Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1441 (AP)

Mohd. Siddiqui AH Qureshi v. State Of A. P.

2003-11-21

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2003
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-6-2001 passed in s. C. No. 440 of 1998 on the file of Special judge for the trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act - Cum - VI Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-l TO A-7 (A-l Mohd. Siddiqui ali Qureshi, A-2 Sm. Saleha Katoon @ Saleha begum, A-3 Mohd. Abuturab Ali @ Qurshed ahmed, A-4 Mohd. Barkath Ali Qureshi, a-5 Mohd. Masroor Ali Qureshi, A-6 smt. Rafath Shahana and A-7 Kum. Farhath shahanaz) for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500. 00 each in default to suffer SI for one month. ( 2 ) THE appellants herein are A-l to A-7 in s. C. No. 440 of 1998. They stood charged before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC for causing the death of Shameem Begum (D-l) and Zubeda Begum (D-2) on the intervening night of 19/20-6-1998 in the house bearing no. 19-3-201/48, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-37 and Mos. l to 4. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record and the other material the learned sessions Judges found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- each; in default to suffer SI for a period of one month. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that a-l and A-2 are presents of A-3, A-4, A-5, a-6 and A-7. P. W. I Mohd Sadullah is the brother of D-l. P. W. 3 Mohd. Ifthekaruddin @ Baber is the brother in law of P. W. I D-l smt. Shameem begum is wife of A-3, and d-2 Smt. Zubeda Begum is wife of A-5. P. W. 8 kaiser Begum is wife of A-4. A-l to A-7, p. W. 8 Kaiser Begum, D-l and D-2 were residing together in a house situated at talabkatta, Hyderabad. Ifthekaruddin @ Baber is the brother in law of P. W. I D-l smt. Shameem begum is wife of A-3, and d-2 Smt. Zubeda Begum is wife of A-5. P. W. 8 kaiser Begum is wife of A-4. A-l to A-7, p. W. 8 Kaiser Begum, D-l and D-2 were residing together in a house situated at talabkatta, Hyderabad. P. W. I and his brother-in-law P. W. 4 were residing together in a house situated at Teegalakunta, hyderabad. D-l was being harassed by her husband A-3 and her in-laws A-l anda-2, her brothers-in-laws A-4 and A-5, and her sisters-in-laws A-6 and A-7 on the ground that she did not bring dowry. She was being abused and beat on by all the accused on the score that he was not cooking and not attending to work properly. She used to inform her sufferings to her brother-P. W. l. On 19-6-1998 D-l Smt. Shameem Begum accompanied by her sisters-in-law A-6 and a-7 and her brother-in-law A-4 and his wife came to the house of P. W. 1. It is alleged that they abused the sister of P. W. I and her husband P. W. 4. They did not even enter into the house of P. W. I and they took D-l smt. Shameem Begum with them. At about 11 P. W. on that day all the accused after due deliberations opined that D-l and D-2 were caught by devils and that the devils should be driven away from them by beatings. They started giving blows on both the deceased with sticks and belts till 1. 00 A. M. on the intervening night of 19/20-6-1998. Because of the excessive beatings both the deceased breathed their last breath. The accused kept the bodies of deceased in their respective rooms. When P. W. 8 Kaiser Begum and children D-2 raised cries, the accused put them in a room. A-2 and her brother Altaf abid went to thehouseof P. W. I andinformed him that D-l was not feeling well and that she was not in a position to talk. P. W. I rushed to the house of the accused and found D-l dead and blood oozing from her nose. He also saw the dead body of D-2 in another room. He enquired the accused as to how the deceased died. P. W. I rushed to the house of the accused and found D-l dead and blood oozing from her nose. He also saw the dead body of D-2 in another room. He enquired the accused as to how the deceased died. A-l and A-2 threatened him with dire consequences if he informs about the incident to any one. P. W. l Mohd. Sadullah met P. W. 2 Ahmed Abdullah Khan and P. W. 3 mohd. Ifthekaruddin @ Baber and learnt from them that they heard cries from the house of the accused till midnight of that day. P. W. I brought his brother-in-law P. W. 4 Syed mahabood and his sister from his house. Neighbours and mouzan of Ahmed Shah durrahi (P. W. 5) advised him to give a report to the police. P. W. I went to Shamshergunj police Station and presented oral report on 20-6-1998 at 8 A. M. before the SHO. P. W. 13 m. Madhava Reddy, Inspector of Police reduced the report of P. W. I into writing and obtained his signature thereon. Ex. P-1 is the report which formed the basis to register a case in C. C. 98/98 under section 302 IPC. P. W. 13 sent Ex. P-37 FIR to the court while marking copies of the same to the authorities concerned and took up investigation. He inspected the scene of offence in the presence of P. W. 10 Smt. Ameena Bee and L. W. 17 