Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 414 (AP)

Vedugu Chanti Babu (Accd. ) v. State Of A. P.

2001-04-13

D.S.R.VERMA, R.M.BAPAT

body2001
RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in Sessions Case no. 115/1995, which was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Manila Court, vijayawada, is the appellant herein. The accused-appellant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. On evidence, the learned sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 8-2-1993 at about 9. 00 a. m. , in the house of P. W. 1 in kanakadurgapuram, hamlet of Rayyuru village, he alleged to have committed the murder of his own wife named Vadugu Siva parvathi by throttling her. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story can be briefly narratedas follows. The accused is a resident of Madduru village. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the residents of Royyuru. P. Ws. 1 and 2 happened to be the parents of the deceased. P. W. 3 is a resident of Vijayawada. P. W. 3 is the elder sister of the deceased. P. W. 4 is a resident of Machilipatnam. He happened to be the elder brother of the deceased. P. W. 5 is a resident of Kanakadurgapuram and neighbour of P. W. 1. ( 4 ) THE marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed about four years prior to the incident At the time of the marriage, the accused was unemployed. About two years after the marriage, P. W. 1. secured a small job for the accused in a sugar factory at Chagalu, but the salary was meager; therefore, the accused could not maintain his family. Hence he used to leave his wife and children in the house of P. W. 1. very often and after some time he used to take them back to his house. ( 5 ) IT is the further case of the prosecution that the accused was addicted to drinking and gambling. Sometime prior to the incident, the accused took the deceased and their children, as their son became lame and was required to be admitted in the American hospital for treatment. After sometime, the child recovered from illness and both the deceased and the children stayed together. Sometime prior to the incident, the accused took the deceased and their children, as their son became lame and was required to be admitted in the American hospital for treatment. After sometime, the child recovered from illness and both the deceased and the children stayed together. ( 6 ) ON 7-2-1993, the accused went to the house of P. W. 1 in a drunken state and took his daughter Lakshmi along with him in the night without informing P. W. 1. and others. On 8-2-1993 in the morning, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the field to attend their work at about 9. 00 a. m. P. W. 1 returned to his house and noticed that the accused was throttling the deceased in the southern side of the road. On seeing the incident, P. W. I raised cries. Then the accused left the place. Then P. W. 1. called p. W. 5. She came and adjusted the clothing of the deceased, as they were disturbed. Then p. W. 5 informed P. W. I that the deceased died. P. W. 1 informed P. W. 5 that the accused throttled the deceased. P. W. 5 returned to her house. Then after some time P. Ws. 2 and 4 came to their house on hearing the news in the field. Thereafter the dead body was brought outside the house and it was kept there. ( 7 ) ON 8-2-1993 at about 11. 00p. m. , P. W. 6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thotlavalluru, received a report from P. W. 1. On the strength of the report, he registered the case in Crime No. 4/1993 against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and issued copies of the F. I. R. , to all concerned. P. W. 9, Inspector of Police, vuyyuru Rural Circle, received information about the offence in question at about 11. 15 p. m. , on 8-2-1993. Immediately he proceeded to the scene of offence and halted there for the whole night. On the morning of 9-2-1993 at about 6. 00 a. m. , P. W. 9 Inspector of Police secured the presence of P. W. 7 and prepared the observation report which is filed on record as Ex. P8. He also prepared the rough sketch Ex. P-9. He got the scene of offence photographed. Ex. P-10 is the photograph. On the morning of 9-2-1993 at about 6. 00 a. m. , P. W. 9 Inspector of Police secured the presence of P. W. 7 and prepared the observation report which is filed on record as Ex. P8. He also prepared the rough sketch Ex. P-9. He got the scene of offence photographed. Ex. P-10 is the photograph. He did not find any incriminating materials around the scene of offence. At about 7. 00 p. m. , he examined p. Ws. 1 to 5 and others. In the presence of p. W. 7 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest report is filed on record as Ex. P-3. ( 8 ) AFTER the inquest was over, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the assistant Civil Surgeon, Government hospital, Vuyyuru, for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 11. 00 a. m. , on 9-2-1993. Post-mortem examination was conducted by P. W. 8, but he did not find any external injuries. Therefore, the Doctor reserved his opinion, pending report of the chemical analyser. Ex. P-5 is the report of the chemical analyser. Basing on Ex. P-5, P. W. 8 gave final report ex. P-6 to the effect that the cause of death could not be given. Therefore, P. W. 8 was served with questionnaire. Ex. P-7 is the questionnaire. It was answered by P. W. 8 who maintained that specific opinion regarding the cause of death could not be given. ( 9 ) ON 13-2-1993, P. W. 9 Inspector of Police received information that the accused was undergoing treatment in Navajeevana nursing Home. Then he visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of the accused. He was taken to Kanakipadu Police station for registering the case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in crime No. 24/1993 of the said Pofice Station. ( 10 ) ON 17-2-1993 P. W. 9 arrested the accused. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. Thus, on completion of investigation, P. W. 9 filed charge-sheet. ( 11 ) TO bring the guilt to the home of the accused, prosecution led the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 9. Documents produced by it were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-10. The defence of the accused is of total denial. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. Thus, on completion of investigation, P. W. 9 filed charge-sheet. ( 11 ) TO bring the guilt to the home of the accused, prosecution led the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 9. Documents produced by it were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-10. The defence of the accused is of total denial. ( 12 ) IN order to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P. W. 9 who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 7 acted as a mediator. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. ( 13 ) AFTER inquest was over, the dead body of the deceased was sent to P. W. 8 who happened to be working as the Civil assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, vuyyur. On receipt of the requisition from the Inspector of Police, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following external (?) injuries. "on internal examination on opening up of the peritoneal cavity, foul smell present. Stomach contains black coloured fluids stain with foul smell lever and spleen normal in size and congested on cut section with foul smell. Both kidneys congested and on cut section with foul smell. Intestines filled gasses. Neck: contains black coloured fluid stain with foul smell. Hyoid bone and thyroid, cricard cartileges appear to be normal. Thorax, heart normal in size and empty. Lungs congested on cut section. No evidence of fractures. Brain normal in size. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus normal is size . ( 14 ) AS per his observation, he issued the post-mortem certificate Ex. P-4. But he did not give final opinion, as no external injuries were noticed on the person of the deteased. Ex. P-5 is the chemical analyser. Basing upon the report of the chemical analyser P. W. 8 gave his final report Ex. P-6 that the specific cause of death could not be given. ( 15 ) ON this point learned Counsel mr. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy appearing on behalf of the defence submitted at the bar that there is no medical corroboration so as to hold that the deceased died a homicidal death. Unless it is proved that the deceased died a homicidal death, conviction cannot be given. ( 16 ) THIS Court is not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel. Unless it is proved that the deceased died a homicidal death, conviction cannot be given. ( 16 ) THIS Court is not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel. In order to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death and the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased, main reliance was kept by the prosecution on the evidence of P. W. I who happened to be the father of the deceased. According to the version of P. W. 1. on the date of incident, in the morning, he had gone to his agricultural field. He returned to his own house after some time whereas his wife continued to work in the field. When he entered the house, he saw the accused throttling the deceased. On seeing the horrible incident, P. W. 1 raised cries and on hearing his shouts, P. W. 5 who happened to be the neighbour of the deceased, arrived at the spot. The clothes on the person of the deceased were totally disturbed and , therefore, P. W. 5 arranged them properly and noticed that the deceased was no more. At that time P. W. I told P. W. 5 that the accused had throttled the deceased. Admittedly P. W. I was eyewitness to the incident and immediately on appearance of p. W. 5 at the scene of offence the entire incident was narrated by P. W. I to P. W. 5. Thus, both these witnesses go to prove that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Thereafter P. W. I gave ex. P-1 F. I. R. , to the police on the strength of which the offence came to be registered. Thus, we have the evidence of eyewitness p. W. I. We also have the evidence of P. W. 5 who came to the scene of offence immediately on hearing the shouts of P. W. 1. and Ex. P-1 which gives corroboration to the version of P. W. I to show that the deceased died a homicidal death and the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. ( 17 ) WHEN the Medical Officer was in the , box, a suicidal question was put to the doctor. and Ex. P-1 which gives corroboration to the version of P. W. I to show that the deceased died a homicidal death and the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. ( 17 ) WHEN the Medical Officer was in the , box, a suicidal question was put to the doctor. While replying the said quection, the doctor has stated mat in a case of throttling, it is not necessary to have injury marks around the neck of the deceased at all times. In the present case, the injuries were not noticed externally by the Doctor P. W. 9 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no medical corroboration, because the Doctor has stated that the presence of marks around the neck is not the essential condition to hold that the deceased died because of asphyxia due to throttling or due to hanging. In the present case, the prosecution was able to prove that the deceased was throttled by the accused through the evidence of the eyewitness P. W. I and through the evidence of P. W. 5. Thus, taking the overall picture of the matter, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-appellant herein. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge.