from work, called the deceased to serve food to him and took her forcibly, that P.W.1 anticipating some danger called her sons and followed a little bit later, that in the meanwhile after entering the room accused picked up quarrel with deceased asking her to come to Patha
Reddipalem village and when she refused, the accused picked up ‘penaka kathi’ from the eves, hacked the deceased on the head, resulting in splitting of skull bone and splinter with some hair fell on the ground, then the accused hacked on the right shoulder of the deceased, right side of stomach, resulting in projection of intestines and also on left hand, that in order to save her the deceased ran away through front verandah towards the road and fell down there, that P.W.1 shouted loudly, that P.W.6 is owner, P.W.5 neighbouring resident and P.Ws.2 and 3 3 witnessed the incident, that the accused ran away holding knife in his hand from the scene of offence, that P.W.2 and L.W.3 Sanjeeva Rao elder brother of the deceased shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam in ambulance, however, deceased died at about 3.20 p.m., prior to that on receiving hospital intimation P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police reached the hospital, but as the deceased was unable to give statement he returned to the P.S., that at 3.50 hours he received death intimation. At that juncture deceased’s mother P.W.1 came to police station and filed Ex.P1 written report, basing on which the P.W.9 registered the above crime, that P.W.10 Inspector of Police took up investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded statement of P.W.1, then proceeded to scene of offence, that in the presence of P.W.7 V.R.O., and one Vikrama Rao Sarpanch of
Gundupalem village scene of offence was observed, piece of skull bone, bangle pieces, fallen hair of the deceased, blood swabs, controlled earth and blood stained earth lying by the side of the road are seized under cover of Ex.P4 mediators report, that the scene of offence was also photographed by C.I., of Police, that on the following morning inquest was conducted over the dead body at Government
Hospital, Machilipatnam, where statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, L.Ws.3, 4, 7 and 8 are recorded by the C.I., that in the presence of P.W.7, L.Ws. 14 and 15
V.Vikrama Rao and T.Basava Sankara Rao inquest was conducted. Said panch witnesses opined that suspecting the character of the deceased accused hacked her to death. P.W.8 doctor conducted post mortem examination and opined that the deceased died due to shock due to multiple wounds and haemorrhage, that on 4.4.2012 P.W.9 arrested the accused near bus shelter of Rudravaram cross-road, when examined in the presence of P.W.7 and other mediators accused gave confession statement and lead the police to the place where he secreted the crime weapon and his clothes, i.e., to land of Y.Srinivasa Rao in the outskirts of
R.Gollapalem and from thorny bushes knife and clothes are seized at the instance of the accused, that the material objects are sent to F.S.L., and at that juncture 4 charge sheet is filed. Subsequently F.S.L., opinion is received that human blood is detected on the items sent for analysis. Accused was remanded to judicial custody by the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Machilipatnam. Accused was enlarged on bail.
3)Charge sheet was taken cognizance by Judl. Magistrate of I Class,
Special Mobile Court, Machilipatnam for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. After supply of copies and following procedure U/s 209 Cr.P.C., the case is committed to Court of Session.
4)The Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam is pleased to take the case on file for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and made over to this Court.
5)The accused is charged for the offences u/Ss 302 and 498-A IPC.
The accused denied the said charges when explained in Telugu and claimed to be tried.
6)To substantiate the case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 11 are marked. During cross-examination of P.W.1, Exs.D1 to D3 are marked. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor gave up other witnesses as not necessary.
7)After closure of prosecution accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C.,
He denied the incriminating evidence, stated that while cutting palmyrah leaves he suffered snake bite. In the first instance he took treatment in Avanigadda
Government Hospital and later he was referred to Machilipatnam, thereby for convenience sake he shifted to his in-laws place R.Gollapalem, , that he never beat and ill treated his wife at any point of time and never suspected her character, that at R.Gollapalem deceased used to lead adulterous life without caring for him, that she used to go to Bandar after he leaves for work and returns in the evening, that inspite of his advises she never cared him, that on the date of incident also he was away attending palmyrah leaves cutting, that in the afternoon he came to know 5 that his wife was hacked, that he came to Machilipatnam to see the dead body of his wife and was nabbed by the police, that some of her paramours might have killed her and that he was falsely implicated. Reported having defence evidence and examined one witness as D.W.1 on his behalf, through whom Ex.P17 is marked.