tahera Begum and prepared Ex. P-28 observation report and Ex. P-29 Sketch of the scene of offence. He also got the scene of offence photographed by P. W. 9 Habeeb shareef. Exs. P-2 to 14 are the photographs and Exs. P-15 to 27 are the corresponding nagatives. Heeffected seizureof MO. 3 broken bangles while observing the scene of offence. Dead bodies of the deceased were shifted to osmania General Hospital Mortuary room where inquests were held on the dead bodies in the presence of P. W. 10 Smt. Ammeena bee, LW. 17 Tahera Begum and L. W. 14 md. Saleem. After the inquest the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 12 Dr. Ramachandra Rao, Professor of forensic Science, Osmania University, hyderabad conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body of D-2 Smt. Jubeda Begum. 1. 17 Tahera Begum and L. W. 14 md. Saleem. After the inquest the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 12 Dr. Ramachandra Rao, Professor of forensic Science, Osmania University, hyderabad conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body of D-2 Smt. Jubeda Begum. 1. A contusion on the left guteal region extending onto lateral aspect of left thigh in an area of 33 x 8 cms with the underlying pelvis bone fracture. 2. A contusion on the front of the neck extending on the chest and abdomen upto navel region in an area of 24 x 18 cms. Bluish red in colour with the underlying fracture of ribs on the right side at the costochondral, junction and laceration of right lung in the medical border and left lobe of liver, About 600 cc of blood present in each pleaural cavity and above 1000 cc of semi clotted blood in the peritoneus cavity. 3. A contused abrasion on the left knee of 3 x 2 cms. 4. A contused abrasion on the left side of chest on the back in an area 3x2 cms. 5. Contusion on right lateral aspect of the thigh in an area of 41 x 23 cms.- bluish red in colour. 6. Contusion on right lateral aspect of right upper arm in an area of 12 x 6 cms with the underlying humerus closed fracture. 7. Subluxation of C4-C5-C6 carvical spines. 8. Hyoid bone dislocate at body and greater horn. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock and multiple injuries. Ex. P-35 is the post- mortem report issued by him. ( 4 ) HE noticed the following injuries on the dead body of D-1 Smt. Shameem Begum: 1. A contusion on left knee of 3 x 3 cms. Bluish red in colour. 2. A contusion on back side of trunk of right side. 3. Fracture of hyoid bone at the junction of greater horn and body on right side. 4. Sub-luxation of C-2, C-3 and C-4 spine with contusion. 5. A contusion over the anterior part of chest of 37x6 cms in the midline - Red in colour. 6. A contusion on the lateral part of left arm of 27x1 cms. Bluish red in colour. 4. Sub-luxation of C-2, C-3 and C-4 spine with contusion. 5. A contusion over the anterior part of chest of 37x6 cms in the midline - Red in colour. 6. A contusion on the lateral part of left arm of 27x1 cms. Bluish red in colour. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to pressure over the neck (strangulation ). Ex. P-36 is the post mortem report issued by him. ( 5 ) P. W. 13arrested A-l to A-7on20-6-1998 at 5. 00 P. M. and interrogated them in the presence of mediators namely P. W. ll mohd. Saleem and L. W. 15 Abdul Hamid. A-l took, P. W. 13 and the panchas (P. W. ll and L. W. 15 Abdul Habid) to his house and produced MO. l belt and MO. 2 bamboo stick; mo. 4 two pairs of shirts and salwars with two duppattas belonging to the two deceased women which P. W. 13 seized under the cover of panchanama on 20-6-98 at 7. 30 P. M. Ex. P-33 is the admissible portion in the confessional statement of A-l and Ex. P-34 is the panchanama for seizure of MO. l, 2 and 4. On 21-6-98 P. W. 13 examined P. W. 2 Ahmed abdullah Khan, P. W. 8 Khaisil Begum and l. W. 12 Md. Ismail and recorded their statements. On 22-6-98 he examined P. W. 6 saleem Pasha, P. W. 7 Rabia Begum and L. W. 8 fatima Bee and recorded their statements. After completing investigation, he laid the charge sheet in the Court of XIV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned magistrate took the charge sheet on file as p. R. C. No. 41 of 1998 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, hyderabad as the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions court. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as S. C. No. 440 of 1998 and made over the same to the VI Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused the learned Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused. "firstly: That all of you i. e. A-1 of you being the father-in-law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused the learned Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused. "firstly: That all of you i. e. A-1 of you being the father-in-law. A-2 of you being the mother-in-law, A-3 of you being the husband of the deceased Smt. Shameem begum, A-4 and A-5 are the sons of A-l and A-2, A-6 and A-7 are the daughters of A-l and A-2 on or about on the intervening night of 19/20-6-98 with a common intention harassed the deceased smt. Shameem begum for getting a mount form her parents and when smt. Shameem Begum refused to get amount from her parents, she was beaten indiscriminately by you A-l to A-7 with belt and bamboos in your house at h. No. 19-3-201/48, Jahanuma, Hderabad saying that the deceased Shameem begum is having devil on her body and to remove the devil and caused her death and that all of you A-l to A-7 thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code and within my cognizance. Secondly: That all you i. e. A-l of you being the father-in-law. A-2 of you being the mother-in-law, A-3 and A-4 are the sons of A-l and A-2, A-5 of you being the husband of the deceased Zubeda Begum, a-6 and A-7 are the daughters of A-l and a-2 on or about the same date, time and place mentioned above with a common intention harassed the deceased smt. Zubeda Begum for getting amount from her parents and whe Smt. Zubeda begum refused to get amount from her parent all of you A-l to A-7 beat smt. Zubeda Begum indiscriminately with belt and bamboos saying that the deceased Smt. Zubeda begum is having devil on her body and to remove the devil and caused her death and that you a-l to A-7 thereby committed on offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of ipc and within my cognizance. " the learned Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge read over and explained the charges for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined P. W. I to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-37 and Mos. 1 to 4. On behalf of the accused they marked Exs. D-1 to d-6. To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined P. W. I to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-37 and Mos. 1 to 4. On behalf of the accused they marked Exs. D-1 to d-6. The learned Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, held that both the charges framed against the appellants/ accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as aforesaid, mainly relying upon the evidence of p. W. 8 and the circumstantial evidence of p. W. 2 to P. W. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S. C. No. 440 of 1998 on the file of VI additional Metropolitan Sessions Judges, secunderabad, accused has filed this criminal Appeal. ( 6 ) THIS Court by order-dated 18-8-2003 directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, shamshergunj P. S. to make enquiries and ascertain the address of L. W. 10 Smt. Sahana begum who is the wife of Ahmed Usman. The Sub-Inspector of Police produced smt. Sahana Begum on 8-9-2003 and this court directed the witness to be present before the trial court on ] 5-9-2003. A direction was also given to the trial court to record the statement of this witness and transmit the same to this court. But the trial court recorded the statement of Smt. Sahana Begum without allowing either the prosecution or the accused to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, this court opined that the statement recorded is not a statement which can be taken into consideration for the purpose of trail and in order to avoid the delay, a direction was given to the Investigating Office to produce the witness on 12-9-2003. This court examined smt. Sahana Begum as P. W. 14. She testified that both the deceased were living in her-in- laws house as on the date of the incident. According to her, she went to her parents house nine months before the occurrence. She does not claim her presence in the house of her in-laws on the date of occurrence. Therefore, her evidence is helpful neither to the prosecution nor to the defence. ( 7 ) SRI. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants/ accused has challenged the convictions and sentences and has urged that the sole eye witness evidence i. e. P. W. 8 does not deserver to be relied upon. Therefore, her evidence is helpful neither to the prosecution nor to the defence. ( 7 ) SRI. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants/ accused has challenged the convictions and sentences and has urged that the sole eye witness evidence i. e. P. W. 8 does not deserver to be relied upon. He also submits that non- examination of L. W. 12 Mohd. Ismail whose name appeared in Ex. P-30 and Ex. P-31 inquest reports as eyewitness is fatal. to the prosecution case. It is further contended by him that the silence of P. W. 8 on 20-6-98 when the police inspected the scene of offence creates any amount of doubt of her witnessing the assault on both the deceased by the accused. He elaborates his arguments by reading the evidence of P. W. 8 extensively. ( 8 ) SMT. Sesharajyam, learned Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that P. W. 8 is a natural witness being one of the inmates of the house and nothing was suggested to her in the cross-examination disputing her presence in the house on the date of the incident. She also submits that the trial court dealt with the evidence of P. W. 8 in great detail and observed that the