1 SC 183 of 2011
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE: GUNTUR.
Present: Sri V. Nageswara Rao, B.Sc., B.L.,
II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.
fac V ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR. Thursday, the 2nd Day of June, 2015.
SESSIONS CASE No.183 OF 2011
Between: State:Sub Divisional Police Officer, North Sub Division, Guntur Urban. complainant.
-And-
1.Bommu Prasanth @ Prasanth Kumar. 2.Bommu Devaiah. 3.Bommu Vijayakumari 4.Bommu Vijayakumar 5.Bommu EphraimAccused
This case came up on this 05-05-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor forthe State and of Sri Ch.Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day, for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The State Sub Divisional Police Officer,North Sub Division, Guntur Urban laid police report against the accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.139 of 2010 of Tadepalli Police station.
[02] The contention of the prosecution is that, the deceased Suneetha @ Indira, who is the daughter of the de facto complainant was living in the room belonged to one Sambrajyam situated at Sundaraiahnagar, Tadepalli along with her colleagues. She fell in love with A--1. Later, the deceased shifted her residence by separating from her colleagues. Deceased and A--1 had conjugal relations without marriage. The deceased got pregnancy and the same was intimated to A--1 by the deceased and that he forced her to undergo 2 SC 183 of 2011 abortion. This fact was also intimated to the de facto complainant and others. The marriage between the deceased and A--1 was performed as per the customs at the office of Advocate, Prabhudas, Mangalagiri. The family members of A--1 did not attend for marriage as they did not like it. Both A--1 and the deceased started to lead marrital life. On the demand made by A--1, the de facto complainant gave Rs.30,000/- to A--1. Later, at the instigation of A--2 to A--5, A--1 was harassing the deceased and demanded her to bring Rs.2Lakhs as dowry. Meanwhile, A--1 developed illicit intimacy with one Usha Rani and harassed the deceased and demanded her to bring Rs.2Lakhs. A--2 to A--5 instigated A--1 to harass the deceased. On 08-06-2010, A--1 forcibly made the deceased to undergo abortion.
2-1] On 15-06-2010 at 8-20 a.m., the deceased asked her husband [A--1] to give Rs.20/- for household articles. So, A--1 kicked her and abused her and insulted her and A--1 warned her and that the deceased out of angry and warned A--1 that the acts of A--1 would be intimated to her parents. So, A--1 grew wild and at instigation of A--2 to A--5, he decided to kill her. So, A--1 kept a pillow on the face of the deceased, made her suffocate and caused instantaneous death. Later, he hanged the dead body of the deceased to a ceiling fan with a chunni and created a scene of simulated suicide by hanging and left the house. The victim was shifted to Manipal Hospital and she was declared that she was no more. At the instigation of A--2 to A--5, A--1 harassed the deceased mentally and physically and also demanded a dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs and caused her death within seven years after the marriage. On the report given by her father, police registered a case. After registering the case, Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses. Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and the doctor conducted post mortem examination over the dead body. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet.
The Magistrate has recorded the 164 crpc statement of one Chilaka Usha Rani. The doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to . Hence, the charge under Section 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC.
[03] The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, has taken cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished.
3 SC 183 of 2011 04]As this offence under sections 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri has committed the case, to the Court of Sessions u/s.209(a) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 498, 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and made over the case, to this Court since it being // Additional District and Sessions Court.
[05] After appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused engaged their Advocate. Later, APP has opened the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stated what evidence she proposes to prove the guilt of accused.
[06] After considering the record, and after hearing both the Advocate and P.P., this Court considers that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that, the accused have committed the offence, which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence, charge under section 498-A IPC against A--1 to A--5, 302 and 201 of IPC against A--1 initially, on 13-04-2012 have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, on 26-06-2012 additional charge under Section 304-B of IPC has also been framed against A--1 to A--5, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[07]On behalf of prosecution, Pws 1 to 14 are examined and Exs.P1 to P-26 and MOs 1 to 11 are exhibited. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of accused but Ex.D--1 and D--2 are marked on behalf of accused.
[08] After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 crpc and they denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of witnesses and their main contention is that they have not committed any offence and a false case is foisted against them.
[09]Heard arguments. [10] Now the point for determination is: 1)Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of 4 SC 183 of 2011 the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC against A--1 to A--5 and for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against A--1? 2)Whether there is any unexplained delay in giving the FIR and if so its consequences? [11] The following are the essential ingredients to attract Section 304-B of IPC? 1]The victim is a married lady. 2]She has died an unnatural death. 3]Such death has occurred within seven years of the marriage of the woman and it must be found that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassing for or in connection with any demand for dowry by her husband or any of his relatives?
12] More over, Section 113[B] of the Indian Evidence Act says that if it is established that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person caused for dowry death.
13] In order to establish the above said ingredients, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW--1, who is the father, PW--2 who is the sister, PW--3 who is the brother, PW--4 who is the neighbour, PWs 5 and 6 who are the friends of the deceased. PW--7 is the medical officer, Manipal hospital. PW--8 who is said to be the girl friend of A--1. PW--9 is the village revenue officer who was present when the police visited the scene of offence and who was also present at the time of conducting inquest, PW--10 who was also present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW--11, who is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination and PW--12 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted inquest on the dead body. The prosecution is also relying on Exs.P.1, the FIR given by PW-1, inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.13, post mortem certificate which was issued by PW--11, final opinion which is marked as Ex.P.16, the prosecution is relying on MO6 which are note books[ two in number ], marriage certificate, which is marked as MO-7. Marriage photos which are marked as MO--8.
14] In order to establish the first ingredient, PW--1 stated in his evidence that the deceased Suneetha, who is his daughter married with A--1 on 18.5.2010. But in the cross examination, he stated that he does not know personally about the marriage between his 5 SC 183 of 2011 daughter and A--1. So, he is not a direct witness for the marriage. However, he further stated that his daughter Suneethaand A--1 lived together in the house of one Madasu Nagendra Babu, Tadepalli [who is the husband of pw--4 by name Madasu Krishna Kumari]. The fact that, they are living under the same roof is not denied by the accused by way of giving a suggestion to PW--1. So, it is clear that A--1 and deceased were living together.
15] PW--2 who is the sister of the deceased and who was also residing in the same locality where the deceased was residing also stated in her evidence that after her marriage, the deceased and A--1 were living in the house of one Krishna Kumari as a tenants. She further stated that her house is located two houses away to the house of A--1. No suggestion is given to PW-2 to the effect that A--1 and deceased were not residing together in the house of said Madasu Krishna Kumari. In fact, PW--2 also stated that the deceased married A--1. No suggestion is given that there is no marriage between A--1 and the deceased.