8)Heard arguments of both sides.
9)Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charges under Sections
(i) U/s 498-A IPC;
(ii) U/s 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”
10)CHARGE NO.2 U/S 498-A IPC:- The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that about 12 years prior to this incident deceased Bhagya Lakshmi was given in marriage to accused, that after birth of the 2nd daughter L.W.7 Revathi the accused is alleged to have started suspecting the character of the deceased, used to beat and ill treat her. The prosecution also alleged that about 10 months prior to this incident when accused assaulted his wife the parents of accused L.W.10 and 11
Parise Rangarao and Parise Venkateswaramma themselves interfered and were also beaten, that on their advice deceased and her children came away to
R.Gollapalem, subsequently joined by the accused. The entire prosecution evidence is that of P.W.1 mother, P.Ws.2 and 3 brothers. Even P.W.4 daughter’s evidence is that only suspecting the character of the deceased wife accused has been beating her,but not for any ot her purpose. The defence plea is that accused is a rustic persin, deceased was educated and a little bit accustomed to modern life, that she always defied him, not cared him that after he goes for work in the morning deceased used to come to Machilipatnam and lead debauchery life inspite of his request to stop the same. Probably one of her paramjours might have attacked her is the case of the accused.
6
11)However, what is the cruelty as defined U/s 498-A IPC is to be seen.
For the purpose of discussion sec.498-A IPC is extracted hereunder:-
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty:-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a perm which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means:-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
As per this definition and various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High
Courts the 2nd part of definition of cruelty covers that said cruelty must have been with demand for additional dowry, presentation or undue advantage to the accused and disadvantage and grief to the victim or her parents or brothers, sisters etc., that is to say dowry harassment. The 1st part defines cruelty on other aspect but said cruelty must be to such an extent which leads the victim to think about committing suicide to escape the cruelty by the accused person.
12)Here entire cruelty incidents are admittedly taken place in Patha
Reddipalem village of Koduru Mandal i.e., the native place of the accused. The investigating officer simply cited L.Ws.10 and 11 Rangarao and
Venkateswararamma, parents of accused only to prove the so-called ill treatment and cruelty by the accused to the deceased during their stay in Patha Reddipalem village. Probably as L.Ws.10 and 11 are parents of the accused thinking that they may not support the prosecution version learned Addl.P.P., gave up their evidence.
No steps are taken by the prosecution to adduce further evidence by examining any neighbours of Patha Reddipalem village to prove the alleged cruelty and to 7 establish whether during her stay at Patha Reddipalem village the deceased went to the extent of committing suicide and made several attempts etc., But here is the case that during their stay at Patha Reddipalem also suspecting the character of the deceased accused had attempted to kill her, at which time his parents obstructed and they were also thrashed. This evidence is not put forward by the prosecution.
What all P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed is that suspecting the character of the deceased this accused used to beat and ill treat her. Even P.W.5 neighbour and P.W.6 house owner also deposed that for petty reasons the accused and deceased used to quarrel with each other. There is no specific evidence by the prosecution establishing “cruelty” as defined U/s 498-A IPC. Same is within certain parameters unlike the definition of crueilty in general. As such I find that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredients of cruelty as defined U/s 498-A IPC and failed to establish that accused used to harass the deceased wife either with dowry demand or driving her to such an extent to commit suicide. In the result, prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of charge No.2 U/s 498-A IPC and accused is entitled for acquittal for the charge No.2.