delay in recording the statement of P. W. 8 is not fatal to the prosecution. She further submits that the two deceased were daughters-in-law of a-l to A-2 and wives respectively of A-3 and a-5 and there was no possibility of any outsider entering into the house doing away the lives of both the deceased. It is further submitted by her that the prosecutionbesides the direct evidence of P. W. 8 was able to produce circumstantial evidence and medical evidence, which clinchingly established that it was the accused alone who were responsible for the death of the two deceased. ( 9 ) THE defence of the appellants/accused is two fold. Firstly the total denial of the prosecution case and secondly, the two deceased died somewhere and that their dead bodies were brought to the house of the accused and placed in their respective rooms. It was suggested to P. W. 8 that both the deceased did not die in the house of the accused and that their dead bodies were brought to the house and placed in their respective rooms. The said suggestion was denied by her. It was suggested to P. W. 8 that both the deceased did not die in the house of the accused and that their dead bodies were brought to the house and placed in their respective rooms. The said suggestion was denied by her. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevaht portion of the cross- examination of P. W. 8 and it reads as follows: "it is not true to say that I did not witness the beating of D-1 and D-2 at the hands of the accused and their subsequent death due to beating and that I am deposing falsely as required by the police who has figured me as an eye witness. It is not true to say that both the deceased did not die in the house of the accused. It is not true to say that the dead bodies of shameem Begum and Jubeda Begum were brought back into the house of the accused and placed in their respective rooms and thereafter the police created the record so as to show that they were murdered in the house of the accused. It is true that the elder sister of Shameem begum who was enemical towards shameembegum came to the house of the accused and picked up quarrel at the house of the accused. " it is very difficult even to visualize the possibility of an outsider bringing the two dead bodies to the house of the appellants/ accused and placing them in their respective rooms. We are aware that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with same rigor as the prosecution is required to prove its case and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, which is sufficient to enable to court to reject the prosecution version. As observed above, the defence put- forth by the appellants/accused is absurd as it is highly impossible for anv outsider to bring the two dead bodies to the house of the accused and to keep the two corpses in their respective rooms. We are in no hesitation to conclude that the defence set up by appellants/accused is absurd. ( 10 ) THE scene of offence is situated in the house bearing No. 19-3-201/48, jahanuma, hyderabad. We are in no hesitation to conclude that the defence set up by appellants/accused is absurd. ( 10 ) THE scene of offence is situated in the house bearing No. 19-3-201/48, jahanuma, hyderabad. Admittedly the house belongs to the accused and they were inhabitants of the house as on the date of the incident. P. W. 13 observed the scene on 20-6-98 at 9. 30 A. M. in the presence of P. W. 10 and prepared Ex. P. 28 scene of offence panchanama and Ex. P. 29 rough sketch of the scene of offence. P. W. 10 has no enmity with the appellants / accused and there is no reason for them to speak false against the appellants / accused. The evidence of P. W. 13 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 10. Therefore, the prosecution is able to establish by the evidence of P. W. 10 and P. W. 13 that the place of occurrence is in the house of appellants/ accused. ( 11 ) P. W. 12 Dr. P. Ramachandra Rao conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Zubeda Begum on 20-6-98 at 1. 30 P. M. and issued Ex. P-35 report opining that the cause of death is due to hemorrhage, shock and multiple injuries. He also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Shameem begum and issued Ex. P-36 report opining that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to pressure over the neck (strangulation ). The evidence of P. W. 12 is crystal clear that both the deceased met with homicidal death nothing is elicited in the cross-examination by the defence to show that the death of both the deceased was not that of homicidal but that of any other mode. The prosecution is able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that both the deceased met with homicidal death. ( 12 ) THE question is whether the appellants/accused are responsible for the death of both the deceased. P. W. I is the brother of the deceased Shameem Begum. He is native of Barahalliaurad of Karnataka. He came to Hyderabad along with his younger brother and deceased sister shameem Begam to eak out