Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 981 (AP)

M. Appalanaidu v. State Of A. P.

2004-09-11

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) THE appellant/accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 342 and 307 IPC in Sessions case No. 40 of 1998 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakapatnam. ( 2 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant would contend that the learned Judge totally erred in placing reliance on the testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 8. Learned counsel also would contend that even as per the medical evidence, the injuries sustained by P. W. 1 are of simple in nature. The counsel also had taken the court through the evidence of the Investigating Officer and would contend that the recovery of MO1 had not been proved. Learned counsel also would comment that the story that kitchen knife was used for commission of the offence appears to be doubtful and hence, acquittal may be recorded. ( 3 ) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken the Court through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that it is a fit case where the conviction and sentence may have to be confirmed. Heard both the counsel. ( 4 ) THE II Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam had registered P. R. C. No. 3 of 1998 and the same was committed to the Court of Session and ultimately the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam had transferred the same to the Sessions Judge, Mahila court Visakhapatnam. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P1 to P10, Ex. D1 and also Mos 1 to 6 and ultimately recorded conviction for the offence under Sections 307 and 342 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 342 IPC. The case of the prosecution is as follows: ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of P. w. 8 and P. W. 8 is working as a teacher in Sarada Vidya Nikethan, Visakhapatnam. The accused who was working in a Bar is the son of younger sister of maternal grandmother of P. W. 1. The case of the prosecution is as follows: ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of P. w. 8 and P. W. 8 is working as a teacher in Sarada Vidya Nikethan, Visakhapatnam. The accused who was working in a Bar is the son of younger sister of maternal grandmother of P. W. 1. By the date of incident, they were residing in the ground floor portion of the house of one G. Lova Raju, P. W. 2 situate in Nakkavanipalem as tenants. There are four portions in the ground floor of the said house. The portion of the house of the accused are separated by two other portions. One Prasada Rao and Krishnaveni were residing in the above said two portions. P. W. 2. Lova Raju the landlord of P. W. 1 and the accused was residing in the first floor of the same building. P. W. 3, K. Mahalaxmi and P. W. 4 Smt. R. Padma Sree were residing in two separate portions of a building of one Lakshmi Narasamma situate by the side of the house of Lova Raju, P. W. 2. The portion of the house of the accused is adjacent to the portion of the house of P. W. 4 R. Padma Sree and her husband Poorna Chandra Rao P. W. 10. The house of P. W. 9 Ramadasu Satyanarayana who acted as a mediator for the observation of the scene of offence is situate just opposite to the portion of the house of the accused. P. W. 5 S. Annapoornamma the mother of P. w. 1 is also residing near the house of P. W. 1. ( 6 ) MONTHS prior to the incident in this case a quarrel took place between P. W. 1, Sambangi Laxmi and the wife of the accused at a common tap situate in their premises. After the said quarrel the accused used to abuse P. W. 1 now and then for quarrelling with his wife. On 27. 05. 1995 i. e. on the date of the incident P. W. 1 and her husband P. W. 8 along with their children went to Simhachalam and returned home at 3. 30 pm on the same day. After the said quarrel the accused used to abuse P. W. 1 now and then for quarrelling with his wife. On 27. 05. 1995 i. e. on the date of the incident P. W. 1 and her husband P. W. 8 along with their children went to Simhachalam and returned home at 3. 30 pm on the same day. Krishnaveni and Prasad who were residing in other two portions situate in between the portions of the accused and P. W. 1, went to their native places for summer vacation, by locking their houses. After returning from Simhachalam at about 3. 