13)Charge No.1 U/s 302 IPC.:-Coming to Charge No.1, prosecution case is that one day prior to this incident i.e., on 25.3.2012 suspecting her character the accused severely beat the deceased, resulting she came away to her mother’s house, that on 26.3.2012 at about 12.00 noon accused returned from work, called his wife, forcibly took her to his house situated about 20 yards away from P.W.1’s house on the pretext of serving food to him, that suspecting he may beat her daughter, P.W.1 followed them, that immediately after entering into the room accused is alleged to have picked up M.O.1 knife from the eves and dealt knife blows to the deceased. But the prosecution version is otherwise. Accused and deceased both went inside the room, then argument ensued between them, then the deceased sat on the door frame of the room, that at that juncture the accused is alleged to have hacked her on head resulting in split of scalp bone with 8 some hair and bleeding injury, that second blow accused is alleged to have chopped her right hand at shoulder, that when deceased raised alarm he hacked her on left upper arm causing incised wound on mid left of upper arm up to the dorsum, that right thumb also was cut and in the last blow the accused inflicted cut injury to the abdomen of the deceased, loops of intestines projected outside causing bleeding injury. P.Ws.1, 2, 3 claim to have witnessed the same. P.W.1 deposed that incident took place on Monday when the deceased was at her house, that at about 10.00 a.m., accused came there, questioned the deceased wife why at mother’s house and the deceased answered him casually she came to mother’s house, that then accused grew wild and abused the deceased with illicit connections, that she enquired and pacified them, then he took the deceased to his rented house. All of a sudden he pulled out ‘penaka kathi’ from the eves and dealt with the blows. As such if P.W.1’s evidence is considered the accused appears to have caused injuries immediately after reaching his rented house.
14)P.W.2 elder brother of deceased deposed that on the incident day he heard shouts of his deceased sister while he was standing on the road, ran to the scene of offence and witnessed the accused causing cut injury on the abdomen of the deceased, thus P.W.2 claims to have witnessed accused causing abdominal injury, that house owner Ammaji P.W.6, P.W.3 another brother and one
B.Suryanaayana witnessed the incident. Coming to P.W.3 he deposed that he was taking rest at his house which is situated two houses away from the scene of offence, that he heard shouts of P.W.1 that deceased was hacking, immediately he came out and witnessed the accused causing abdominal injury to the deceased, that she was also having other bleeding injuries on head and upper arm, that when he made an attempt to catch the accused, the latter threatened to kill him and ran away. Therefore, P.W.1 witnessing the entire ghastly incident, P.Ws.2 and 3 on hearing shouts came out and noticing this accused causing last injury i.e., abdominal injury to the deceased with knife is made out.
9
15)During cross-examination P.W.2 deposed that his wife heard shouts of P.W.1, woke up him, that he rushed to the scene of offence by which time the deceased was already lying on the road in front of the house covering head injury with one hand and holding exposed intestines with other hand and that he noticed the accused standing with blood stained knife. Thus, the cross-examination of
P.W.2 clearly establishes that he is not an eye witness to the actual incident, but arrived shortly after the incident. As rightly contended by defence advocate P.W.3 also deposed that when he reached the scene of offence he noticed the deceased coming out of the eves with injuries fell on the road in front of the house, that then he noticed bleeding cut injury on her abdomen and intestines are projecting.
P.Ws.1 and 2 are also present there, and by then accused started running. Thus,
P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be said to be eye witness to the actual incident, but their presence at the scene of offence immediately after the incident and noticing the accused running with blood stained knife can be believed. They also identified
M.Os.1 to 4, knife, clothes of deceased, Exs.P2 and P3 photos.
16)P.W.4 is the eldest daughter of the accused and the deceased. She deposed that accused is addicted to drinking and when ever he drinks he used to beat her mother and in normal course his behaviour is normal. Of course, in cross- examination this witness supported the accused’s contention that for treatment purpose of snake bite they came away to R.Gollapalem village and started living here and the accused starting working under D.W.1, her junior maternal grand father.
