1
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD
Present : Sri M. Venkata Ramana, B.Com., B.L., VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge Rangareddy District
On this the 29th day of November, 2012
S.C.No.462 Of 2011 Between :
Name of the Complainant: P.S. Moinabad
Name of the Accused: A1 : Karakala Samuel S/o Laxmaiah aged 32 yrs. Occ : Labour, Caste : SC Madiga), R/o Pedda Mangalaram (V) Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.
A2 – Karakala Yellaiah S/o Sayanna aged 55 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga)
A3 – Karakala Laxmaiah S/o Sayanna aged 60 yrs. Occ : Sweeper, S.C (Madiga)
A4 – Karakala Pochamma W/o Laxmaiah aged 50 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga) R/o Pedda Mangalaram Village.
A5 – Karakala Suvarna W/o Samuel aged 28 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga)
A6 – Karakala Shailender S/o Yellaiah, aged 21 yrs. Occ : Pvt.Job, S.C Pedda Mangalaram village, Moinabad Mandal.
A7 – Karakala Raju S/o Laxmaiah, aged 22 yrs. Occ : Pvt.Job, S.C R/o Pedda Mangalaram village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.
Charge U/s.: 306 IPC.
Cr.No.: 24/2010
PRC No.: 119/2011 2
Case Committed by: Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao, B.A., B.L., VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendernagar
Prosecution Conducted by : Sri M.Ganga Reddy, Addl.P.P
Defence Conducted by: Sri S. Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for A1 to A7
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found guilty
Sentence for Order: In the result, A1 to A7 are convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and they are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default they have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The remand period shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.
This case is coming before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri M.Ganga Reddy, Addl.P.P for the State and Sri S.Raghunath Reddy, Advocate
for the accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and upon
hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
The charge stands against A1 to A7 is for the offence punishable
U/s.306 IPC. The SHO Moinabad P.S filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 in
Cr.No.24/2010 for the offences punishable U/ss.306, 323 and 504 IPC. The case of the prosecution is as follows :
That on 1.2.2010 at about 830 P.M A1 to A7 came in front of the house of
PWs1 to 3 and deceased Laxmi and started abusing the family members of
PWs1 to 3 and deceased Laxmi in worst filthy language. When Laxmi came outside of the house, all the accused surrounded her and started beating her. It 3 is further case of the prosecution that due to abusive language used by A1 to A7, deceased Laxmi wept like anything and being unable to bear the beating and abusive language used by A1 to A7 she set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on herself and committed suicide.
Basing on the report of PW1, PW9 registered a case and entrusted investigation of the case to PW8. During the course of investigation PW8 examined witnesses, examined scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch of the scene of offence. Upon receiving the requisition from the SI of Police, Moinabad P.S, PW7 went to Osmania General Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of deceased Laxmi. In dying declaration deceased
Laxmi categorically stated that all accused abused her in filthy language and beat her and she committed suicide being unable to bear the abusive language of
A1 to A7. PW8 conducted postmortem examination, sent body for postmortem examination, PW5 conducted postmortem examination and gave opinion that to the best of his knowledge and belief the cause of death is burns and its consequences. On 6.2.2010 A1 to A3 and A5 were arrested by PW8 and after completion of investigation and after obtaining medical record PW8 filed charge sheet showing A4, A6 and A7 absconding from the date of offence. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC.No.119/11 on the file of VIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, at Rajendernagar. As the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC is
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions, it is numbered as S.C.No.462/11 and the same was transferred to this court by the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge.
4
02.On appearance of accused, charge was framed against all accused for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC.
03.To prove guilt of accused, prosecution examined PWs1 to 9 and marked
Exs.P1 to P10.
04.PW1 is husband of deceased Laxmi. PWs2 and 3 are daughters of deceased Laxmi. PW4 is mediator for scene observation report. PW5 is the
Doctor who have conducted postmortem examination. PW6 is mediator for inquest. PW7 is the then IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who recorded dying declaration. PW8 is investigating officer. PW9 is Inspector who registered the case.
Ex.P1 is complaint. Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is rough sketch. Ex.P4 is requisition for postmortem examination. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW6 on inquest report. Ex.P6 is requisition given by police. Ex.P7 is dying declaration. Ex.P8 is printed proforma of FIR. Ex.P9 is alteration memo and
Ex.P10 is inquest report.
05.PW1 deposed that about two years back on the date of incident, he came to his house at about 830 P.M and PW2 told him that her mother set herself ablaze after pouring kerosene on her body and further told that A1 to A7 came to his house and beat deceased wife Laxmi. He found his wife with burn injuries. He further deposed that police persons came and shifted his wife to
Osmania General Hospital and after two days, his wife Laxmi succumbed to burn 5 injuries. He nextly deposed that his wife committed suicide as she was beaten by A1 to A7 and they are responsible for the suicide of his wife. He marked
Ex.P1 report.
PW2 deposed that on 1.2.2010 at about 800 P.M when they were attending cooking work in their house A1 to A7 were found abusing deceased
Laxmi in worst filthy language. They challenged the family members of the deceased Laxmi to come outside and she nextly deposed that when her mother went outside, all accused surrounded her and started beating her and A1 hit blows on deceased Laxmi with a stone and bricks. She nextly deposed that some other persons intervened and sent his mother into house, but A1 to A7 continued to abuse her mother. She nextly she deposed that being unable to bear abusive language of A1 to A7 her mother herself hit a blow on her head with a stone and wept like anything. She brought kerosene tin from kitchen and poured on herself kerosene and tried to pour kerosene on this witness and PW3. But A1 to
A7 did not stop abusing her mother. She further deposed that deceased Laxmi brought fire wood from outside the house and she lit the country oven and had thrown her saree pullow (end part of the saree) into country oven, she removed the end part of the saree and kept on her body. Meanwhile fire caught her body.
Thereafter all accused left that place. It is further deposed that having felt insult due to abusive language of A1 to A7 her mother committed suicide.
PW3 deposed that on 1.2.2010 at about 800 P.M A1 to A7 came in front of their house and abused her mother Laxmi in worst filthy language and beaten her. She further deposed that as A1 to A7 abused and beat her mother, she being 6 unable to bear abusive language used against her, she set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on her body. She further deposed that they made call for 108
Ambulance and shifted the deceased to hospital. She nextly deposed that on 4.2.2010 her mother succumbed to injuries and A1 to A7 are responsible for suicide of her mother.
PW4 deposed that he was present when police examined scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and scene observation report. He put his signatures on them.
PW5 deposed that on 5.2.2010 he received requisition from SI of Police,
Moinabad to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased
Laxmi and on the same day at 1040 A.M he conducted postmortem examination and found ante mortem dermo and epidermal burn injuries on the neck, chest, back of the chest, abdomen and upper parties of the limbs etc. It is further deposed that 45% to 52% of the total body surface area was burnt and cause of death is burns and its consequences.
PW6 has not supported the case of prosecution to the full extent. He stated that he was present when police persons conducted inquest over the dead body of Laxmi but he was not read over the contents of inquest report.
PW7 deposed that on 2.2.2010 about 500 P.M she received requisition from SI of Police, Moinabad to record dying declaration of deceased Laxmi wife of Lingaiah (deceased of this case). She further deposed that immediately she proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and reached there at about 520 P.M and identified the patient with the help of duty doctor. She further deposed about the steps taken by herself before going to record the statement of deceased 7
Laxmi, about fit state of mind of deceased Laxmi throughout making statement and recording the statement of deceased Laxmi.
PW8 deposed that on 2.2.2010 at 500 P.M PW1 came to P.S and submitted Ex.P1 report to PW9 who registered the case and entrusted the investigation to this witness. He nextly deposed about the investigation conducted by him which includes examination of witnesses, giving requisition to
PW7 for recording statement of deceased Laxmi, examination of scene of offence, preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence, scene observation report, holding of inquest, sending body for postmortem examination, arrest of
A1 to A3 and A5 and obtaining of postmortem examination report. He further deposed about filing of charge sheet.
PW9 deposed that on 2.2.2010 at about 500 P.M he received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and basing on the same he registered a case. He nextly deposed abut entrustment of this case to PW8.
06.After completion of trial, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and they were put all the incriminating material appearing against them and they denied the same.
07.Now the point for consideration is
Whether the prosecution proved guilt of accused Nos.1 to 7 for the
offence punishable U/s.306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?
08.Heard Addl.P.P and counsel for defence.
09.The Addl.P.P contended that the evidence of PWs2 and 3 categorically and 8 sufficiently established that A1 to A7 beat and abused deceased Laxmi in worst filthy language and being unable to bear the abusive language used by A1 to A7, deceased Laxmi committed suicide and it is further contended that PWs1 and 2 sufficiently established that A1 to A7 are responsible for the suicide of deceased
Laxmi. He further contended that the dying declaration recorded by PW8 corroborated the evidence of PWs2 and 3 on all material facts. He nextly contended that in dying declaration deceased Laxmi categorically stated that she committed suicide being unable to bear the abusive language used by A1 to A7.