livelihood. P. W. 4 is his brother-in-law. P. W. I and P. W. 4 were residing together in a house situated at teegalakunata, Hyderabad. P. W. I is the brother of the deceased Shameem Begum. He is native of Barahalliaurad of Karnataka. He came to Hyderabad along with his younger brother and deceased sister shameem Begam to eak out livelihood. P. W. 4 is his brother-in-law. P. W. I and P. W. 4 were residing together in a house situated at teegalakunata, Hyderabad. Deceased shameem Bebum was married to A-3 seven or eight months prior to the occurrence. It is the evidence of P/w. 1 that on 19-6-98 he went to the house of the accused and requested th accused to send his sister to his house and that his sister accompanied by A-4 and his wife, and A-6 and A-7 came to his house and that A-4 and his wife and A-6 and A-7 abused p. W. 4 and his wife and they took back his sister in spite of P. W. 4 inviting them to come inside the house. It is further stated by him that on the intervening night on 19/20-6-98 a-2 and her brother Altaf Habeeb came to his house and informed that his sister deceased Shameem Begum fell ill and speechless. Therefore, he immediately went to the house of the accused and found his sister Shameem Begum ly ing dead with blood oozing from her nose. It is alleged that A-2 informed him of the presence of dead body of another woman in other room and therefore he went there and found the dead body of Zubeda Begum. A-1 and A-2 are said to have requested him not to give information to any one. When he came out from the house, he saw P. W. 3 and two others who are neighbours to the accused and who informed him of their hearing cries of women from the house of the accused. On that night he went to his house and informed of what he saw in the house of the accused to his brother-in- law P. W. 4 He again returned to the house of the accused accompanied by his brother-in- law (P. W. 4)1 and saw the dead body of the two deceased. He along with P. W. 4 went to the mosque and informed Mousin-P. W. 5 about the occurrence and on whose advice, he went to Shemshergunj Police Station and presented Ex. He along with P. W. 4 went to the mosque and informed Mousin-P. W. 5 about the occurrence and on whose advice, he went to Shemshergunj Police Station and presented Ex. P-1 report on 20-6-98 at 8 A. M. P. W. 4 Syed Mahabood is the brother-in-law of P. W. I. He corroborates the testimony of p. W. 1 in all material particulars. The evidence of P. W. I and P. W. 4 is crystal clear that they saw the dead bodies of the two deceased in the house of the accused on the intervening night of 19/20-6-98. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused challenged the evidence of P. W. I and 4 by adverting our attention to certain discrepanices elicited in their cross- examination. While evaluating theevidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach in persuasion of the evidence should be avoided. The Supreme Court observed in state of U. P. v. M. K. Antony1 "even honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differs with individuals cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. " Of course there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. I with regard to at what point of time is i. e. whether during his first visit or during his second visit to the house of the accused, he was made known cries of women folk by the neighbours of the house of the night of the incident. One thing in certain that P. W. I and P. W. 4 came to the house of the appellants/accused on the intervening night of 19/20-6-98 and saw the dead bodies of both the deceased in their house. One thing in certain that P. W. I and P. W. 4 came to the house of the appellants/accused on the intervening night of 19/20-6-98 and saw the dead bodies of both the deceased in their house. ( 13 ) BE that as it may, P. W. 2 Ahmed abdullah khan, P. W. 3 Md. Iftaruddin, P. W. 6 salim Pasha and P. W. 7 Rafia Begum are the witness to speak of cries of women folk from the house of the appellants/accused on the intervening night of 19/20-6-98. P. W. 3 and p. W. 6 are neighbours to the accused. They have on enmity against the accused. Nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony Their evidence is crystal clear that they heard the cries of women folk from the house of the appellants/ accused on the intervening night on 19/20-6-1998 and they informed the same to p. W. I who happened to meet them on the early hours of 20-6-98. ( 14 ) SRI. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused contends that there is abnormal delay in filing the report by P. W. I and it creates any amount of doubt with regard to the narration of the incident. No doubt there is delay of about seven hours in presenting Ex. P.-l report before the Inspector of Police, Shemshergunj Police Station. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of actual culprits and part played by them, the weapon, if any, used, so also the names of eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. The pertinent question is whether the delay in filing FIR has resulted in concocting a distorted version of the incident or is it the outcome of due deliberations with the associates of the informant. P. W. I is a native of Karnataka and he has come to Hyderabad to eak out his livelihood. He has no enmity with the accused to foist a case against them. P. W. I is a native of Karnataka and he has come to Hyderabad to eak out his livelihood. He has no enmity with the accused to foist a case against them. It has come on record that P. W. I has no relation as of his own except P. W. 4 who is her brother-in-law in Hyderabad. It has also come on record that P. W. I met P. W. 5 Ahmed Hussain khan and informed him of the ghastly incident. P. W. 5 speaks of P. W. I coming to him and informing of the incident and there after his advising him to give a report to the police. P. W. 5 is an independent witness and he has no reason to speak false against the accused. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that delay in presenting the report in not fatal to the prosecution case. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 is a crucial witness. She is wife of A-4. Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused criticized the conduct of p. W. 8 for her maintaining silence when the police observed the scene and held inquest on the dead bodies of the two deceased. In elaborating his argument our attention has been drawn to the inquest reports, which are marked as Exs. P.-30 and P-31 Ex. P-30 is the inquest report held on the dead body of the deceased Shameem Begum. In Column no. 1 (b) of the inquest report, Md. Ismail Khan has been cited as an eye witness. Ex. P-31 is the inquest report held on the dead body of smt. Zubeda Begum In Column No. l (b) md. Ismail Khan has been mentioned as an eye witness to the incident. Column No. 4 of both the inquest reports, it is stated that md. Isamil khan saw both the deceased in their-in-law house while they were being tortured by their-in-law their respective husband. Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused contends that non- examination of Md. Ismail Khan is fatal to the prosecution case. It is well established that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narration on which the prosecution is based must be examined. Admittedly, Md. Ismail khan is not one of the inmates of the house of the accused. Ismail Khan is fatal to the prosecution case. It is well established that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narration on which the prosecution is based must be examined. Admittedly, Md. Ismail khan is not one of the inmates of the house of the accused. His non-examination does not effect the credibility of the evidence of P. W. 8 the presence of P. W. 8 in the house is well established. Indeed nothing is suggested to her in the cross-examination disputing her presence in house of the accused on the night of the incident. Much criticism has been leveled against the testimony of P. W. 8 for her delayed statement before the investigation Officer. We have to visualize the position of P. W. 8. Her husband is one of the accused and the two deceased are no other than her co-daughters-in-law. This ghastly incident must have stunned her and made her to think twice before giving the statement against her husband and members of the in-laws family. It is quite natural for any women placed in such a predicament situation to take some time to come out with the events that occurred on the ill-fated day. There is no set of rules for natural reaction. Every one reacts in his own special way. In what way the witnesses would react cannot be predicted. In the given circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is every justification for P. W. 8 in her maintaining silence both at the time of the observation of the scene and also at the time of inquest held on the two dead bodies of the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 8 is crystal clear that the two deceased were beaten by the accused to drive away the evil spirits from them. ( 16 ) THE next question to be considered is what offence the accused can be said to have committed? The prosecution has not been able to establish any motive strong enough to induce the accused to do away with the lives of the two deceased. If really the intention of the accused was to kill one of the two deceased, they would not have allowed the two deceased to raise shouts attracting the attention of the neighbours. The prosecution has not been able to establish any motive strong enough to induce the accused to do away with the lives of the two deceased. If really the intention of the accused was to kill one of the two deceased, they would not have allowed the two deceased to raise shouts attracting the attention of the neighbours. It can be gathered from the evidence of P. W. 8 that the accused had no intention either to kill the deceased or to inflict injuries which would in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Their object