Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1126 (AP)

Chittimenu Veeraraju v. State Of A. P.

2003-09-05

BILAL NAZKI, K.C.BHANU

body2003
K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED in Sessions Case No. 67/2000 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, rajahmundry, filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 9-8-2001, convicting him for an offence under Section 302ipc and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 16-5-1999 at about 5 p. m. he committed the murder of Korasika katam Raju by beating him with a casurina stick. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated briefly as follows. P. W. 4 is resident of Vannechintalapudi village. Three days prior to 16-5-1995, there was a quarrel between his son and daughter-in-law in which the son beat his own wife. On account of this incident, the daughter-in-law of p. W. 4 went away to her parents house. On 16-5-1995 the father of the daughter-in-law of P. W. 4 brought his daughter to the house of P. W. 4 and raised a "panchayat", in which the deceased had acted as an elder, about the incident that had taken place three days before. The matter was settled by the "panchayat". The accused, a resident of peruru village, quarreled with the deceased as to why he had not been called for the "panchayat". Others in the "panchayat" pacified the accused and sent him away. At about 4 p. m. on the same day, the deceased received a message that one of his sons, trimurthulu, got an electrical shock in the field. Deceased, his wife-P. W. 1, and another son-P. W. 2, proceeded to the field and after seeing his son, all of them were rei jrning home. When they reached the house of manga, sister of the accused, she questioned the deceased as to why he had abused her brother-accused. They did not reply to her question and proceeded to their house. After some time, accused came to the house of the deceased with a casurina stick in his hand and asked the deceased as to why he had abused and beat his sister-Manga. The deceased replied that he did not do so. Then the accused asked the deceased to accompany him to his sister s house so that they could confirm with her whether the deceased abused and beat him or not. The deceased accompanied him. P. Ws. The deceased replied that he did not do so. Then the accused asked the deceased to accompany him to his sister s house so that they could confirm with her whether the deceased abused and beat him or not. The deceased accompanied him. P. Ws. 1 and 2 followed the deceased. As they were proceeding towards the house of Manga, when they reached the house of P. W. 3, accused turned around and beat him on his head thrice with the stick and fled from the scene of offence. The deceased was taken to a hospital where he was declared as "brought dead". The incident was reported to P. W. 7 - the Village administrative Officer. He prepared a report- ex. P-1 and lodged with the police. The police investigated into the case. P. W. 12 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was later sent for conducting post-mortem examination. P. W. 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of shock due to the injuries received by him. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The accused denied his guilt. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited ten documents besides M. Os. 1 to 4. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, challenging the legality and correctness of which the accused preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) P. W. 12 conducted inquest in the presence of P. W. 7. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. P. W. 9 conducted autopsy and found the following injuries. (1) An oblique red lacerated wound 2 x Y2" bone deep extending into the brain with fracture of left side of frontal bone. (2) An oblique red lacerated wound 1v2 x V2 "bone deep on the left side of the head 2" above injury No. 1 with fracture of left parietal bone. (3) Red lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 " skin deep with blood clot. (4) Red coloured contusion oblique 2x1: on the right of the head 3" above the right ear. " ( 5 ) EX. P-13 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the Doctor. (3) Red lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 " skin deep with blood clot. (4) Red coloured contusion oblique 2x1: on the right of the head 3" above the right ear. " ( 5 ) EX. P-13 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the Doctor. He opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to the head injuries. ( 6 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 12,7 and 9 and the recitals in Exs. P-3 and 13 remain unchallenged. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The question now is whether the accused caused the death. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the Prosecution, the incident in question took place in front of the house of P. W. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has seriously disputed the scene of offence. According to him, a free fight took place between. group of the accused and the group of the deceased at 2 p. m. at the panchayat in which process the deceased sustained injuries at the hands of unidentified persons and the Prosecution purposely shifted the scene, of offence to the place in front of the house of P. W. 3. Therefore, we would proceed to ascertain as to which of the two places was the actual scene of occurrence. ( 8 ) P. WS. 1 to 3 are eye-witnesses to the incident. P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and P. W. 2 is their son. P. W. 3 is an independent witness. They stated in unambiguous terms that the incident in question took place in front of the house of p. W. 3. Ex. P-2 is the scene of observation report which was drafted at the house of p. W. 3 on 17-5-1999 at 9. 30 a. m. P. W. 12 prepared Ex. P-2 in the presence of P. W. 7. These two witnesses stated at the scene of offence is the road in front of the house of p. W. 3. There was pool of blood near the scene. Bloodstained earth was seized from there, which contained human blood, according to Ex. P-15-FSL Report. Inquest was also held at the same place. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. Except that a suggestion that exs. There was pool of blood near the scene. Bloodstained earth was seized from there, which contained human blood, according to Ex. P-15-FSL Report. Inquest was also held at the same place. Ex. P-3 is the inquest report. Except that a suggestion that exs. P-2 and P-3 were prepared in the police station was given, nothing has been elicited in the evidence of these witnesses so as to discredit their testimony with regard to the scene of occurrence. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased sustained injuries at some other place and that his dead body was carried to the road in front of the house of P. W. 3. It has not been even suggested to P. Ws. 7 and 12, or, for that matter, even to P. Ws. 1 to 3 that the scene of scene of occurrence was shifted. P. W. 4 is the person whose son and daughter-in-law quarreled with each other in which connection the "panchayat" was held. He stated that after the "panchayat" was over, he came know that at 7 p. m. on the date of incident the accused killed the deceased. He denied the suggestion that there was a free fight between the group of the accused and the group of the deceased. It is apposite to note that the accused also lodged a report with the police against the deceased, which was registered as crime No. 46/1999. P. W. 11 stated that as per that F. I. R. , accused is said to have been attacked at Peruru village. He also stated that a final report was filed in that case referring it as mistake of fact. The accused did not choose to file the FIR lodged by him. He also did not surface any material to show his assertions that in the free fight the deceased sustained injuries at the hands of some unknown person. The evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the road in front of the house of P. W. 3 was the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) P. WS. 1 and 2, though are wife and son of the deceased respectively, cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. if they are found to be truthful witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence is natural. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) P. WS. 1 and 2, though are wife and son of the deceased respectively, cannot be disbelieved on the ground of relationship. if they are found to be truthful witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence is natural. They stated that the accused was being followed by the deceased and they were following the deceased. As they reached the house of P. W. 3, the accused turned round and beat him with the stick on his head. Since the accused questioned the deceased as to why the latter abused and beat his sister-Manga and wanted him to accompany him so that it could be clarified from Manga, the deceased followed the accused. Because P. Ws. 1 and 2 were also present along with the deceased at the time deceased allegedly abused and beat Manga, they followed the deceased to the house of manga to ascertain the truth in the allegation. It does not appear to be unnatural or unusual. It has not been specifically suggested to these witnesses that they did not follow the deceased. Therefore, it can be said that their presence at the scene of occurrence was quite natural. Their presence at the scene of offence is corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 3 in front of whose house the incident took place. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 deposed about the attack made by the accused in detail. She stated that the accused delivered three blows on the head of her husband with the stick and later scuttled from the scene of occurrence. P. W. 2 also deposed in the same lines as P. Ws. 1 did. Though he admitted in the cross-examination that he actually witnessed only his father falling down, on a specific question put by the trial Court whether he actually witnessed the incident, he stated that he did witness the incident as he was behind his mother. Nothing has otherwise been elicited from the cross-examination of this witness also to discredit his testimony. Though he admitted in the cross-examination that he actually witnessed only his father falling down, on a specific question put by the trial Court whether he actually witnessed the incident, he stated that he did witness the incident as he was behind his mother. Nothing has otherwise been elicited from the cross-examination of this witness also to discredit his testimony. ( 11 ) COMING to the evidence of P. W. 3, she stated that at 5 p. m. when she was sitting on the pial of her house, the accused beat the deceased with the stick on his head as a result of which the deceased fell down and the accused ran away from there. She also stated that in order to go to the house of manga, one has to cross her house. As already stated above, she also spoke about the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 at that place and at that time. She is a natural witness to be preset at the scene of occurrence, because the incident took place in front of her house and she was sitting on the pial of her own house in the evening. She can be said to be an independent witness. Though she stated that she and P. W. 1 are friends, there is nothing on record to show that the accused is her foe or that there were any disputes between them. There appears no reason for her to speak anything false against the accused. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that Ex-P1 was lodged in pursuance of the information about the" incident furnished by Padma, but Padma was not examined in this Court, and so ex. P-1 is a suspicious document. ( 13 ) P. W. 7 lodged Ex. P-1 report with the police. He stated that in the midnight P. W. 5 and his wife informed himabout the incident on the basis of which he prepared Ex. P-1. P. W. 5 is the son of the deceased. It is not the case of the Prosecution that P. W. 5 is an eyewitness to the incident. He returned home fromhis field at about 10p. m. and his mother told him that the accused killed the deceased. Padma is his wife. Therefore, there was nothing unusual for Padma to accompany p. W. 5 to inform P. W. 7 about the incident. He returned home fromhis field at about 10p. m. and his mother told him that the accused killed the deceased. Padma is his wife. Therefore, there was nothing unusual for Padma to accompany p. W. 5 to inform P. W. 7 about the incident. It is also nothing unusual that P. W. 7 referred the name of Padma in Ex. P-1. There is nothing on record to show that Padma is eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, even if Padma has not been examined, it matters little inasmuch as Prosecution cannot be said to have withheld the material evidence in the form of Padma. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has next contended that there was a delay in giving report to the police as well as sending it to the Magistrate s Court. ( 15 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. Being a lady of 43 years and in all probability being in a shocking state of mind on seeing the ghastly murder of her husband, she might not venture to go to the Village administrative Officer to lodge report immediately. After the arrival of his son p. W. 5, she informed him and he orally informed V. A. O, The V. A. O. sent Ex. P-1 through the village servant which P. W. 10 received on 16-5-1999 at 2 a. m. and registered a case. It has not been specifically suggested to P. W. 5 that he and his wife did not go to the v. A. O. on 16-5-1995 in the midnight and ex. P-1 was brought into existence after due deliberations. The evidence of P. W. 7 would go to show that till P. W. 5 informed him he was not aware of the incident. There was also no possibility for him to know as his house was situated at a distance of 1 km from the house of the deceased. Therefore, there was no much delay in lodging the report. Even if there is some delay, it cannot be said that the delay occurred only on account of the time taken by the Prosecution witnesses to foist a false case against the accused. Hence, the delay, if any, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the Prosecution case, since the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 is trustworthy. Even if there is some delay, it cannot be said that the delay occurred only on account of the time taken by the Prosecution witnesses to foist a false case against the accused. Hence, the delay, if any, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the Prosecution case, since the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 is trustworthy. P. W. 10 stated that within half an hour after registering the crime he dispatched the original FIR to the magistrate s Court. Therefore, the delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate s Court is only due to the latches on the part of the police personnel which cannot affect the main substratum of the Prosecution case which is otherwise reliable. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has next contended that the Prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused. ( 17 ) P. W. 8 is the Doctor who examined the accused on 17-5-1999 to 9. 30 a. m. He found a laceration on left eyebrow, an abrasion on left temple region, contusions below the left eye, on left cheek and left shoulder. She stated that these injuries are simple and superficial which could be caused by a fall on a rough surface or ground while running. ( 18 ) WHEN an accused sustains injuries in the course of same transaction in which he is alleged to have caused attack on a victim, it is obligatory on the part of the Prosecution to explain the circumstances in which the accused has received injuries. But before casting such obligation on the Prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied, viz. , (a) firstly the injuries on the person of the accused are very serious and not superficial, and (2) secondly those injuries have been caused at the time of the occurrence. ( 19 ) IN the present case, the injuries sustained by the accused are, as already stated supra, simple and superficial and could be caused by a fall on a rough surface while running. It has also not been shown that these injuries were caused at the same time, place and date of incident in which the deceased died. The FIR allegedly lodged by the accused against the deceased has not been filed into the Court to show that he sustained injuries at an incident that took place in front of the house of P. W. 3. The FIR allegedly lodged by the accused against the deceased has not been filed into the Court to show that he sustained injuries at an incident that took place in front of the house of P. W. 3. On the other hand P. W. 11 stated that his investigation disclosed that the accused sustained injuries at his village, Peruru, when he fell down while running. It has not been even suggested to this witness that the accused sustained injuries at the same place where the deceased was done to death. Thus, none of the aforesaid two conditions has been satisfied. Therefore, non-explanation by the Prosecution of the injuries Prosecution on the person of the accused cannot in any way weaken its case. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also contended that P. W. 6 stated the persons who brought the deceased to his clinic told him that the deceased fell down on a cement slab in a drunken state and P. W. 9 also admitted that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be possible by a fall on a rough surface with great force, and so the deceased must have sustained the injuries in the manner as stated by the Doctors. ( 21 ) TRUE that P. W. 6 stated that the persons who brought the deceased told him that the deceased fell down on a cement slab in a drunken condition, but this Doctor appears to have tried to help the accused, because if a person falls on a cement slab from standing position he would not sustain fractures to frontal and parietal bones, unless he falls from a considerable height, as the deceased in this case sustained. This view is supported by the evidence of P. W. 9 who stated that the injuries found on the deceased would be possible if a person fall on a rough and blunt object with great force. To hit a rough and blunt object with great force, one must fall from considerable height, as we have already stated above. There is no such evidence on record. Therefore, the statements of the doctors in this respect would not be of any help to the accused. ( 22 ) THE trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no such evidence on record. Therefore, the statements of the doctors in this respect would not be of any help to the accused. ( 22 ) THE trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the right conclusion in holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As the accused used severe force when he hit the deceased with the stick, the deceased sustained the above stated fractures, and the intention of the accused can be gathered from this circumstance. His intention was only to kill the deceased. There are absolutely no grounds to interefere with the impugned judgment. ( 23 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the Court below.