16] PW--4 is the neighbour in whose house, the deceased and A--1 were said to be residing as tenants. She stated in her evidence that the deceased joined in her house as a tenant by that time Suneetha was an unmarried girl. Later, the deceased informed her that she married A--1 and joined with A--1 and they were living in her house as tenants and they are happy after their marriage. The fact that, the deceased informed her that she married A--1 and that A--1 and deceased lived together in her house as tenants is not denied by the accused by way of giving a suggestion to PW--1. It is the duty of the accused to give a suitable suggestion to PWs1, 2 and 4. But no such suggestions was given. More over, the marriage photographs are marked as MO-8. They are marked in the evidence of PW--9.
More over, the investigating officer, who is examined as PW--14 also stated in her evidence that in the presence of the mediators, she visited the scene of offence and found marriage photos of the deceased with A--1. No suggestion is given to the effect that these are not the marriage photographs of A--1 and the deceased. No suggestion is given that these photographs were not seized at the scene of offence. The seizure mahajar is marked as Ex.P.11. Even though, observation report is not in the handwriting of the investigating officer, there are no grounds to discard the same, since it contains the signature of investigating officer. The observation report clearly reveals about the seizure of marriage photographs and 6 SC 183 of 2011 marriage certificate also. The marriage certificate is also filed and the same is marked as MO--7. The person who issued marriage certificate is not examined however the attestor of the marriage certificate is examined as PW--10. However, the evidence of PW--10 reveal that he knows A--1 and deceased even prior to the marriage and in his presence, the marriage of A--1 and deceased was performed. There is no necessity for PW--10 to depose falsely on this aspect. In view of the above circumstances, it can be said that, the prosecution has established the marriage between A--1 and the deceased.
17] More over, the Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted the inquest stated, in his evidence, that the deceased herein wore one Mangala Suthram with yellow thread with block and red beeds and she wears silver anklets. The inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.13 also reveals that there is Mangala Suthram to the neck of the deceased. He examined the witnesses, the statements are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.8. All the circumstances clearly establishes that the deceased was a married woman and she is the wife of A--1. So, it can be said that, the first ingredient is established by the prosecution.
18] The next ingredient to be established by the prosecution is that, such woman died otherwise than on normal circumstances. The evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, which is marked as Ex.P.14 and the final opinion, which is marked as Ex.P.16 and the inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.13 and the evidence of the doctor clearly reveals that there is a ligature mark over the neck of the deceased and the doctor is of the opinion that the death is due to ausphyxious due to anti mortem hanging. So, it is clear that it is an unnatural death. In fact, it is not the contention of the accused that the death is natural one. So, it can be said that, the above said ingredient is also established by the prosecution.
19] The third ingredient to be established by the prosecution is that such death was occurred within seven years of the marriage. The evidence of Pws1 to 4 clearly reveal that the marriage of the deceased with A--1 was performed just one month prior to her death only. More over, one Prabhakar Rao [PW--10] who attended the marriage of A--1 and deceased, stated that the deceased died '27' days after her marriage. No suggestion is given that the victim had not died within seven years after her marriage. So, it can be said that, the victim died within seven years after her marriage. So, this ingredient is also established by the prosecution.
7 SC 183 of 2011 20] The last ingredient is that, the prosecution has to establish that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by her husband or any of his relatives. It was already held that A--1 is the husband of the deceased. PW--1 stated that, he has cordial relationship with A--2. He further stated that he knows A--1 through A--2 only. No where in the evidence of PW--1 and others it is stated what is the relationship between A--1 on one hand and others on the other hand. Since no evidence about the relationship between A--1 on one hand and other accused on the other hand, even if, A--2 to A--5 have harassed the deceased, they could not come within the purview of Section 304-B of IPC. In fact, neither PW--2 nor PW--3 nor PW--4 stated in their evidence that in their presence, the accused herein demanded the victim woman or her parents for any dowry.
PWs2 to 4 have not stated that, in their presence, the accused cruelly treated the victim girl for any additional dowry. On this aspect, the contention of the accused is that, as the marriage between A--1 and the deceased was a love marriage and as per the evidence of PW--1, there was no demand for dowry on the part of the accused prior to the marriage. So, the question of demanding dowry, does not arise after the marriage. As per the explanation in Section 304-B, the meaning for 'dowry' mentioned in 304-B of IPC have the same meaning as mentioned in Section '2' of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
22] Section '2' of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 says Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage had or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. So, if any amount is given even after the marriage also in connection with the marriage, it also amount to giving or taking dowry. So, if any, amount was given by one party to the other after the marriage also, it amounts to dowry as contemplated under the Act. So, if any amount was demanded and paid after the marriage also, it amounts to dowry. On this aspect, PWs2 and 3 stated in their evidence that the deceased informed them that A--1 and other accused demanded for dowry. On this aspect, PW--2 who is the sister of the deceased deposed before the Court that the deceased informed her that her father had given Rs.30,000/- to her [deceased]. She further stated that the deceased informed her that the parent of A--1 and remaining accused phoned 8 SC 183 of 2011 her and told that Rs.30,000/- was not sufficient to fulfill their demand of dowry and insisted her to get Rs.2Lakhs. A--1 also instigated her to get Rs.2Lakhs. Parents of A--1 and remaining accused means including A--1 also. So, A--1 also demanding by phone along with others even though, A--1 was residing with the deceased is unbelievable one.
23]PW--3 further stated that on the next day of the marriage itself, A--1 telephoned him and demanded Rs.3Lakhs and so on the same day, PW--1 has given Rs.30,000/- to A--1. The said fact is spoken by PWs2 and 3 also. The circumstances reveal that, there was a love affair between A--1 and deceased. It seems neither parents of the deceased nor the parents of A--1 attended for the said marriage. Since it is a love marriage, demanding for dowry within one day after the marriage is unbelievable one.
24]More over, the evidence of PW--1 further reveals that, he has given Rs.30,000/- to A--1 and requested A--1 either to live in his house [PW--1] or to live with parents of A--1 and that A--1 replied that their marriage was not willing to his parents and as such, he wants to continue to live in the same house. It means, A--1 had no intention to harass the deceased by taking her to the house of his parents. So, demanding dowry immediately after the marriage is unbelievable one. More over, PW--1 is a rod bending worker as per his evidence. There is no evidence where he secured Rs.30,000/- in order to give it to A--1. The investigating agency has not secured cell phones or call data either from the phone of the deceased or from the phone of PW--1, to ascertain whether there was any telephone conversation between the deceased and PW--1 after the marriage and prior to her death. If really, deceased informed anything to her parents about the ill-treatment of the accused for dowry, there is no necessity for the deceased not to disclose the said fact to PWs5 and 6 to whom the deceased has given an important information about the love affairs of A--1 with another girl. Because, PWs 4 and 5 deposed
before this Court that the deceased has informed them that some
other girl phoned to A--1 and the said girl informed the deceased that she was the wife of A--1.