30 pm P. W. 1 went to her parental house situate near her house to give prasadam. Immediately after giving prasadam, she left the house of her mother and while she was passing in front of the portion of the house of the accused to go to her portion, the accused approached her, closed her mouth with his hand and took her into the front varandah of his house having iron grill around it and bolted the door of the grill from inside and gave blows with kitchen knife (Kathipeeta) MO1 on the back of her left palm, on the neck, on the right side of the face, on the right side of her back just below the shoulder, on the right breast, on the left side of the ribs and on the left side of the head and caused bleeding injuries. While the accused was causing the above said injuries with MO1, kitchen knife, she raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries, her husband P. W. 8 and her landlord Lova Raju, P. W. 2 who was residing in the first floor of the same building rushed there and they could not enter into the grilled varandah as the accused bolted the grill door from inside. P. W. 8 the husband of P. W. 1 removed the said bolt by inserting his hand into the grill door and both of them entered into the varandah of the accused. By that time, P. W. 1 sustained bleeding injuries all over her body and the accused was holding a kitchen knife, MO1 in his hand. While P. Ws. 1 and 8 were entering into the grilled varandah, the accused gave blows with a kitchen knife MO1 on her right shoulder and on the left hand of P. W. 1. By that time, P. W. 1 sustained bleeding injuries all over her body and the accused was holding a kitchen knife, MO1 in his hand. While P. Ws. 1 and 8 were entering into the grilled varandah, the accused gave blows with a kitchen knife MO1 on her right shoulder and on the left hand of P. W. 1. The clothes of P. W. 1 were drenched with blood. The blood of P. W. 1 was shed on the articles MOs 2 to 4 kept in the varandah and on the floor when accused gave blows to her P. Ws. 2 and 8 held the accused fast and pushed P. W. 1 out of the varandah. ( 7 ) P. WS. 3 and 4 who were residing in the houses adjacent to the portion of the accused heard the shoutings while both of them were at the common tap situate in their backyard and rushed out of their houses. P. W. 4 saw while the accused was giving a blow with a kitchen knife, MO1 on the back of P. W. 1. P. Ws. 3 and 4 saw while P. Ws. 2 and 8 were taking out P. W. 1 from the grilled room of the accused with bleeding injuries all over her body and with clothes drenched with blood and while the accused holding the knife, Mo1. Some other residents of their locality also gathered there. Meanwhile P. W. 5, the mother of P. W. 1 also rushed there on hearing cries from the house of the accused and found her daughter with bleeding injuries on the road along with number of their locality people. Immediately herself and P. W. 8 took P. W. 1 to a private hospital of Dr. Sunitha in auto but she refused to treat P. W. 1 on the ground that it was a Medico-Legal case. P. W. 8 requested her to treat her as there was profuse bleeding from the injury sustained by his wife to the back of her left palm and she sutured the wound and asked him to take P. W. 1 to Government Hospital. Then, immediately they took P. W. 1 to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and admitted her at about 5 Pm. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 was examined and found eleven lacerated injuries and two scratches on the person of P. W. 1. Then, immediately they took P. W. 1 to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and admitted her at about 5 Pm. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 was examined and found eleven lacerated injuries and two scratches on the person of P. W. 1. He also took the blouse and saree of P. W. 1 stained with blood and sent P. W. 1 to Radiologist to take x-rays of skull and left hand. P. W. 7, the then Assistant Radiologist, took x-rays of skull and left which were marked as Exs. P3 and P4 respectively. She did not find any bony injury to the skull and hand of P. W. 1 and basing on the said x-rays, P. W. 6 opined that all the injuries sustained by P. W. 1 are simple in nature and issued would certificate, Ex. P2. The further case of the prosecution is as under: ( 9 ) P. W. 6 Dr. D. Krupa Rao sent Medico Legal case intimation at 19 hours to the outpost police in K. G. Hospital and in turn the outpost police sent a telephone message about the above said medico legal case to III Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam. P. W. 12 M. Apparao the then Head constable III Town received the said message at 5 Pm that P. W. 1 was beaten up by a known person with kitchen knife and the reduced the same to writing i. e. Ex. P8. He rushed to the K. G. Hospital by 5. 