17)P.W.5 is another eye witness. Her evidence is that at the time of incident she was cooking food in her front verandah, that she noticed this accused running in front of her house holding M.O.1 blood stained knife, that she came out, went near the scene of offence and found deceased Bhagya Lakshmi lying with bleeding injuries on head, shoulders and stomach was opened. P.Ws.1 to 3 are there and some other villagers gathered etc., Regarding the motive part, that 10 suspecting the character of the deceased accused killed her. P.W.5’s evidence is only hearsay evidence and in cross-examination she admitted that she does not know whether any differences are there between the accused and the deceased.
17)P.W.6 is important witness, she being the house owner. She deposed that the accused and the deceased are her tenants in the northern side room for
Rs.300/- p.m., rent, that often they used to quarrel with each other and that when she questioned the deceased she told that the same is routine to her and her husband, that in normal days accused is gentle but when he drinks liquor he became ferocious and wild, that on the incident day she was taking rest in her room, some time prior to that deceased went to her mother’s house, that about 12’o clock both accused and deceased returned home, suddenly she heard cries of the deceased, she came out of her room into front verandah, noticed the deceased coming out of her room holding cut abdomen with hands, groaning with pain and coming out of the house she fell on the road, all the way i.e., entire verandah blood spilled, that at that juncture accused ran away holding blood stained knife, P.Ws.1 and 3 are also nearby the scene of offence and witnessed this incident etc., This is the oral evidence of prosecution.
19)This P.W.6 withstood the cross-examination and deposed that she observed the deceased coming out of her room from a distance of about 5 to 6 feet, immediately following the deceased, that accused also came out of the room and proceeded hurriedly. Of course, the defence advocate elicited three contradictions
Exs.D1 to D3 in her evidence. Ex.D1 is contradictory to chief-examination of this witness. The witness deposed that both accused and deceased used to work as labourers whereas Ex.D1 reads that accused never attends work and always beating and ill treating the deceased suspecting that she is having illicit intimacy with others. Ex.D2 is that half an hour after return of accused and the deceased they are quarrelling, that this P.W.6 went near them and advised not to pick up quarrels, at that juncture P.W.1 brought their daughters etc., Of course, this was 11 not corroborated by this witness, who deposed that at the time of occurrence she was taking rest in her house and that after hearing painful shouts of deceased she came out. Ex.D3 reads that this P.W.6 witnessing accused picking out knife from the eves and dealt with blows on her head, right shoulder, stomach and left hand.
These are not corroborated by this witness. Her evidence is otherwise. However, she being the house owner, which is admitted by the accused also, her presence cannot be doubted. Moreover, Exs.D1 to D3 did not entirely throw away the evidence of P.W.6 because she corroborated the prosecution to the extent of deceased running out of their rented portion towards the road with bleeding injuries on hear, shoulder and stomach and the accused running away from the scene of offence. That part of the evidence of P.W.6 which corroborates the prosecution can be believed inspite of Exs.D1 to D3, which are not admitted by
P.W.6.
20)Learned counsel for accused contended that in fact the accused was taken into police custody on the evening of incident day, that the deceased used to lead adulterous life having paramours, that some of her paramours might have murdered her and that in order to protect the honour of the deceased case was rubbed upon this accused. The accused also pleaded alibi. When once the accused pleads alibi that he was some where else at the time of he incident, burden heavily lies upon him to prove the alibi with strict proof like prosecution proving the charges against him. In this case D.W.1 junior paternal uncle of the deceased and younger brother of accused’s father-in-law Venkateswara Rao viz., Pamarthi
Sri Krishna Rao is examined as defence witness. At that juncture what was stated by the accused in Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination is also to be considered.