PW--6 further stated that, on that aspect, there was dispute between the deceased and the said girl with regard to the marriage with A--1. She further stated that the deceased Suneetha informed them that A--1 has tortured her both physically and mentally and she 9 SC 183 of 2011 was cheated by him [A--1]. It seems an important personal information was informed to PWs 5 and 6 by the deceased. PW--6 further stated that in that connection, A--1 harassed the deceased and cheated her. If really, there was a dowry demand on the part of A--1 and other accused, certainly, that fact should have been intimated to Pws5 and 6 herein. Since PWs 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses, there is no necessity for them not to disclose the said dowry demand, if really, it was intimated to them. PWS 5 and 6 did not state that the deceased had informed them that the accused had been demanding for any dowry. In view of the above circumstances, the evidence of PWs1 to 4 that the accused demanded the deceased for dowry and that A--1 phoned to PW--1 and that PW--1 has given Rs.30,000/- to A--1 is unbelievable one. So, it can be said that there is no harassment for dowry. So, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to establish this important ingredient.
The learned counsel for the accused has sited the
decision reported in Tarsem Sing VS state of Punjab (AIR
2009 Supreme court 1454) their lord ship held that if the
harassment for dowry is more soon before death and if the
victim died due to ego problem the accused is not liable for
the offence U/Sec 304 B IPC. The facts in it further reveals
that the deceased there in was forced to take poison, so it
is not permissible to convict the accused for the offence
U/Sec. 302 IPC. In our case the prosecution has failed to
establish that accused demanded the deceased for dowry
soon before her death or at any time. In our case the victim
has not committed suicide by taking poison etc., So the
observation in the above citation is not applicable to the
circumstances of this case.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in T.Arunt Perunjothi Vs State (AIR 2006
Supreme court 2475) their lord ship held that the facts
there in reveals that neither the parents nor sister and
others did not make any report, husband alone gave a
report to the police. No evidence placed by the prosecution
showing the harassment or cruelty by the accused towards
the deceased. Defense evidence was adduced to show that
as the dece4ased was not allowed to go to her mother's
house she committed suicide. Under those circumstances it
was held that there was no dowry death. In our case the
report was given by the father. However there is no
10 SC 183 of 2011
evidence that the deceased was harassed for dowry. The
facts in the above cited decision and in our case are not
one and the same. So the observation in the above cited
decision is not applicable to the circumstances of this case.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Tirath Kumari and another Vs State of
Haryana (AIR 2012 Supreme court 4429). The facts therein
reveals that the accused were charged for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 304 B IPC there is no evidence that soon
before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty by
husband or in laws in connection with demand of dowry so
their lordship acquitted the accused. The said decision is
applicable to the circumstances of our case also. Since
there is no convincing evidence against the accused herein
to say that they harassed the deceased for dowry.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Sunil Bajaj Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
(AIR 2001 Supreme court 3020). the facts there in reveals
that the accused was charged for the offence under section
304 B and 306 IPC on the ground that the accused
demanded for dowry and harassed her and ill treated her
and so she committed suicide. The prosecution has failed
to examine the independent witnesses , however examined
the parents and brother. The said decision is applicable in
our case also. The prosecution has not examine any
independent witnesses on the aspect of demand of dowry.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Penchala Sadaiah Vs State of AP (AIR
2003 2ALD (Criminal 332 AP). The facts reveals that the
accused there in demanded for dowry for purchase of
colour television etc. , their lord ship observed that there is
no evidence demanding for dowry so the accused is entitled
for acquittal. It is applicable to the circumstances of our
case also.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Vampu Abburamulu and another Vs
State of AP rep., by public prosecutor (AIR 2011 1 ALD
Criminal 114 (AP). The facts there is reveals that the wife
was committed suicide with in seven years of the marriage
and the charge framed against the accused is for the
11 SC 183 of 2011
offence punishable U/Sec. 304 B IPC. His lordship
observed as follows. In a case filed under section 304 B
IPC the endeavour of court should be ascertain as to
whether such suicide was committed in consequence of
cruelty or harassment concerning demand of additional
dowry. The court has to properly assess the real cause of
un natural death of woman on a thorough scrutiny on the
evidence on record with out being swayed by mere fact of
the un natural death of the woman.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Mummidi Udaya Bhaskar Vs State of
AP (AIR 2004 Criminal Law Journal NOC 244 (AP ). The
facts there in reveals that the accused was charged for the
offence punishable U/Sec. 304 B IPC. His lordship
observed that the demand for dowry and the harassment
must be soon before her death. The proximate and live link
must exist between effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and death. In our case the prosecution failed to
prove about the dowry demand.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Angirekula Ramakrishna Vs State of
AP (AIR 2007 1 ALD Criminal 1024 (AP) the facts there in
reveals that the accused was charge for the offence
punishable U/Sec. 304 B IPC. The prosecution had not
chosen to examine any independent witness except
examining parents, sister and others who are closely
related to the deceased. Under those circumstances, the
accused was acquitted. The above cited decision is
applicable to the circumstances of our case also since th
prosecution has examined father, sister and brother of
deceased only to show that the accused demanded for
dowry. No independent witnesses was examined on this
aspect.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Gunda Koteswara Rao Vs State of AP
(AIR 2008 2 ALT Criminal 582(AP) facts reveals that the
wife died within 7 year of the marriage. In the report it is
not mentioned that how and why appellant harassment the
deceased, the first time in the court only parents deposed
that accused demanded for additional dowry. His lordship
observed that there is no evidence on record that the
12 SC 183 of 2011
accused harassed for more dowry. In our case also there is
no evidence to show that the accused demanded for any
additional dowry.
The learned counsel for the accused also cited a
decision reported in Biswajit Haldar Vs State of West
Bengal (AIR 2007 2 ALD Criminal 975 Supreme court), the
facts reveals that the victim committed suicide that the
accused there in demanded for additional dowry and
harassed her . Their lordship observed that there is no
evidence demanding for additional dowry, so the accused
was acquitted. In our case also there is no convincing
evidence that the accused demanded for additional dowry.
So the above said citation is applicable to our case also.
The principles laid in all the decisions are applicable to the
circumstances of this case also. Since this important ingredient is not established by the prosecution, it can be said that, the prosecution failed to establish that, the accused herein have committed the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC.
25] The next charge framed against the accused is for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The following are the essential ingredients to attract under Section 498-A of IPC: 1]The victim as a married lady. 2]That she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband. a] That such cruelty consists of either harassment of a woman with a view to coerce, meeting a demand for dowry b] or a wilful conduct by the husband or the relatives of her husband and such a nature as is li kely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or to health. c] Such injury aforesaid may be physical or mental.