30 Pm and found P. W. 1 in the casuality, K. G. Hospital with injuries. He recorded her statement Ex. P1 at 8 Pm. He obtained her signature on the said report. Dr. D. Krupa Rao P. W. 6 the then casuality Medical officer endorsed on the said statement Ex. P1 that the patient was conscious at the time of giving her statement. After recording the statement he returned to the police station and handed over the statement Ex. P1 to the then sub Inspector of Police, P. W. 13 B. D. V. Sagar at 9 Pm. ( 10 ) P. W. 13 B. D. V. Sagar, the then sub Inspector of Police, III Town Immediately after receiving the said statement, registered a case in Crime No. 170/1995 Under Sections 307 and 345 IPC and issued the first information report Ex. P10 against the accused. ( 10 ) P. W. 13 B. D. V. Sagar, the then sub Inspector of Police, III Town Immediately after receiving the said statement, registered a case in Crime No. 170/1995 Under Sections 307 and 345 IPC and issued the first information report Ex. P10 against the accused. He sent the original First Information Report along with Ex. P1 statement of P. W. 1, to the concerned Magistrate and copies to the concerned authorities. He inspected the scene of offence i. e. the house of the accused situate in Kranthinagar, Nakkavanipalem at 9. 30 Pm in the presence of the mediators, P. W. 9r. Satyanarayana the neighbour of the accused and Gouthu Appalanaidu. He found blood stains on the floor of the verandah having grills around it and on the articles i. e. Aluminium Binde MO2, Brass Bucket MO3 and a pair of Hawai Chappals MO4 and on the walls of the house of the accused. He seized the above said articles in the presence of the mediators and prepared an observation of the scene of offence-cum-seizure of the above said articles, Ex. P5. He also got the scene of offence photographed by a private photographer P. W. 11 Narayana Selva Sudhakar. Ex. P7 is a bundle of six photographs of the scene of offence, with their respective negatives. After inspecting the scene of offence, P. W. 13 recorded the statements of Lova Raju P. W. 2, Annapoorna P. W. 5, K. Mahalaxmi P. W. 3, R. Padmasree P. W. 4, Ch. Pydiraju and B. Koteswararao. Thereafter, he went to K. G. Hospital and recorded the statements of P. W. 1 Sambangi Laxmi and her husband S. Venkateswara Rao, P. W. 8 under Section 161 Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) ON 28. 05. 1995 at about 4. 30 pm P. W. 10 Poornachandra Rao the husband of Padmasree P. W. 4 and the neighbour of the accused accompanied P. W. 13 to Isakathota junction on the reliable information received by P. W. 13 that the accused was available at that place. They went to the bus stop of Isakathota and found the accused there. The police arrested him in the presence of P. W. 10. Accused informed to the police that he would show the kitchen knife MO1 with which he caused injuries to P. W. 1 in his house. They went to the bus stop of Isakathota and found the accused there. The police arrested him in the presence of P. W. 10. Accused informed to the police that he would show the kitchen knife MO1 with which he caused injuries to P. W. 1 in his house. He lead the police to his house and took out a kitchen knife MO1, blood stained shirt MO5 and blood stained banian MO6 from his house. Police seized the above said material objects in the presence of P. W. 10 and one K. N. V. Ramana Rao, under the seizure report Exd. P6. P. W. 13 sent the accused to judicial custody on 29. 05. 1995 i. e. on the next day of his arrest. After collecting the would certificate Ex. P2 of P. W. 1, P. W. 13 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 19. 07. 1995 for the offences under Sections 307, 352 and 342 IPC. ( 12 ) LEARNED Judge had discussed the evidence in detail. P. W. 1 deposed in her evidence as follows: pw1 categorically deposed in her evidence that on 27. 05. 1995 at about 3. 00 Pm herself, P. W. 8 and their children returned home from Simhachalam. She went to her parental house situate near her house to give Prasadam and at 3. 30 Pm while she was returning home and while she was passing in front of the portion of the house of the accused to reach her portion, the accused approached her, closed her mouth with his hand and took her into the verandah of his house having grill around it and bolted the grill door from inside and gave blows with a kitchen knife, MO1 indiscriminately on her head, face, shoulder, back chest, hands and the ribs. Then she raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries her husband, P. W. 8 and her landlord P. W. 2 rushed there and rescued her by removing the bolt of the grill. She further deposed that her clothes were stained with blood due to multiple bleeding injuries. Their neighbours Padmasree P. W. 4 and some