Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2007 · High Court · 2010

Judgment

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice AGRJ) The appellant/sole accused, who was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in sessions case No.73 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50/- in default simple imprisonment for one week by judgment, dated 18.12.2006, preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against him.

2. The gravemen of the charge against the accused is that on 06.09.2004 at 09:30 P.M., at Narasayapalem village, the accused stabbed his mother-in-law Subbulu, (hereinafter referred to as “the first deceased”), with a knife indiscriminately which resulted instantaneous death and when his father-in-law Adam (hereinafter referred to as “the second deceased”) came in her rescue, the accused stabbed him on his stomach with the same knife and later succumbed to the injury at 10:00 A.M., on 07.09.2004 while undergoing treatment.

3. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows. Both the deceased, Subbulu and Adam, who are wife and husband, are residents of Narasayapalem village. P.W.1 is the eldest daughter of the deceased and wife of the accused. On 19.07.1990, the accused was married with P.W.1 and they were blessed with three daughters. As the accused used to harass P.W.1 in a drunken mood, she came back to her parents’ house at Narasayapalem from Alavalapadu. So, finally the accused also shifted to Narasayapalem and was looking after the cultivation of his in-laws (deceased 1 and 2) by residing in their house. The accused presumed that the character of her Mother-in-law, who is the first deceased, was bad and she was inducing P.W.1 and spoiling her. During the year 1996, the accused noticed P.W.1 moving closely with another person and thereby developed suspicion about her character also. On that, the accused pressed P.W.1 to come away to Alavalapadu village, but in vain. Added to that, the first deceased used to ill-treat the accused and supported the cause of her daughter. While so, the accused made an attempt to squeeze the neck of P.W.1 in the year 1998 by suspecting her character. On another occasion during night, one person came to the house of the first deceased, pushed the door and called P.W.1 by signs and on raising cries, he escaped. On that occasion also, both the deceased and P.W.1 found fault with the accused. In the meanwhile, both the deceased along with P.W.1 shifted their residence to the Cyclone Shelter situated at Narasayapalem, where they were constructing a new house. On the night of 05.09.2004 at about 11.00 P.M., when the accused was sleeping with P.W.1, the first deceased unnecessarily came to the accused and picked up quarrel with a view to send the accused away from their house. On that, the accused grew wild against the first deceased who was spoiling P.W.1 and for the reason that she was not giving respect to the accused, he decided to do away with her life and on the next day, he was waiting for an opportunity. On 06.09.2004 at 9.30 P.M., the accused came to Cyclone Shelter and found the first deceased in front of the shelter and all of a sudden, he attacked her and stabbed her with a knife at her left arm-pit. The second deceased who was nearby, tried to rescue the first deceased, the accused also stabbed the second deceased in his stomach and as a result, he fell down. Again the accused stabbed the first deceased indiscriminately with knife and she met with instantaneous death. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and others rushed to the spot. Meanwhile, the accused escaped. In the struggle, P.W.4 sustained injury to his left hand index finger. The first deceased died on the spot. On 07.09.2004 at about 02:10 A.M., the second deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment, but succumbed to injury. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the Station House Officer (Incharge), who is examined as P.W.11 of Bapatla Taluk Police Station and who registered a case in crime No.54 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who is examined as P.W.13, took up the investigation and held inquest over the dead body of the first deceased and P.W.14, who is the Circle Inspector, held inquest over the dead body of the second deceased. After completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet.

4. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 498A and 302 IPC and when the same were read over to the accused in telugu, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P13, besides the case properties M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D1 and D2 were marked

6. After the prosecution evidence is closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him.

7. The learned sessions Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty of the charges framed against him and sentenced him imprisonment as aforementioned.