26]So far as first ingredient is concerned, I have already stated above that the deceased is a married woman. So, it can be said that the first ingredient is established by the prosecution. So far as 1st part of second ingredient is concerned, I have already stated that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have demanded the deceased or her parents for any dowry. So, it can be said that, the prosecution has failed to establish the first portion of second ingredient also.
27] Now it has to be looked into whether the second part of second 13 SC 183 of 2011 ingredient is established by the prosecution or not.
On this aspect, PW--1 has not stated that the accused crueally treated the deceased. However, he has stated that the accused demanded for dowry and in that connection, the accused harassed the deceased . PW--2 also stated that in connection with dowry only the accused demanded the deceased. On this aspect, PW--3, who is the brother of the deceased stated A--1 harassed the deceased to terminate her pregnancy. That fact is not spoken by PW--1 in his evidence.
PW--2 also did not state that fact. PW--4, who is the neighbour of the deceased stated that the deceased had informed her that her husband asked her to terminate her pregnancy. But the witness did not state that the deceased had informed her about A--1 harassed her on that account. PWs 5 and 6 have not stated that the accused harassed the deceased for termination of the pregnancy. However, PW--6 stated in her evidence that Suneetha had informed her that A--1 was torturing her both physically and mentally and she was cheated by him and another girl phoned that she was the wife of A--1. Taking into material available on record, especially, basing on the evidence of PW--6, it can be said that, A--1 herein has cheated the deceased, but it cannot be said that, A--1 has cruelly treated the deceased. So, it can be said that, the second para of the second ingredient is also not established.
28] So far as ingredient No.2[c] is concerned, it can be said that, the prosecution has failed to establish this ingredient 2[c] is also since 2[a] and [b] are not established by the prosecution. 29] The next charge framed against accused is, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The following are essential ingredients to attract the Ofence punishable under Sec.302 of IPC:
1) that the death of one Suneetha, being was caused
2) that such death was caused by this accused No.1 or was the consequences of the act of A--1.
3) that the accused did so:
a)with an intention of causing the death or
b) that Accused knew that their act is likely to case death or
c)the injury inflicted by the accused is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
[30] So far as the first ingredient is concerned, I have already stated about the death of wife of A--1 was established by the prosecution. Tin post-mortem certificate, the evidence of the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination and the evidence of MRO, 14 SC 183 of 2011 who conducted inquest is basis for coming to a conclusion about the death of Suneetha, wife of A--1. So, it can be said that, the prosecution has established the first ingredient.
31] In order to establish the second ingredient, it has to be proved that the accused [A--1] caused the death of the deceased Suneetha. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence to establish that A--1 herein caused the death of the deceased. 31-1]The case of the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence only including the last scene theory. However, the contention of the accused as per the arguments is that, as per the arguments, A--1 had not committed the murder of the deceased and the death of Suneetha is not a homicidal one. On this aspect, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination stated that the death might be suicidal one also. So, the evidence of the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and who has given the opinion has to be looked into carefully to ascertain whether the death of the deceased is a suicidal one or a homicidal one. The doctor stated in her evidence that, she found a ligature mark in a length of 15x2 cms and it is a horizontal in position. The post mortem certificate which is marked as Ex.P.14 also reveals the same. Ex.P.15is histopathology report. Ex.P.16 is the final opinion. The doctor has conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Suneetha on the requisition given by Mandal Executive Magistrate. The requisition is marked as Ex.P.20.
32]In the cross-examination, the doctor stated that the death may be suicidal one also and the hanging may be voluntarily. Whether the death is due to suicide or due to the strangulation, certainly, there should be a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. In the Dr.K.S.Narayana Reddy's Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology 1st Edition published by ALT Publications Hyderabad-2 in the year 2000 at page 389, the Table is given showing the difference between hanging and strangulation. One of the main difference is as follows: TraitHangingStrangulation by ligature
1. Ligature mark It is oblique, does not It is transverse, completely. encircle, completely encircling. the neck; usually seen The base is soft and high up in the neck reddish. between the chin and larynx. The base is 15 SC 183 of 2011 pale,hardand parchment-like
If the death is caused due to the commission of the suicide by the deceased voluntarily, the ligature mark could not be transverse towards left side and right side of the neck horizontally but It should obliquely, it does not completely encircled the neck; usually seen high up in the neck between the chin and larynx. But in the case of strangulation, it is transverse, completely encircling the neck below the thyroid cartilage. As the doctor stated that the ligature mark is horizontal in position, it is seen on the both sides of the neck. It is transverse across the front of the neck and that it is reddish in colour and that the hyoid bone is normal. So, it can be said that, all the features are symptoms of the strangulation only, by ligature. Even though, the doctor stated that the death might be due to suicide but in view of the symptoms, nature and place of a ligature mark found on the dead body, it can be said that, it a strangulation only. The photographs of the dead body and connected C.D. is marked as Exs.P.22 and P.23. If really, it is a suicide, generally, the victim wants to commit suicide by closing the door and by keeping a latch to the door from inside in order to prevent the interference of others. On this aspect, PW--4 the owner of the house stated that she pushed the door and it was opened. More over, a support like stool or chair or another similar household article would be taken by the person in order to facilitate the suicide. But, no such article is found in the house of the accused and deceased.As seen in the evidence of investigating officer and no such evidence is mentioned in the sketch, which is marked as Exs.P.24 and in the observation report, which is marked as Ex.P.11.
34]The doctor further stated that it is an anti mortem injury. Basing on it, it is contended on behalf of the accused that, the said fact itself disproves the case of prosecution because according to the case of prosecution and also as per the evidence of PWs1 and 2, the accused killed the deceased by pressing a pillow on the face of the deceased and thereby prevent the supply of oxygen to the deceased and killed her and later strangulated her to the fan. If the evidence of PW--1 and PW--2 that with the help of pillow, A--1 herein pressed on her neck and nose and killed the deceased and then strangulated is true, the ligature mark on the neck would be only a post-mortem one. But, the doctor's evidence reveal that it is an anti-mortem one. PWs1 and 2 are not direct witnesses to this incident. Their evidence that A--1pressed on the face of the victim with a pillow and thereby 16 SC 183 of 2011 killed her and later strangulated the dead body to the fan is unbelievable one. In case of strangulation, we can observe the anti mortem ligature mark. The doctor also stated it is an anti mortem injury. Admittedly, none has seen how the victim was killed. So, the evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused No.1 used pillow to kill the victim cannot be taken into consideration.