21)During Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination while denying the incriminating evidence against him the accused stated that he was cutting palmyrah leaves along with D.W.1, while at work he received information that deceased was hacked by some one, resulting in serious wounds, himself and 12
D.W.1 came to Machilipatnam Government Hospital and that he was nabbed by the police. Further, he contends that he is a rustic uneducated person, the deceased is an educated lady, that for treatment of snake bite he shifted family to
R.Gollapalem from his native place, that ever since setting up family at
R.Gollapalem deceased did not care for him, used to talk with some others by phone, that after his departure to the cooly work she used to come to Bandar town with paramours and did not stop said free life inspite of his request, that some of her paramours might have hacked her to death, that himself and D.W.1 returned home at 5.00 p.m., came to know that deceased was hacked and died in
Government Hospital. This is the statement of accused during 313 Cr.P.C., examination. This D.W.1 is none other than list witness No.8, who was given up by Addl.P.P., even though during prosecution evidence this witness attended the
Court. Whether the version of accused was corroborated by D.W.1 is to be seen.
22)This D.W.1 deposed that deceased is his elder brother’s only daughter. She was brought up by her parents in a fondle manner, that due to freedom given to her she never cared for the accused and not respected him as her husband, that about one year prior to this case incident D.W.1 suffered fracture to left leg in accident, that he was having Ac.1-00 of land and 40 palmyrah trees to his share. Since he was unable to climb trees for toddy tapping he called the accused to come away to R.Gollapalem and kept him for toddy tapping and other works, besides that accused also used to have some share of palmyrah trees from his father-in-law also, that on the incident date early morning himself, accused and another Subbarao went to Dokku Sambaiah’s land to cut palmyrah leaves and returned home at about 11.30 a.m., By then Sanjeevarao, eldest brother of the deceased informed them that the deceased was hacked by some one and was taken to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, that by 12.00 noon himself and accused came to hospital, by then deceased Bhagya Lakshmi was alive in serious condition and died at about 12.30 a.m., 13
23)This is contrary to the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to them, incident occurred at about 11.30 a.m., immediately they shifted the deceased to Government Hospital. Bhagya Lakshmi was given treatment and she died at about 3.30 p.m., As per D.W.1 after cutting the leaves by 11.30 a.m., on the incident day himself and accused returned back, whereas during Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination the accused stated that he was attending work up to 5.00 p.m., then in the evening after return from work only he came to know about attack on Bhagya
Lakshmi and his death. Thus, D.W.1’s evidence falsifies the accused’s version, because even as per D.W.1 accused and himself returned home at about 11.30 a.m., on the alleged incident day. Moreover, Addl.P.P., suggested to D.W.1 that boundary disputes are there between his elder brother Venkateswara Rao L.W.4 and D.W.1 and that that is why as he did not support prosecution version earlier he was given up. Naturally this witness denied the same. However, when the accused specifically pleaded in 313 Cr.P.C., examination that from morning till 5.00 p.m., he was away from the house, it is for him to prove satisfactorily beyond any doubt, but this D.W.1’s evidence show that by 11.30 a.m., i.e., to say at or some time prior to inflicting injuries to the deceased accused is very much available at his house having returned from cooly work. Therefore, the accused failed to prove his plea of alibi and I disbelieve the evidence of D.W.1.
24)Coming to main evidence, as already discussed by me above, by the time accused returned from work at about 10.30 a.m., or so deceased was at her mother P.W.1’s house, that the accused abused her and forcibly took her requiring to serve food to him. Suspecting that he may beat deceased, P.W.1 also followed them at a little bit distance. Of course, P.W.1 deposed that immediately after entering into their house portion i.e., verandah accused picked up M.O.1 knife and chopped on the head of the deceased, resulting in cut injury and piece of skull with hair fell on the ground, later he chopped on the right shoulder, then left hand, lastly in abdomen. Of course, P.W.1 deposes that her sons P.Ws.2 and 3 and the 14 house owner P.W.6 witnessed the incident. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 claims to have witnessed the accused inflicting abdominal injury, during cross-examination both of them admitted that by the time they reached the scene of offence the deceased already fell down near the road with bleeding injuries and accused was escaping from the scene of offence. This evidence is corroborated by P.W.5 independent witness that she heard some galata, came out of her house and noticed the accused running towards lands in front of her house carrying blood stained knife. P.W.6 also corroborated the incident that accused was found carrying this M.O.1 knife and that she noticed the deceased with bleeding injuries walking up to road in front of their house and falling down there. As already held by me Exs.D1 to D3 contradictions are not material contradictions to disbelieve the prosecution.