He further contended that the dying declaration is very much consistent and prosecution proved that A1 to A7 instigated and abetted the deceased Laxmi to commit suicide.
10.The counsel for defence vehemently opposed the contention of Addl.P.P.
He mainly contended that there are several grave and glaring discrepancies and lacunae in the case of prosecution and in the evidence of witnesses and he further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accused can be given benefit of doubt. He relied on several decisions of Hon'ble High Court of A.P and Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India which are reported in
I. 2006(1) ALD (Crl.) 980 (AP) Pg.980 to 985 II. 2012(1) ALD (Crl.) 445 (AP) Pg.445 to 448 III. 2012(1) ALD (Crl.) 368 (AP) Pg.368 to 372 IV. 2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 671 (AP) Pg.671 to 676 V. 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP) Pg.641 to 653 VI. 2004(2) ALD (Crl.) 568 (AP) Pg.568 to 579 VII.2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 861 (SC) Pg.861 to 865 VIII.2012(1) ALD (Crl.) 652 (SC) Pg.652 to 655 IX. 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) 248 (AP) Pg.248 to 252 9
11.After thorough, careful and cautious examination and scrutiny of entire material on record consisting of oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution and after considering the arguments of Addl.P.P and counsel for defence I found sufficient force in the contention of Addl.P.P. As rightly contended by the Addl.P.P the evidence of PWs2 and 3 is very much consistent, cogent and trustworthy. They categorically deposed that on the date of incident,
A1 to A7 came in front of their house and abused deceased Laxmi in worst filthy language and they beat her. They further deposed that A1 to A7 are responsible for the suicide of deceased Laxmi. There is no any gap between the abusing of
A1 to A7 and suicide committed by deceased Laxmi. I do not find any merits in the contention of counsel for defence who argued that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 is very much defective. It may be true there are some minor variations in the evidence of PWs2 and 3 on non vital aspects. There may be some discrepancies in the evidence of PWs2 and 3 on immaterial aspects, but the court should not give much weightage to minor variations. It is well established principle of law that when the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent in exaggeration, embellishment and embroidery of the facts the court has to see whether there is ring of truth in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. The court has to see whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses is truthful dehors variations and improvements. In the case on hand, the evidence of PWs2 and 3 is very much convincing, cogent and trustworthy. They are the natural eye witnesses.
12.As rightly contended by Addl.P.P the evidence of PWs2 and 3 is 10 corroborated by dying declaration recorded by PW7. PW7 took up necessary steps before and after recording of the dying declaration. I found any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW7 and the dying declaration recorded by her. In the dying declaration, the deceased Laxmi categorically deposed that A1 to A7 came to her house, abused her in filthy language and beat her.
13.The counsel for defence relied on several decisions in support of his contention that the dying declaration cannot be believed but those decisions relied by counsel for defence were given in entire different facts and circumstances. Those decisions are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The counsel for defence has not elicited any material to show that the dying declaration is tutored one. The cross examination of PW7 by counsel for defence does not create any doubt about the genuineness of the dying declaration. I have gone through all decisions relied by counsel for defence carefully. None of the decisions relied by counsel of defence are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and they are not helpful to the case of the defence. It may be true PW1 deposed that Police persons came to the scene of offence and shifted deceased to the hospital and report was given on the next day. The material on record shows that there are some latches on the part of the police in registering the case though they shifted injured to the hospital on 1.2.2010 at 830 P.M and in giving requisition to PW7 with delay. When the evidence of PWs2 and 3 is very much consistent and cogent and corroborated by dying declaration, the latches on the part of the police cannot be given much weightage, to disbelieve the entire case of 11 prosecution. It is well established principle of law that the defective investigation cannot be based to acquit the accused when the evidence of direct witnesses is very much convincing and cogent. In the case on hand also evidence of PWs2 and 3 is every much trustworthy. At the cost repetition I want to say evidence of
PWs2 and 3 is corroborated by dying declaration. It may be true PW6 became hostile to the case of prosecution but in the chief examination he deposed that he was present when police held inquest over the dead body of deceased Laxmi.