8. The accused was provided legal aid in preferring this appeal by the A.P.Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. Sri D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant contends that all the four eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 have been set up by the prosecution. There is no probability for them to identify the accused as the incident happened in the night when there is neither illumination inside nor any streetlights to identify the accused. Even the scene of observation report also does not indicate about the source of light where the eyewitnesses can identify the accused. Since P.W.1 complainant is suffering with aids, she has set up the eyewitnesses to get rid of the accused. There is a delay of 13½ hours in preferring the complaint, which has not been explained. Therefore, there is a possibility of deliberations by the complainant with other family members to implicate the accused. When the second deceased survived for 5½ hours, he has not whispered about the assailants neither in the hospital at Bapatla nor when he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, which probablises fabrication of the case against the accused. Hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor sustained the conviction contending that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitnesses which has been corroborated with the medical evidence and the post mortem report conducted by the Doctor.

10. In the light of the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel on either side the point for consideration is: Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant is sustainable or not? P O I N T : -

11. P.W.1, who is no other than wife of the accused and who set the criminal law into motion by making a complaint under Ex.P1, deposed that on 06.09.2004 at 08:30 P.M. she went to the opposite house in Narasayapalem village to watch the T.V. While watching the T.V., she heard cries and she along with four persons namely Mannam Koteswararao and his wife and children came out of the house and she found that her husband/accused was stabbing her mother with a knife. When they all went there running, her husband also stabbed her father. P.Ws.4 and 5 caught hold of her husband. In the meanwhile, when L.W.4-J.Srinivasarao and P.W.5 came there, the accused escaped from there and ran away. When she observed her mother, she was found dead and Srinivasarao took her father to his house and later he was taken to the Government hospital, Bapatla and after giving first aid, he was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur in the same car. While he was undergoing treatment he died at about 03:00 o’clock on 07.09.2004 early hours. Then they all came to Narasayapalem and went to Bapatla and gave a report to Bapatla Taluk Police station. She testified that her marriage with A1 was held about 16 years back and after marriage she joined the accused and lead marital life at Alavapalem village and they are blessed with three daughters. After giving birth to the 3rd daughter, when the accused started harassing and beating her in drunken state and as he did not treat him properly, he came back to her parents’ house. The accused also came to her parents’ house and was staying along with them. She further deposed that on 05.09.2004 at about 09.00 P.M. her parents went to the house of one Mallela Chinnaiah for prayer and she was staying at their house. At that time the accused came to their house in drunken state and enquired her as to where her parents had gone and further told her that as her parents did not treat him properly he would kill them. On the next morning i.e., on 06.09.2004 in the early hours her husband went away and he had gone to work at about 08:00 A.M. and returned to their house at 04:00 P.M. her mother told her that her husband did not come to lunch. At about 07:00 P.M., the accused came to their house and asked why he has not come for lunch, he stated that he was not in the village. After serving the soup to her parents and after she had food she went to the opposite house to watch T.V. As her parents did not treat him properly he killed them. She admitted in the cross-examination that police drafted Ex.P1 report and she signed on it in the police station and later police came to their house and she was examined at 02.00 P.M. Along with her five or six persons of her relatives went to the police station. She did not go near her parents, while the accused was stabbing. By the time she went to the house P.Ws.4 and 5 were already there. By the time she went there the accused was stabbing her mother. Her mother fell down on the floor after stabbing.

12. P.W.3, who is a co brother of the accused deposed that on 06.09.2004 he came to Narasayapalem village at 06:00 P.M. While he was talking to L.W.4 in front of his house at about 09:00 or 09:30 P.M., the accused was going in a drunken state on that road. In the meantime the second deceased came there and went to his house. Within two minutes himself and L.W.4 Srinviasarao followed deceased No.2 where the deceased were staying. When they reached the house of Palaparthi Parameswara Rao they heard the cries and rushed to the cyclone shelter. By that time the accused was stabbing his mother–in-law. When his father-in-law came to the rescue the accused also stabbed him with a knife. When he questioned the accused he also threatened him at the point of knife that he would stab him. He further deposed that P.W.5 caught hold of the waist of the accused and P.W.4 caught hold of his hands. Later the accused escaped away. P.W.4 who is a brother also corroborated the evidence stating that on 06.09.2004 at about 09.30 P.M. when he was sleeping in his house, he heard the cries from the cyclone shelter. He rushed there and by that time the accused was stabbing the deceased with knife. By the time he went the second deceased also was stabbed and P.W.5 caught hold of the accused from his behind. He caught hold of the hands of the accused and brought him to some distance. On the way, L.W.7 left the accused, then P.W.4 also received knife injury to his right index finger and then he left the accused. In the cross-examination he deposed that police examined him and on 07.09.2004 at 11.00 A.M., police came to their village, but he did not state to the police about the incident at that time. He received knife injury on the upper part of his right index finger and the Doctor treated him on the 7th evening. P.W.5, who is a neighbour to the deceased deposed that he heard the cries from cyclone shelter and rushed there. He found the accused stabbing Subbulu with a knife. He then caught hold of the accused and took him to some distance. In the meantime, P.W.4 came there and they both had taken the accused to the center of the village. After he left the accused, P.W.4 received knife injury to his right index finger.