Totally P.W.1’s evidence was corroborated by P.Ws.2 to 3 and 5.
25)Learned defence advocate argued that P.W.1 alone must be treated as eye witness and others subsequently arrived they are only circumstantial witnesses. There is some force in the argument of defence advocate. As per the answers in cross-examination P.Ws.2 to 3, 5 and 6 have not witnessed the accused actually hacking the deceased with knife and causing injuries. However, they corroborated P.W.1 in all aspects. Whether sole testimony of P.W.1 is sufficient to find the accused guilty is to be seen.
26)On this aspect, learned Addl.P.P., relied upon certain case law. (i)
Raghavendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2009) 3
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1008, wherein only the deceased and accused were staying in the room and the accused suspecting his deceased wife asphyxed her to death by placing pillow on her face. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no chance for third parties to come and commit the said offence. In para 15 Hon’ble
Supreme Court held like this:- “Apart from that the deceased was living with the appellant staying in the same room and that is another factor which has been rightly taken 15 note of by the trial court and the High Court. We find no infirmity in the conclusions of the trial court or the High Court to warrant interference.”
27)Addl.P.P., also relied upon Mani Alias Udattu Aman and others
vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2010) 1 Supreme
Court Cases (Cri) 563. In this matter two aspects are there, (i) mother of the deceased also followed the accused when they chased the deceased and witnessed the ghastly incident of accused inflicting injuries to the deceased, corroborated the same during trial. The appellant/accused took plea that solitary evidence of interested witness mother of deceased cannot be believed. Hon’ble Supreme
Court relied upon earlier Supreme Court decision in para 9 discussed and held that evidence of mother of deceased cannot be discarded. “In para 14 held that; “In the first case relied upon by the prosecution, it has been held that just because the eyewitness to the incident is related to the deceased, the evidence of the said eyewitness cannot be disregarded. It is seen from the decision of the second case that when the evidence of the interested witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence, then the entire evidence of the interested witnesses ought not be rejected on that ground.”
28)Similar is the finding of Division Bench decision of our Hon’ble
High Court in the case of Pogula Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 37 (AP). In this matter suspecting the wife in their bed room-cum-living room husband-accused killed her during night. In the early morning at 4.00 a.m., he woke up children, daughter and son, took out them for urination and later he did not allow them into room, repeatedly objected their requests to see their mother, then his minor daughter raised hue and cry at the time of offence, one neighbour Suguna came and before her accused confessed having killed his wife, later on investigation was conducted. Even though other witnesses did not support, daughter of the accused deposed what took place in her presence 16 and when they want to go out and play during previous night, accused forced them and made them to sleep etc., Further, it is the admitted case of accused that himself and the deceased along with children were present in the said room and there is no chance for any third person to come and attack the deceased. In those circumstances Hon’ble Division Bench of our High Court believed the evidence of solitary evidence of the daughter of the accused and deceased and conviction was upheld.
29)Similar is the finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusti
Mallaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 603
(SC). In this matter a married woman came out of her matrimonial house on the pretext of going to her mother’s house, but two accused persons met her on the way. All of them went to a hillock in the outskirts, where they consumed liquor, then both the appellants/accused sexually enjoyed the lady by sending away P.W.6 when he objected the same, but P.W.6 was watching them from little distance.