35]The further contention of the accused is that, the household articles in the room are not in dis-order and if really it is a strangulation, there should be a struggle in between the deceased and the accused [A-1] and in that struggle, there is every possibility of symptoms of disturbance of household articles in the house. It is true that there is no evidence that the articles in the house are in disorder condition. It does not mean that in each and every struggle, there should be the disturbance. More over, A--1 alone is inside the house after the murder and it is not difficult for A--1 herein to keep the household articles intact. So, the ground that the household articles are in orderly manner alone is not a ground to say that there is no strangulation.
36] The prosecution has filed the note said to have been written by the deceased herself. It was marked as MO-6. The prosecution has not proved whether it is in the handwriting of the deceased. It is the duty of the parents, brother or sister to establish that the said note is in the handwriting of the deceased but they did not do so. So, no weight can be given to the note said to be written by the deceased 37] Admittedly none has seen that the accused herein has committed the murder. But, basing on the evidence of PW--4, it can be said that, the deceased and accused were in the same house, immediately prior to her death in the house of deceased and A--1. For which, PW--4 is the owner of the house. PW--4 stated that the deceased and A--1 were residing in their house as tenants. That fact is denied by the accused by way of giving a suggestion. So, it is clear that A--1 and deceased were residing in the house of PW--4.
38]PW--4 further stated that on 15-06-2010 at 8-00a.m., the deceased was in her house varandah and at that time, Spandana group people came to PW--4's house and on seeing them, the deceased Suneetha went inside in her house. Ten or fifteen minutes thereafter, [PW--4] went into her house and by that time, A--1 went 17 SC 183 of 2011 out on his bike and by that time, she went to her house portion and called her [deceased] by name and as she did not give any reply,, she pushed the doors and she found that the deceased was hanging to the ceiling fan. She denied a suggestion that the accused A--1 had not left the matrimonial house. There is no suggestion that PW--4 had not found the victim girl was hanging to a fan in the house of A--1. There is no necessity for PW--4 to depose falsely. Basing on the evidence of PW--4, it can be said that, A--1 left that house immediately after few minutes, the deceased had entered into her portion. As the deceased and A--1 alone were in the said room or portion, it can be said that it is within the exclusive knowledge of accused to say that what was happened inside the room or portion. at that time.
39]There is no explanation on the part of A--1 what was happened inside the house prior to A--1 left the residential portion of A--1 and the deceased. Neither A--1 adduced any evidence on that aspect nor stated anything in his 313 crpc examination. However, the suggestion given to PW--4 reveal that the victim died due to some other reason. So, it is the duty of A--1 to explain what is the said reason but there is no explanation.
40] The executive magistrate who conducted the inquest stated in his evidence that there was a contusion on the face of the dead body and that there was a pressing on her nose with her nose studd. 41] PW--10 who was present at the time of inquest also stated that he found some dot was present on the face of the deceased and nose was pressed with her nose-studd. But the father, brother and sister who observed the dead body, did not state about the above said contusions etc., and scratches etc., the doctor also stated that she did not find any other injury or scratches on the face of the deceased. The photographs of the dead body also did not reveal above said scratches and contusions. Simply because there are no scratches or nail marks on the face of the deceased, the same is not a ground to discard the entire prosecution evidence. Especially, under the circumstances that the accused has not explained the cause for the death of the deceased. In view of the medical evidence, circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record and also non-explanation on the part of A--1 to explain what was happened inside the house at that time, it can be said that, the death of the deceased is a homicidal one and it is not a suicidal one.
42]Now it has to be looked into whether the prosecution has 18 SC 183 of 2011 established that A--1 herein has committed the murder. Admittedly, no direct evidence is available to show that A--1 herein has committed the murder. The entire case of prosecution is basing on the circumstantial evidence and last scene theory only.
43]On the fact of last scene theory, PW--4 who is the owner of the house where A--1 and deceased were residing stated in her evidence that, A--1 and deceased were residing in her house as tenants. That fact is not denied by the accused by way of giving a suitable suggestion. In fact, PW--1 who is the father of the deceased stated that his daughter Suneetha and A--1 lived together in the house of Madasu Nagendra Babu [who is the husband of PW--4 by name Madasu Krishna Kumari].
44]PW--2 who is the sister, PW--3 who is the brother of the deceased also stated that the deceased and A--1 were residing in the house of PW--4. No suggestion is given to the effect that A--1 and Deceased were not living in the house of PW--4. So, it is clear that, A--1 and the deceased are residing in the same house. On this aspect, PW--4 further stated that on 15-06-2010 at 8-00a.m., the deceased talked with her and about ten persons belongs to Spandana group people came to her house [PW--4] and on seeing them, the deceasced Suneetha went in to her house, 15 minutes there after, A--1 left their portion and then she went to the house portion of Suneetha and called her but she did not give any reply. Later, she pushed the doors and found the deceased was hanging to the house ceiling. PW--4 is not the relative of PW--1. She has no necessity to give false evidence. She is an independent evidence. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence. So, within 15 minutes prior to the death of the deceased, A--1 was with the deceased. It is not the case of the accused or no suggestion is given whether there was any other person in the house of A--1. So, it is clear that the victim died when the accused was inside the house and later he left the house. As no witness was present to observe what was the actual incident happened inside the house, that fact ought to have been explained by the accused as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it says as follows: "Burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden is of proving that fact is upon him".
45] More over, in the decision reported in Suresh and Another Vs. State of Haryana [Crl.A.420 of 2012 dated 28-11-2014]. The facts 19 SC 183 of 2011 therein reveal that the accused kidnapped two persons and later they were killed by the kidnappers and none were present when the kidnappers were killed. Under those circumstances, it was observed by the HOn'ble Court that no doubt, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of Evidence Act is not mend to relieve it of that duty. But the said provision is attracted when it is impossible or it is proportionately, difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are strictly within the knowledge of the accused. So, in our case also, it is not possible to explain what was happened inside the house. Where A--1 and deceased alone were prescent. So, it is the duty of the accused herein to explain what was actual incident happened inside the house of the accused when the victim died.
46] More over in the decision reported in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V/s
State of Maharashtra [11-10-2006] citation 2006 law suit [SC 843]
The facts reveal the wife was murdered inside the house of the accused where there was no other person. Under those circumstances, it was observed in the aforesaid decision by the Apex Court as follows: A normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; That those circumstances should be of a definete tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. Their Lordships further observed that cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing bride if the demand is not met. The crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult to the prosecution to lead evidence. Their Lordships further observed that it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished.
Their Lordships referred another decision reported in State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh 2003 [11] SCC 271. Their Lordships observed as follows:
"The Law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence 20 SC 183 of 2011 of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Their Lordships further observed as follows: Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of comparatively lighter character. In view of the section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."