14. P.W.7, who is a relative of the accused, deposed that on 06.09.2004 at about 1 o’clock mid night, the accused came to her house and called her husband’s name and her husband went to Chirala. Then the accused woke up her and asked her that he would sleep in her house on that night and accordingly, he was allowed to sleep at their house on that night and woke up in the early hours. Then the accused told her that he murdered his mother-in-law and father-in-law and asked her to give Rs.20/- for charges. She gave Rs.10/- to the accused. The accused kept a knife and his shirt inside the eves of her house and went away.

15. P.W.11, the Constable in Bapatla Taluk Police Station deposed that on 07.09.2004 at about 11:00 A.M., in the morning P.W.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1 written report to him and he registered the same as a case in crime No.54 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P9 F.I.R. and copies to all the concerned. P.W.13, the Sub- Inspector of Police, who took up investigation deposed about visiting the scene of offence in the presence of mediators; got photographed the scene of offence; seizure of material objects; preparation of scene of observation report and rough sketch; conducting inquest over the dead body of the first deceased; examination of witnesses; preparation of inquest report. P.W.14, the Investigation Officer who took up investigation from the sub- Inspector of Police deposed about visiting the scene of offence; verification of the investigation conducted by P.W.13; conducting inquest over the dead body of the second deceased; preparation of inquest report of the second deceased under Ex.P4; arrest of the accused; seizure of knife and material objects on confession of the accused; examination of witnesses and after receiving the relevant reports and on completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

16. From the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 was corroborative. P.W.1, the de facto complainant-wife of the accused, deposed that she found her husband stabbing her mother and father; that P.Ws.4 and 5 caught hold of her husband. P.W.3, who is a co-brother of the accused, deposed that he heard the cries and rushed to the cyclone shelter; saw the accused stabbing his mother-in-law; when his father-in- law came to her rescue, he also stabbed him; P.Ws.4 and 5 caught hold of the accused. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are also eyewitnesses to the incident, categorically deposed that they heard the cries from the cyclone shelter and rushed there and saw the accused stabbing his mother-in-law. Then both of them caught hold of the accused. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 is that he caught hold of the hands of the accused and P.W.5 caught hold of the accused from his behind and brought him to some distance. On the way, L.W.7 left the accused, then P.W.4 also received knife injury to his right index finger. The said evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.5, who deposed that himself and P.W.4 caught hold of the accused and took him to some distance. The occular evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated with the evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination. P.W.7, with whom the accused made confession, deposed that the accused told her that he murdered his mother-in-law and father-in-law; he asked her to give Rs.20/- for charges and she gave Rs.10/- to him; and the accused kept the knife and his shirt inside the eves of her house. During the course of investigation, P.W.14 recovered the said material objects at the instance of the accused from the house of P.W.7 and sent them to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Ex.P12 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, reveals that human blood is detected on the material objects with A group.

17. From above discussion, it is clearly established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who killed the deceased. Further, the evidence of the eyewitnesses also has been corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7 and investigating agency. In view of the same, the learned Sessions Judge after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence rightly concluded that it is the accused and none else who committed the offence. After going through the entire evidence and the reasoning adopted by the lower Court, we are not persuaded to take a different view than that of the view taken by the lower Court. We see no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court.

17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower court in all respects. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _____________ RAJA ELANGO.J 29th September 2010 LMV