After committing sexual assault both the accused killed the victim lady by beating her with a stone. Out of fear P.W.6 did not reveal the same. Later V.A.O., came to know about dead body of a lady, presented report to the police. At that juncture husband and daughter of the deceased coming to know that she did not go to her mother’s house, approached the police and identified the photo and belongings of the deceased. At that stage P.W.6 gained courage and gave statement. He also corroborated thesame before the trial Court. The Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak, at
Sangareddy sentenced both the accused persons to imprisonment for life for the offence U/s 302 IPC and three years for the offence U/s 404 IPC. On appeal
Hon’ble High Court of A.P., confirmed the sentence and A2 took the matter in
Second Appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Referring earlier decision in para 16 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when medical evidence i.e., post mortem certificate tallied with the oral evidence of P.W.6 who is a solitary witness. Of course, in that matter P.W.6 gave evidence. Hon’ble Division Bench held that, 17 “P.W.6 of that case evidence is accepted, that having witnessed the accused 1 and 2 ravishing the deceased and beating her to death de sense of fear would certainly creep the P.W.6 and he could not reveal the incident to anyone that would not corrode the version of prosecution.”
Therefore, believing the solitary evidence of P.W.6 Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction imposed by trial Court and confirmed by the High Court of
A.P.,
30)In this matter also P.W.1’s evidence was very much corroborated by
P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6. All of them clearly stated that deceased was having cut injuries on scalp, right shoulder was cut, left hand was cut, abdomen cut projecting intestines. A comparative perusal of Ex.P10 postmortem report and the evidence of P.W.8 doctor who conducted post mortem very much corroborated the injuries on the person of the deceased. The same are also mentioned in Ex.P6 inquest, which was duly proved by P.W.7. Para 7 of Ex.P6 inquest discloses that there was cut injury on the scalp, a gaping cut injury on the right shoulder, cut injury on the right side of abdomen, projection of intestines, left hand thumb was cut and hanging with support of skin, on the left hand a sloping injury and one cut injury on the dorsum of left hand and also below the right hand. Very same injuries are noticed by the doctor, who mentioned the same in Ex.P10 post mortem report.
Further, on cut section doctor found meninges intact, brain tissues is normal; structures of neck are normal; heart and lungs are normal; 200 cc of blood collected in the visceral cavity; liver shows 2 lacerated wounds on the dorsum of rightlobe each 3 x 1 cm., one lacerated wound on the dorsum of leftlobe 3 x 1 cm., remaining visceral structures are normal. This medical evidence supports the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6. The accused and evidence of D.W.1 admits his presence in the house at the time of the incident belieng alibi theory of accused.
All these circumstances inevitably proved that it is the accused alone but none else caused injuries to his wife/deceased with M.O.1 knife.
18
31)Another circumstantial evidence is evidence of P.W.7 which is also supported by P.W.10 investigating officer. Both these witnesses deposed about scene observation, photographs, inquest etc., which are not in dispute. Regarding confession of accused, P.W.7 clearly deposed that on 4.4.2012 afternoon himself and another V.R.O., were called by Inspector of police, all of them went to
R.Gollapalem near bus shelter this accused was apprehended, that after ascertaining identity, confession of accused was obtained as in Ex.P7, wherein the accused disclosed that he threw away M.O.1 knife and blood stained clothes in bushes near the land of one Yarlagadda Srinivasa Rao in the outskirts of
R.Gollapalem, that accordingly accused lead them there and under cover of Ex.P8,
M.O.1 knife was seized at the instance of the accused from the bushes near
Y.Srinivasa Rao land. No enmities are suggested to the P.W.7 that he is nourishing grudge against the accused. More over, P.W.7 being V.R.O., is duty bound to assist the police officers in investigation, doing ones duty cannot be treated as interested witness in one party. Therefore, I believe the evidence of
P.W.7 and recovery of M.O.1 knife at the instance of the accused. This very same
M.O.1 knife was identified by eye witnesses and the F.S.L., report Ex.P16 shows that clothes of deceased and this M.O.1 are containing human blood of ‘A’ group besides that the skull piece, hair, broken bangle pieces and cloth swab of blood stain in the room are also found containing human blood. Therefore, the oral evidence of witnesses was very much corroborated by medical evidence of doctor and further M.O.1 contained some blood of ‘A’ group and the same is very much identified by witnesses, established beyond reasonable doubt that this accused hacked his wife deceased Bhagya Lakshmi to death suspecting her character. I believe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6. Therefore, I find that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charge No.2 U/s 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and he is liable to be convicted.