More over, in the decision reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parthu [2007 [11] SCALE 460]. Their Lordships observed as follows: "It is not disputed that the deceased and appellant were living separately from their family. It has also not been disputed that at the time when the incident occurred, the respondent was in his house together with the deceased. It is further more not in dispute that after the incident took place, the respondent was not to be found. He was arrested only on 20-06-1995. If the deceased and the respondent were together in their house at the time when the incident took place which was at about 10 O'clock in their night, it was for the respondent to show as to how the death of the deceased took place.'
More over, in the decision reported in Dyyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra [20-03-2007] Law suit Supreme Court, 1485], their Lordships observed once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terraced were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof, lay upon the respondents to show under what circumstances, the death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. In view of the above observations, made by their Lordships, it is 21 SC 183 of 2011 clear that if the wife and husband are alone in the house, and it was not seen by any other person, the act committed inside the house at the time of the death of the deceased, it is the duty of the accused to explain what happened inside the room. If he fails to do so, The Court can come to a conclusion that accused alone is the culprit. In our case, there is no explanation on the part of the accused, what was happened inside the house on that day. No suggestion is given to the witnesses what was the reason for the death of the deceased. No explanation is given in 313 Cr.P.C. examination, what was happened inside the house on that day morning. On this aspect, the conduct of A--1 subsequent to the incident also to be looked into. On this aspect, the evidence of PWs1 and 3 reveal that while they were coming to the house of the deceased, they found A--1 on the road side and when they called him, in a hurried manner, A--1 left that place. The evidence of pw--1 reveals that, after coming to know about the death of his daughter, he tried to phone A--1, but his phone was found switched of. More over, whereabout of A--1 was not found for a period of fifteen days till he was arrested by the police on 28-06-2010 under the cover of Ex.P.12. If he was not a culprit, it is his duty to return to his house and to enquire about his wife and to give report to the police if necessary. There is no explanation on the part of the accused whereabouts of him for a period of fifteen days. There is no explanation as to why he did not return to his house.
47]The contention of A--1 is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive part. The prosecution has failed to establish that A--1 demanded for any additional dowry. However, PWs 5 and 6 who are the friends of the deceased stated in their evidence that one day prior to this incident, that is on 14-06-2010, they went to kirana shop and the deceased also came to that shop and the deceased informed them that a girl was talking with her husband[A--1] and they further deposed before the Court that some disputes arose between A--1 and the deceased in connection with the above said girl. Both of them further stated that Suneetha [deceased] had informed them that she [Suneetha] questioned A--1 about the said girl and there was a conversation between the said girl and the deceased and the said girl informed the deceased that she had already married A--1. So, disputes arose between A--1 and the deceased. No suggestion is given that the victim did not meet PWs 5 and 6. However, Exs.D--1 and D--2 are marked in their evidence. There are connected with date in Exs.D--1 and D--2. It is mentioned that they met the 22 SC 183 of 2011 deceased on 14-05-2010 but in their evidence, they stated that, the victim met them on 14-06-2010. The above discrepancy can be discarded as it is only a mistake, while narrating the same or writing the same. There are no circumstances to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 5 and 6. The information given by the victim to PWs 5 and 6 is just one day prior to her death. There is no necessity for PWs 5 and 6 to speak falsehood. Even though, PWs 5 and 6 have no personal information about the interference of a girl in the life of A--1 and the deceased, but there is no circumstances to disbelieve their version about the information given by the deceased to PWs 5 and 6. The said girl is examined as PW--9. She did not support her earlier statement. Even though, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Magistrate, she did not support the said version. Her 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Magistrate is marked as Ex.P.10. Her statement before the police is marked as Ex.P.9. The Additional public Prosecutor has cross examined the witness. Nothing was elicited from this witness. No girl will so that she has extra marrital relationship or she has illicit intimacy with another person. So, no weight can be given to the evidence of PW--9. Her evidence cannot be taken into consideration either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused. So, in view of the disputes between A--1 and the deceased, there is every possibility for A--1 to murder the victim. Even though, this fact is not mentioned in Ex.P.1, much weight could not be given to it because parents might have any knowledge about the interference of a girl between the victim and A--1. As PWs 5 and 6 are close friends of the victim, she disclosed about her private life to her friends. So, there is a motive for A--1 to commit murder. Even if, motive is not established, the same is not a ground to discard the entire evidence of prosecution.
The decision reported in Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashta [10-04-1992] [1992 Law suit SC 300]. The facts reveal that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the murder and there are no direct witnesses for the incident. Under those circumstances, their Lordships [Apex Court] observed that failure to discover the motive of the offence, however, does not signify the non-existence of the crime. The failure to discover the motive of the offence does not signify the non-existent of the crime and failure to discover the motive may be weakness in the proof of the prosecution case. But is unnecessarily fatal as a matter of law as the victim died in a matrimonial home. Their Lordships further observed even in the case of 23 SC 183 of 2011 circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, even from the proved circumstances.
Their Lordships observed that: such a death is a custodial death. In our case also, the victim died within the matrimonial home where A--1 and deceased alone were residing. So, it can be said that, the victim in our case died in the custody of A--1 herein. Under the cimilar circumstances, their lordships observed that as the death had occurred in the custody of the accused therein, the accused has an obligation in 313 crpc statement atleast to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death. In the above cited case, no such attempt was even made except denying the prosecution case. This fact completely inconsistent with the innocence. But, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused therein is a prime accused in the commission of gruesome murder of his wife. But, in our case also, the accused except denying the allegations has not given any explanation, the reason for the death of his wife. The observation made in the above cited decision is applicable to the circumstances of this case also.
48] More over, in the above cited decision, their lordships observed that, there is no evidence or even suggestion that the deceased had any tendency to commit suicide or affected with any psychosis for committing suicide. So, it was one of the circumstances to believe the case of the prosecution. In our case also, no such decision was given to the witness and there is no material that the deceased has such a tendency.
49] The further contention of the accused is that there are no nail scratches on the face of the victim. It does not mean the strangulation. PW--14 the investigating officer stated in her evidence that she found nail scratches on the right cheek and pressed the nosestudd on the face of the dead body. Neither the father nor the sister stated that they found nail scratches or any other pressing impression on the face of the dead body. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination also stated that she did not find any injuries or nail marks on the face of the dead body. If really, there are such nail scratches or other symptoms on the face of the dead body, certainly, that fact would have been noticed of PWs 1 to 3, who are father, sister and brother of the deceased. In fact, that fact could not be escaped from the observation of the doctor. So, on this aspect, no weight can be given to the evidence of PW--11, the Executive Magistrate and the investigating Officer. Even though there are no scratches, on the face of the dead body. It does not mean that there are no 24 SC 183 of 2011 strangulation. In fact, it is the duty of the accused to explain what was happened inside the house.
Their Lordships further observed even in the case of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, even from the proved circumstances.
In our case, the evidence reveals that, the marriage between A--1 and the deceased is a love marriage. Both of them lived in the house of PW--4. One day prior to her death, the deceased informed PWs 5 and 6 who are the friends of the victim and who are the independent witnesses in this case stated that the deceased informed them that some other girls sending messages and she was calling A--1 and it is found by the deceased that A--1 also married that girl and so, some disputes arose between A--1 and the deceased and A--1 cheating the deceased. The evidence further reveals that on the next day morning, about 8-00a.m., the owner of the house talked with the deceased and later, the deceased entered into her portion and even ten or fifteen minutes thereafter, A--1 left the house and few minutes thereafter, it is found that the deceased was in hanging position and the doors were not bolted from inside.
50] The evidence of PW--1 and PW--3 further reveals that they found A--1 on the way and even though, A--1 was called by them, he left that place without talking with PWs1 and 3. On this aspect, PW--1 further stated that the accused left without talking with them in a hurried manner. He further stated that after coming to know about the death of his daughter, he phoned to A--1, he found the phone of A--1 was switched off. No suggestion is given to PW--1 that PWs1 and 3 had not met A--1 on the way that A--1 hurriedly left that place. 51] More over basing on the medical evidence, it is clear that the deceased was killed by way of strangulation. The whereabouts of A--1 was not known till he was arrested by the police on 28-06-2010. If really, A--1 is innocent and he is not responsible for the death of the deceased and he has no knowledge about the death of his wife, he is supposed to return to the house on the say day itself, atleast in the evening and he must enquire the neighbours about his wife.There is no such evidence available on record. In fact, accused has not explained anything. In fact, it is the duty of the accused to explain what was 25 SC 183 of 2011 happened inside the house on that day prior to he left the house. But, no explanation on the part of the accused.
52] Pw--9 who is one of the witnesses present at the time of inquest stated in his evidence that in the inquest report, it is noted that some unknown persons brought the dead body to the hospital. In the inquest report, which is marked as Ex.P.13 also, it is mentioned that some unknown persons brought the dead body to the hospital. Basing on the said fact, it is contended that the evidence of PWs2 and 4 that they brought the deceased Suneetha to Manipal hospital is unbelievable one and the entire prosecution story is false one.
53] The further contention of the accused is in the inquest, it is mentioned that Prasanth Kumar [A--1] killed her and later she was hanged with a view to screen to believe that she committed suicide. Therefore, according the witnesses, the injuries on the person of the deceased are post-mortem in nature but not anti mortem, which is against the case of prosecution. The purpose of conducting the inquest is, to know the apparent cause of death only, it is not supposed to mention who killed the deceased , the motive for killing etc.,such fact could not be mentioned in the inquest report. Even if, they are mentioned, no weight can be given to them. In fact, none has seen the actual cause for the death of the deceased. Basing on the evidence available on record, circumstances of the case and also basing on the fact that there is no explanation on the part of A--1 to explain what was happened inside the house on that day. So, it can be said that, there is no other alternative except to say that, the accused [A-1] herein has caused the death of his wife by way of strangulation and later, he hanged the body to the fan with the help of the Chunni of the deceased. So, it can be said that the 2nd ingredient is also established by the prosecution. So far as 3rd ingredient is concerned, I have already stated that the accused herein has caused the death of the deceased by way of strangulation. It is not the contention of the accused that the incident was occurred due to the negligence or due to any other reason. As the murder is by way of strangulation, the circumstances itself explains that with an intention only, A--1 caused strangulation. So, it can be said that, the prosecution has established that the accused A--1 has committed murder with an intention only.
54]The next charge framed against A--1 is for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The following are the essential ingredients:
26 SC 183 of 2011
a)That an offence has been committed.
b)That A--1 has knowledge that the above said offence has been committed.
c) That the accused causes any evidence of commission of offence to disappear .
d)That the intention of A--1is to screen the offender from legal punishment.
So far as the first ingredient is concerned: 54] I have already stated that a married woman was murdered. So, it is clear that the first ingredient is established by the prosecution.
So far as 2nd ingredient is concerned: It was held above that A--1 herein has committed the murder of the deceased. So, it can be said that A--1 herein had knowledge about the offence committed by him. So far as 3rd ingredient is concerned: On this aspect, Pw--4 stated that when she had pushed the door she found the victim was in hanging position. Basing on the evidence of the doctor, it was held that it is a strangulation. The evidence of PW--4 further reveals that A--1 had left that house within a few minutes prior to she pushed the door of the house of A--1. There is no explanation on the part of A--1, what was happened inside the house on that date. So, the circumstances clearly establishes that A--1 has changed the scene of offence and tried to show as if it is a suicide by way of hanging. So, it is clear that in order to screen from the punishment, A--1 made efforts to disappear the evidence. So, it can be said that, the prosecution has established this ingredient also.
56]The further contention of A--1 is that, there is abnormal delay in giving the report to the police and so it is fatal to the case of prosecution. According to the evidence of PW--4, she found the victim alive at 9-00a.m., on 15-06-2010 and she is the first person who found the dead body within ten or fifteen minutes thereafter. So, the murder was taken place at about 9-00a.m., on 15-06-2010. The evidence of PW--2 and PW--4 and also the evidence of PW--1 clearly reveals that the victim was taken to the hospital immediately thereafter. The doctor who examined the victim in the first instance stated that at about 9-15 a.m.,on 15-06-2010, the deceased Suneetha was brought to the hospital immediately he examined and 27 SC 183 of 2011 found she was dead. So, the victim died prior to 10-00a.m., on 15-06-2010. Admittedly, the report was given at 4-00p.m., on 15-06-2010 as mentioned in Ex.P.21, which is the FIR registered by police. So, there is a delay of about more than five or six hours.
More over, the police station is located about 3 Kms to the place of offence. Basing on it, it is contended after consulting with various persons, a false report was given against the accused.
57] In fact, PW--1 also stated in his evidence that after consulting their relatives, they gave a report to the police. Admittedly, the delay is not explained in Ex.P.1. However, the circumstances reveal that PW--1's daughter died in a suspicious circumstances, None has seen who has committed the murder. Certainly, PW--1 who is the father of the deceased was in sorrow mood after knowing that his daughter died. In view of the above circumstances, it can be said that, certainly, no father would be in a hurried mood to give a report to the police, The circumstances itself explains the delay in giving the report. So, I see there are no circumstances to discard the evidence of prosecution basing on the above said delay.
