Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 845 (AP)

Siva Samudrudu v. State Of A. P.

2002-07-09

M.NARAYANA REDDY, R.M.BAPAT

body2002
RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) SOLE accused in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1998, which was decided by the First additional Sessions Judge, Krishna is the appellant herein. The accused-appellant was tried under two charges. The first charge against the accused-appellant was under section 302 I. P. C. The learned Judge found him guilty under the said charge and, therefore, convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for twelve weeks. The second charge against the accused-appellant was under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge found him guilty under the said charge and, therefore, convicted him and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default, simple imprisonment for eight weeks. The substantial sentences imposed against the accused-appellant were made to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused was that on 11-10-1997 at about 11. 00 a. m. the accused caused the death of the deceased intentionally by hacking her indiscriminately on the back of her neck with a knife and also harassed her by suspecting her character. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows: P. Ws. l to 4 and P. W. 6 are residents of Padamatipalern. P. W. 5 and p. W. 7 are the residents of Kuppanapudi. The accused got married to a girl of Alapadu but discarded her within three months and later during 1983 he married the deceased madhavi and they were blessed with a daughter and a son. The accused ill-treated the deceased suspecting her character. Having fed up with his attitude, she went away to her parents house several times. As usual, the deceased went to her parents house four months prior to the incident and the accused brought her back promising that he would not ill-treat her any longer. ( 4 ) ON 11-10-1997 at about 11. 00 a. m. the accused had a quarrel with the deceased and consequently he hacked her indiscriminately with a knife on her back and neck and caused her instantaneous death and fled away. The incident is said to have seen by P. Ws. l, 2 and 3 while he was leaving the scene but they turned hostile. 00 a. m. the accused had a quarrel with the deceased and consequently he hacked her indiscriminately with a knife on her back and neck and caused her instantaneous death and fled away. The incident is said to have seen by P. Ws. l, 2 and 3 while he was leaving the scene but they turned hostile. P. W. 4 is the son of the deceased, P. W. 5 is the mother of the deceased, P. W. 6 is the daughter and P. W. 7 is the father of the deceased. P. W. 8 is the Village administrative Officer, who prepared ex. P-2 at the instance of P. W. 2. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER on a report given by P. W. 2, a case in Cr. No. 96/97 under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the Sub-Inspector of police-P. W. 11. He intimated about the registration of F. I. R. to the Circle Inspector of Police over telephone. Ex. P-13 is the F. I. R. P. W. 12, the Circle Inspector of Police, investigated the case and drafted the observation report of the scene of offence, which is produced on record at Ex. P-6. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex. P-14 is the rough sketch. P. W. 9 photographed the scene of offence. P. W. 12 seized the bloodstained earth and controlled earth from the scene of offence under a panchanama. In the presence of P. W. 8 he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined P. Ws. l to 6 and recorded their statements. Ex. P-7 is the inquest report. ( 6 ) ON 12-10-1997 at 9. 30 a. m. P. W. 10 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-12 is the post-mortem certificate. On 14-10-1997 P. W. 12 arrested the accused and recorded his confessional statement. Ex. P-15 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement. He seized m. O. I - the tappers knife and prepared ex. P-8 report in the presence of P. W. 8 and others. The material objects were sent to forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada and Ex. P-18 is the Forensic Science laboratory report. Thus, on completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. ( 7 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. P-8 report in the presence of P. W. 8 and others. The material objects were sent to forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada and Ex. P-18 is the Forensic Science laboratory report. Thus, on completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. ( 7 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. He has taken a plea that he was not at the scence of offence when the deceased died. ( 8 ) IN order to bring the guilt to the home of accused, prosecution led the evidence of p. Ws. l to 12. Certain documents produced and proved by them were marked as exs. P-1 to P-18. The material objects are marked as M. Os. 1 to 3. ( 9 ) IN order to prove that the deceased died a homicidal death, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P. W. 12, who had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 8. The inquest report is filed on record at Ex. P-7. ( 10 ) AFTER the inquest was over, the dead body of the deceased was sent to P. W. 10 for conducting autopsy. P. W. 10 happened to be working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area hospital, Gudivada. On receipt of requisition, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries:"1. Chop wound measuring 5" x 2" x 3" over the left side of neck extending from middle of the neck to below the left ear. Clotted blood present. Muscles were torn. Blood vessels were torn. Irregular margins, irregular ends of wound - Broken cervical/vertebrae C5 and C6 are seen. 2. A chop wound measuring 2" x 2" x l/2" over the left shoulder elliptical wound - Muscles were torn. Clotted blood present. 3. Contusions three in number over left scapular area and shoulder measuring 4"x ". 4. TWO chop injuries 1 - " apart. (1) 3" x " x 2" - on the back of neck in middle part. (2) 2" x " x 2" over lower part of neck probe passing. Probe from skin over the lower part of the neck -Chop was passing towards inside of the neck from the surface. Cervical Vertebrae 5 and 6 fractured. On internal examination, oesophagus were cut. (2) 2" x " x 2" over lower part of neck probe passing. Probe from skin over the lower part of the neck -Chop was passing towards inside of the neck from the surface. Cervical Vertebrae 5 and 6 fractured. On internal examination, oesophagus were cut. "the Doctor opined that the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased could be caused by sharp edged weapon and the approximate time of death was within 20-24 hours prior to post-mortem examination. The cause of death was injury to vital organ, blood vessels, bleeding leading to haemorrhage and shock. The injuries 1, 2 and 4 could be caused with a weapon like m. O. 1. According to his observation, he issued Ex. P-12 post-mortem certificate. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we do hold that the deceased did die a homicidal death. ( 12 ) OUT of the witnesses examined, p. Ws. l, 2 and 3 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident. P. W. 2 was responsible for setting the criminal law in motion by filing first information - Ex. P-2. Unfortunately, all these three witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. P. W. 6 also turned hostile and did not support prosecution. Then, what is left out is the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 happened to be the son of the deceased and accused. P. W. 5 happened to be the mother of the deceased. As a matter of fact, they were not eye-witnesses to the incident. They were informed that the deceased died. Beyond that their evidence has no evidentiary value. P. W. 7 happened to be the father of the first wife of the accused. He deposed that on the earlier occasion when the accused married his daughter, the accused used to ill-treat her. However, his evidence, according to our estimation, will have no bearing on the prosecution case. This is all the evidence that has been brought on record. ( 14 ) IT appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court convicted the accused-appellant basing upon the contradictions, which were put to P. Ws. l to 3. The learned Judge forgot the fact that the contradiction, if put to the witness and denied, is not a substantive piece of evidence. ( 14 ) IT appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court convicted the accused-appellant basing upon the contradictions, which were put to P. Ws. l to 3. The learned Judge forgot the fact that the contradiction, if put to the witness and denied, is not a substantive piece of evidence. Moreover, the learned Judge also relied upon portions of Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. statements, which were put to the witnesses by way of contradictions. Such type of approach to the criminal law is totally erroneous and, therefore, we hold that the learned Judge did not properly assess the evidence that has been brought on record. We are of the considered view that the learned Judge may be advised to read the evidence Act as well as the provisions contained under Sections 161 and 162 cr. P. C. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the above facts, we hold that there is no reason to uphold the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-appellant. Therefore, we allow the appeal and acquit the accused-appellant of all the charges levelled against him. We further direct that the accused-appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant. Copy of this judgment be marked to the learned trial Judge by name.