19
32)(i) In the result, U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C., I find the accused not guilty for the charge No.2 U/s 498A IPC. Accordingly acquit him for the same.
(ii) However, U/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C., I find the accused guilty for the charge No.1 i.e., U/s 302 IPC. Accordingly proceed to convict him.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of November, 2014.
I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
33)Heard the accused regarding sentence that may be imposed against him. He stated that he is having dependant parents and two daughters dependant on him, now they are being educated in hostel, that if he is given severe punishment there will be no body to look after the daughters as well old aged parents are dependant on him. Prayed for lenient sentence.
34)Accused is found to have committed offence of murder punishable with death or life imprisonment and also fine. Hon’ble Supreme Court held in case of Shankar Kishan Rao Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 5 SCC 546 what is the rarest of the rare test following the precedent of
Bachan Singh’s case. It is to be seen whether this accused requires imposition of death penalty. During evidence P.W.4 eldest daughter of the accused, P.W.6 house owner both deposed that this accused behaves normally in ordinary days and becomes wild only when he consumed liquor. Therefore, this accused cannot be said to be habituated to do crimes often. Therefore, this case cannot be considered as rarest of the rare case and death sentence need not be awarded.
More over two daughters are there to this accused. It is proper for this accused at least to see his daughters when they visit him in the prison. Therefore, I feel that sentence of life imprisonment with fine is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
35)In the result, this accused is sentenced to undergo Life
imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple
20
imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC.
M.Os.1 to 11 and unmarked case property, if any, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Accused is supplied with copy of judgment. Mark copy of Judgment to District Legal Services Committee, Machiliapatnam to pay Honorarium to legal aid advocate.
The accused is appraised his right of appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature, Hyderabad against this Court’s judgment. If the accused has no means to engage advocate, he can apply for legal aid counsel to the High
Court’s Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.
Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of
November, 2014.
I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
Witnesses examined for Prosecution:
P.W.1Pamarthi Mangamma. P.W.2Pamarthi Sai Babu. P.W.3Pamarthi Siva Babu. P.W.4Parise Puja. P.W.5Ravi Damayanthi. P.W.6Garikapati Ammaji. P.W.7Parise Kumara Swamy. P.W.8Dr.B.V.Maruthi. P.W.9G.V.V.Satyanarayana,S.I., P.W.10A.Pallapu Raju,C.I.,
Witnesses examined for Defence:
D.W.1 Pamarthi Sri Krishna Rao.
Documents marked for Prosecution:
Ex.P.126.03.2012Report given by P.W.1 to the police. Ex.P.2(A to G)Six photos relating to dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.3(A to H)Eight photos relating to the scene of offence. Ex.P.426.03.2012Scene of offence observation report.
21
Ex.P.526.03.2012Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.627.03.2012Inquest report. Ex.P.704.04.2012Portion in the confession panchanama of accused. Ex.P.8 04.04.2012Seizure panchanama. Ex.P.904.04.2012Rough sketch showing the scene of offence at place of recovery. Ex.P.1027.03.2012Post mortem examination certificate. Ex.P.1126.03.2012Police intimation. Ex.P.1226.03.2012Death intimation. Ex.P.1326.03.2012FIR in Cr.No.45/2012 of Bandar Taluq P.S., Ex.P.14---Compaq Disk of photos. Ex.P.1510.04.2012Letter of advice. Ex.P.1603.08.2012F.S.L., report. Ex.P.1727.03.2012Portion in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of D.W.1. Documents marked for Defence:
--NIL--
M.Os. Marked:
M.O.1Penaka kathi. M.O.2Pink colour silk sary. M.O.3Red colour jacket. M.O.4Red colour inner petty coat. M.O.5Bangle pieces. M.O.6Piece of skull bone. M.O.7Hair of deceased. M.O.8Blood taken with cotton (bandae cloth) M.O.9Control loth of cotton bandage. M.O.10Blood stained earth on the road. M.O.11Controlled earth.
I-Addl. SJ.