58] The investigating officer is examined as PW--14. Her evidence clearly reveals about the visiting of the scene of offence in the presence of the elders. She further stated that she found some articles i.e., two pieces of chunni lying on the mat and mattress, four marriage photos of the deceased with A--1, one outpatient book of Sarada Nursing Home, Vijayawada, marriage certificate of the deceased from A.P.Dhalit Mahasabha Legal Cell, Mangalagiri, two medical prescriptions. In which, the deceased expressed her feelings, yellow cover, white and red design nylon mat and one white colour mattress and a multi colour towel at the scene of offence and they were seized by the police and they are marked as MOs 1 to 11. Her evidence further reveals that she prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence which is marked as Ex.P.24. She further stated that she examined the witnesses. 58-1] She further stated that she arrested A--1 to A--5 on 28-06- 2010 under cover of mahajar, which is marked as Ex.P.12. She further stated that she got examined PW--8 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by giving a requisition to the Magistrate and the requisition sent to the
Magistrate is marked as Ex.P.25. She sent the requisition to Histo
pathological Department for conducting Pathological examination of the dead body for skin scalp. The requisition is marked as Ex.P.26.
28 SC 183 of 2011
Even though she admitted that she did not sign with cover of the photos, she has signed on the photos themselves. She further stated that PW--3 had not stated before her three days after the marriage, A--1 telephoned to PW--1 and demanded for Rs.3Lakhs. She further stated that seizure report, mediator report and observation report are in the handwriting of the constable. However, they are prepared as per the direction of this witness. Basing on the material available on record, the prosecution has conducted the investigation properly. I see there are no irregularities in conducting the investigation.
59] The observation report which is marked as Ex.P.11. P.W.9 who is the independent witness also stated about the preparation of Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 and his evidence is corroborated the evidence of the investigating officer about the visiting of the property and about the arrest of the accused. 60] The evidence of Executive Magistrate reveals that he has conducted the inquest over the dead body and also recording the statements of the witnesses, which are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.8. He further stated that he summoned the panchayat authorities by sending a notice under Ex.P.18 and also summoned the blood relatives under Ex.P.19. He further stated that, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P.13. He further stated that he gave a requisition to the doctor for conducting the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The requisition is marked as Ex.P.20.
He further stated that after receipt of the requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the inquest over the dead body, the requisition from the police is marked as Ex.P.17. He further stated that Ex.P.17 to P.20 are in the handwriting of his staff. Simply because they are not in the hand writing of the executive magistrate, they cannot be discarded since the inquest report was signed by the Executive Magistrate. He denied a suggestion that Exs.P.13 to P.20 are prepared in the police station. So, it is clear that the police has conducted the investigation properly.
61] Basing on the evidence available on record, it can be said that, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A--1 to A--5 for the offence punishable under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. However, the prosecution has established the guilt of A--1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond all reasonable 29 SC 183 of 2011 doubt.
62] In the result, A--1 is found guilty of the offence punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and he is convicted of the same
under Section 235[2] of Cr.P.C. A--1 to A--5 are found not guilty
of the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC
and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235[1] Cr.P.C.
The Bail bonds of A--2 to A--5 shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of June, 2015.
II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.
When A--1 is questioned about the quantum of sentence imposed against him, he replied that, he did not want to say anything. In view of the above circumstances, I see there are no grounds to take any lenient view. Hence, A--1 is sentenced to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- only in default of payment of fine he shall suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. A--1 is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.
A--1 is informed that he can prefer an appeal against this Judgment to the Hon'ble High Court. He also informed that he can take the help of the Legal Services Authority for legal aid if he is not in a position to engage an advocate before the Hon'ble High Court. The period of remand from 29-06-2010 to 29-10-2010 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 6 and MOs 9 to 11 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. MO-7 Marriage certificate of the deceased with A--1 and MO--8 Marriage photos of deceased with A--1 shall be returned to the de facto complainant after lapse of appeal time.
30 SC 183 of 2011
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd Day of June, 2015.
II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined For prosecution :
PW--1 Pachala Mohana Rao PW--2 K.Vasantha Kumari PW--3Pachala Naveen Babu PW--4Madasu Krishna Kumari PW--5Bonthu Sujatha
PW--6Pagadala Nirmala PW--7Dr.Madhava Bheemeswara Rao PW--8Chilakabathini Usha Rani PW--9Goli Innaiah PW--10G.Prabhaka Rao PW--11G.V.Bharathi
PW-12B.K.B.V.Prasad
PW--13S.V.Rajasekhara Reddy, S.I.of Police, Tadepalli police Station. PW--14Smt.T.Annapoorna, SDPO,North Sub-division, Guntur Urban
For the Defence:None
Exhibits marked
For the prosecution: Ex.P.1written report to police dt.15-06-2010 by PW--1 Ex.P.2Statement of pw--1 before Tahsildar Ex.P.3Statement of pw-2 before Tahsildar Ex.P.4Statement of pw-3 before Tahsildar Ex.P.5Statement of pw-4 before Tahsildar Ex.P.6Statement of pw-5 before Tahsildar 31 SC 183 of 2011
Ex.P.7Statement of pw-6 before Tahsildar Ex.P.8Statement of pw-7 before Tahsildar Ex.P.9Statement of Chilakabathi Usha Rani Ex.P.10161 crpc statement of pw--8 Ex.P.11observation report prepared by pw--9 Ex.P.12Arrest mahajarnama prepared by pw-9
Ex.P.13Inquest report conducted over the dead body of the deceased by pw--10 Ex.P.14Post-mortem certificate of the deceased Suneetha Ex.P.15Report by PW11 [Histopathology report] Ex.P.16Final opinion of PW--11
Ex.P.17Requisition letter to MEM, Tadepalli dt.15-06-2010 Ex.P.18Summons of panchayatdars dt.16.6.2010 Ex.P.19Summons to PWs 5 and 6 Ex.P.20Requisition issued by MRO [pw--12]
Ex.P.21Printed first information report Ex.P.22Photos[14 in number by pw--13] Ex.P.23Corresponding CD by PW=14 Ex.P.24Rough sketch prepared by pw--14 Ex.P.25Requisition by pw--14 Ex.P.26Letter advise.
For the Defence: Ex.D--1161 crpc statement of pw--6 contradiction portion only. Ex.D--2 161 crpc statement of pw--5 with regard to date i.e. `14-05-2010.
Material objects marked: MO--1Chunni [3 pieces] MO--2white and red colour mat MO--3Yellow colour pillow MO--4Light violet colour bontha MO--5Towel MO--6Note books two in number MO--7Marriage certificate of deceased and A--1 MO--8Marriage photos of deceased with A--1 MO--9Laboratory reports by PW--9 MO--10Sarada Nursing outpatient book-1 MO--11Blanket seized.
32 SC 183 of 2011
II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. //fair//