others witnessed the above said incident. She further deposed that her clothes were stained with blood due to multiple bleeding injuries. Their neighbours Padmasree P. W. 4 and some others witnessed the above said incident. Her parents who rushed there and her husband took her to Sunitha Private Nursing Home by an Auto within 10 minutes from the scene of offence, as there was profuse bleeding from the multiple injuries sustained by P. W. 1. Dr. Sunitha sutured the wound on the dorsum of her left palm and on the nose and advised to go to K. G. Hospital. Immediately she was shifted to K. G. Hospital and admitted there as inpatient. Police reduced her oral report to writing during evening hours on the same day in the hospital and obtained her signature on the report, Ex. P1. Nothing was elicited during her cross examination either to discredit or disbelieve her evidence with regard to the causing of injuries to her by the accused with a kitchen knife, MO1 in his grilled verandah by bolting the door from inside. It is the version of the prosecution that nobody was there in the house of the accused except the accused and the inmates of the other two portions situate in between the portions of the accused and P. W. 1 were also not in the irrespective portions as they have gone to their villages for summer vacation for their children. Nothing was elicited by the accused during the cross examination of any of the witnesses that there were somebody in the above said portions at the time of the alleged incident in this case nor he examined the said inmates to prove that they were present in their respective houses at that time and no incident took place as deposed by the alleged victim and the eye witnesses in this case. Hence, I do not find any valid grounds to disbelieve the version of the prosecution that there were no inmates in the other two portions of the house situate in between the portions of P. W. 1 and the accused and except the accused nobody was there in his house at the time of the incident in this case and the accused availed the said opportunity and took P. W. 1 forcibly into his portion while she was passing in front of his portion of the house to reach her portion of the house situate in the same building and bolted the grilled door from inside and wrongfully confined her. P. W. 2 is the landlord of P. W. 1 and accused. He categorically deposed as under: ( 13 ) ON 27. 05. 1995 at about 3. 30 Pm while he was in his portion, situate in the first floor on the same building, he heard the cries of the lady from the ground floor and he rushed to the portion of the house of the accused. The husband of P. W. 1 Venkateswara Rao P. W. 8 also rushed to the portion of the accused from his portion and both of them went to the grill door of the accused and saw S. Lakshmi P. W. 1 and the accused in the verandah of his house having grill around it. P. W. 1 was having bleeding injuries all over her body and the accused was holding a kitchen knife (Kathipeeta) in his hand. As the door of the grill was bolted from inside they could not open the same immediately to enter inside the said verandah. The husband of P. W. 1 inserted his hand into the grill and opened the door. While they were entering into the grilled verandah the accused gave a blow on the back of the left hand of P. W. 1 out of the verandah. By that time their neighbours P. W. 3 Mahalakshmi, Annaporna P. W. 4 Padma Sree and some others gathered in front of the portion of the house of the accused. The clothes of P. W. 1 were drenched with blood. By that time their neighbours P. W. 3 Mahalakshmi, Annaporna P. W. 4 Padma Sree and some others gathered in front of the portion of the house of the accused. The clothes of P. W. 1 were drenched with blood. After they pushed P. W. 1 out of the grilled room, the parents of P. W. 1 also came there and the husband and the parents of P. W. 1 also came there and the husband and the parents of P. W. 1 took her to the hospital by an auto. At about 5 Pm on the same day the police came to him and enquired about the incident and recorded his statement. They have also inspected the scene of offence i. e. the grilled room of the house of the accused in his presence. There was blood in the scene of offence that is on the floor, on the walls and on the articles kept in the scene of offence. ( 14 ) THUS, P. W. 2 is an independent witness and no enmity had been attributed to P. W. 2 as against the accused to give any false evidence. P. W. 8 is the husband of P. W. 1 who had deposed as under: on the date of the incident they returned home at about 2. 