in giving blows on the two deceased was to drive the evil spirits from them. When all the accused gave blows on the deceased knowledge can be inferred that the injuries inflicted on them were likely to cause death. Therefore, the offence committed by them would come within the ambit of Sec. 304-II IPC. ( 17 ) SRI. C. PADMANABHA Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants / accused contends that A-7 was a juvenile as on the date of the incident and therefore trail of her along with other accused Was not in accordance with the law. This Court by an order dated 12-12-2001 directed the trial court to send A-7 to Osmania General Hospital for determination of her age. Professor or forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical college, examined A-7 and issued a certificate opinion her age as 16 years as on 29-1-2002. This court by an order dated 7-2-2001 considered the age certificate issued by osmania Medical College and granted bail to A-7 to vide Crl. M. P. No. 504 of 2002. So far as the certificate issued by Professor, department or Forensic Medicine, Osmania medical College with regard to the age of a-7 is concerned, the same is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The incident occurred in the year 1998 and it can be said without any controversy that as on the date of the incident A-7 was a juvenile Sec. 2 (h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 defines Juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. In Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the case which is similar to the case on hand. In Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the case which is similar to the case on hand. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the above judgment and it reads as follows:"so far as Arvind Singh, Appellant in crl. A. No. 659/99 is concerned, his case stands on a different footing. On the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellant, was not in a position to point out any infirmity in the conviction recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court. The only contention put forward before the Court is that the appellant is born on 1-1-1967 while the date of the incident is 14-12-1980 and on that date he was hardly 13 years old. We called for report of experts being placed before the Court as to the age of the appellant, Arvind Singh. the report made to the Court clearly indicates that on the date of the incident he may be 13 years old. This fact is also supported by the school certificate as well as matriculation certification produced before this Court which indicate that his date of birth is 1-1-1967. On this basis, the contention put forwar d before the Court is that although the appellant is aged below 18 years and is as child for the purpose of the Bihar Children Act, 1970 on the date of the occurrence, his trial having been conducted along with other accused who are not children is not in accordance with law. However, this contention has not been raised either before the trial Court or before the High court. In such circumstances, this Court in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1997) 8 SCC 720 :1997 AIR SCW 4205: AIR 1998 SC 236 : 1998 Crl. LJ 390) following the earlier decisions in Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1984 Supp SC 228 : AIR 1984 SC 237 :1984 Cri LJ 168) and Bhoop Ram v. State of U. P. , (1989) 3 SCC I: ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 : 1990 Cri. LJ 390) following the earlier decisions in Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1984 Supp SC 228 : AIR 1984 SC 237 :1984 Cri LJ 168) and Bhoop Ram v. State of U. P. , (1989) 3 SCC I: ( AIR 1989 SC 1329 : 1990 Cri. LJ 2671) and Pradeep Kumar v. State of U. P. , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 419 : (1993 AIR SCW 3733 : AIR 1994 SC 104 : 1994 Cri LJ 148) while sustaining the conviction of the appellant under all the charges, held that the sentences awarded to them need to be set aside. In view of the exhaustive discussion of the law on the matter in Bhola Bhagat (supra) case we are obviated of the duty to examine the same but following the same, with respect, we pass similar orders in the present case. Conviction of the appellant, Arvind Singh is confirmed but the sentence imposed upon him stated set aside. He is therefore, set at liberty, if not required in any other case. "a-7 did not raise objection of her being tried along with other accused. However, by relying on the above-referred decision, we do not propose to pass any sentence for the conviction of A-7 for the offence u/s 304-11 r/w 34 IPC. ( 18 ) IN the result, this Appeal is party allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. Instead the appellants/accused are convicted for the offence u/s 304-11 r/w 34 IPC. Appellants 1 to 6/a-1 to A-6 are sentenced to suffer RI for a period of five years for the offence u/s 304-11 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds furnished by appellant No. 7/a-7 stand cancelled.