The minor variations and discrepancies elicited by counsel for defence do not go to root of the case. The counsel for defence argued that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs7 and 8 regarding the time of the recording of statement of deceased Laxmi. But said minor discrepancy cannot be based to disbelieve the evidence of PW7. Moreover, the statement recorded by PW8 is not marked, as it was recorded during the course of investigation. It is contended by counsel for defence there is difference between statement recorded by PWs7 and 8 from deceased Laxmi. As already mentioned supra, statement recorded by PW8 is not marked, as such it cannot be called as dying declaration. There is only one dying declaration which is recorded by PW7. The crossexamination of PWs1 to 3 by counsel for defence indicate that it is the case of the defence that deceased
Laxmi committed suicide as her daugther Hemalatha was kidnapped and raped by Dayakar Reddy. The crossexamination further reveal that the the further case of defence is that Dayakar Reddy, Pentaiah and Kamalaiah are responsible for the suicide of deceased Laxmi. But the suggestions put by counsel for defence were categorically denied by PWs1 to 3. They categorically stated that it is A1 to A7 who are responsible for the said suicide of deceased Laxmi. In view of the 12 foregoing discussion and in view of the convincing and cogent evidence of PWs1 to 5 and 7 to 9, I am of the view, the prosecution successfully proved guilt of A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC.
14.A1 to A7 are found guilty for the offence U/s.306 IPC. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view accused Nos.1 to 7 cannot be given benefit of any Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. As such the court intends to impose punishment on accused Nos.1 to 7.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2012.
VIII ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
When A1 to A7 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence likely to be imposed against them, A1 represented that he has kids and wife who is A5 in this case.
A2 represented that he is working as coolie and he has one son who is yet to be married.
A3 represented that he has been suffering from hypertension.
A4 represented that she is coolie and depending on daily wages.
A5 represented that she has small kids and her husband is A1 in this case.
A6 represented that he is prosecuting his first year decree course.
A7 represented that he is newly married person.
13
The facts and circumstances of the case and representations of A1 to A7 are taken into consideration.
In the result, A1 to A7 are convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and they are further directed to pay a fine of
Rs.500/ each, in default they have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The remand period shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2012.
VIII ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WINTESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
PW1 : S. Chinna Lingaiah PW2 : S. Rajitha PW3 : Marry PW4 : B. Krishna Reddy PW5 : Dr.Shaila Khaza Moinuddin PW6 : P. Yesurathnam PW7 : K. Madhavi PW8 : D. Yaladri PW9 : V.Bhaskar
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :
Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 : complaint. Ex.P2 : scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 : rough sketch. Ex.P4 : requisition for postmortem examination.
14
Ex.P5 : signature of PW6 on inquest report. Ex.P6 : requisition given by police. Ex.P7 : dying declaration. Ex.P8 : printed proforma of FIR. Ex.P9 : alteration memo. Ex.P10 : inquest report.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS
Nil
VIII ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
15
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR, HYDERABAD
S.C.No.462 Of 2011
1. P.R.C.No.: 119/2011
2. Name of the Complainant: P.S Moinabad
3. Name of the Accused: A1 : Karakala Samuel S/o Laxmaiah aged 32 yrs. Occ : Labour, Caste : SC Madiga), R/o Pedda Mangalaram (V) Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.
A2 – Karakala Yellaiah S/o Sayanna aged 55 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga)
A3 – Karakala Laxmaiah S/o Sayanna aged 60 yrs. Occ : Sweeper, S.C (Madiga)
A4 – Karakala Pochamma W/o Laxmaiah aged 50 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga) R/o Pedda Mangalaram Village.
A5 – Karakala Suvarna W/o Samuel aged 28 yrs. Occ : Labour, S.C (Madiga)
A6 – Karakala Shailender S/o Yellaiah, aged 21 yrs. Occ : Pvt.Job, S.C Pedda Mangalaram village, Moinabad Mandal.
A7 – Karakala Raju S/o Laxmaiah, aged 22 yrs. Occ : Pvt.Job, S.C R/o Pedda Mangalaram village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.
4. Offence U/Sec.: 306 IPC.
5. Date of Occurrence: 1.2.2010
6. Commencement of trial : 17.9.12
7. Closure of trial : 12.10.2012
8. Date of Judgment: 29.11.2012
9. Prosecution conducted by: Sri M.Ganga Reddy
10. Defence conducted by: Sri S.Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for accused 16
11. Case Committed by : Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao, B.A., B.L., VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad
12. Finding of the Court : Found guilty.
13. Sentence of Order: In the result, accused is convicted U/s.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.306 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and they are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default they have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The remand period shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.
14. Explanation of delay:
15. Remarks:
VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District Copy submitted by :
1. The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P
2. The Hon'ble Prl.District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District. Copy to:
1. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.
2. The Director of Prosecution
3. The Addl.P.P