30 Pm from Simhachalam and after taking lunch, P. W. 1 went to her parental house to give Prasadam to them while himself and his children were inside their house. At about 3. 30 Pm he heard the cries of a lady and came out of his house and found the accused hitting his wife with a kitchen knife inside the grilled room of his house by proclaiming that he would kill her. Meanwhile P. W. 2 Lova Raju his landlord also came there and both of them tried to open the grill door bolted from inside and at last he put his hand inside the grilled room and opened the door and he has seen while the accused was giving the blows with a kitchen knife MO1 on her right shoulder and on the back of left palm. Her clothes were drenched with blood. Himself and P. W. 2 entered into the house of the accused and took out his wife P. W. 1 who sustained bleeding injuries all over her body. Number of persons gathered in front of his house. Her clothes were drenched with blood. Himself and P. W. 2 entered into the house of the accused and took out his wife P. W. 1 who sustained bleeding injuries all over her body. Number of persons gathered in front of his house. Mahalakshmi P. W. 3, Padmasree P. W. 4, Annapoorna P. W. 5 his mother-in-law were among them and immediately they took P. W. 1 to Dr. Sunithas hospital. His evidence is also corroborates with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. Nothing was elicited even during the cross examination of P. W. 8 either to discredit or disbelieve his evidence, except the motive attributed to him which I have already discussed and rejected. Accordingly, I do not find any valid reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to the actual incident. Though P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 the landlord of P. W. 1 and the accused, and P. W. 8, the husband of P. W. 1 categorically deposed that the accused bolted the grill door from inside and caused injuries to P. W. 1 and P. W. 8 removed the said bolt by inserting his hand through the grill door, nothing was elicited from their cross examination that there was no possibility to the accused to confine P. W. 1 in such a way by bolting the grill door from inside or there was no possibility to P. W. 8 to remove the same. Hence, I believe their version that P. W. 2 and P. W. 8 rescued P. W. 1 by entering into the house of the accused. ( 15 ) P. WS. 3 and 4 are the immediate neighbours of the accused, who had also deposed about hearing of shoutings and both of them came out of the houses and saw while P. Ws. 2 and 8 were taking out P. W. 1 from the grilled room of the accused with bleeding injuries and her clothes were drenched with blood. P. W. 5 also deposed that she came to the scene of offence after P. W. 1 was taken out from the house of the accused. Her presence was spoken by P. Ws. 1 to 4. P. W. 6 examined P. W. 1 on the same day and found the following injuries. P. W. 5 also deposed that she came to the scene of offence after P. W. 1 was taken out from the house of the accused. Her presence was spoken by P. Ws. 1 to 4. P. W. 6 examined P. W. 1 on the same day and found the following injuries. (1) A lacerated wound of 3 x over the left perital area which is bleeding (2) Linear scratch oblique 1 x inch over the middle of forehead red in colour. (3) Inverted j shaped lacerated injury extending from the root of nose to lip of (R) of right side of length of 3 inches. (4) A lacerated wound 2 x 1 inch over the supra Clavical area, right side. (5) Two lacerated two wounds over the right side of right arm. (6) Lacerated injury of inch length of the right side of angle of Mandible. (7) A scratch of 4 x inch on the right shoulder. (8) Lacerated wound of 1 x inch on the left forearn oblique in direction. (9) Lacerated wound of 1 x inch on the back of chest above the scapular (left ). (10) Lacerated vertical sutured wound of 2 on the back of the left hand. (11) Lacerated wound over left hand volor surface of ring finger 1 x inch. (12) 1 x inch lacerated wound on the web of ring and middle fingers on the left side. (13) A lacerated injury of 1 x inch on the face of index finger on the left side. ( 16 ) HE issued wound certificate Ex. P2. He deposed that her blouse and saree were stained with blood and she was discharged from the hospital on 02. 06. 1995. The injuries on the person of P. W. 1 were fresh and must have been caused a few hours prior to his examination. A lacerated wound of 2 on the back of left hand was sutured and that indicates that she was treated prior to his examination. He further deposed that the above said injuries could have been caused by a kitchen knife MO1 shown to him at the time of his examination in the court. He further deposed in the cross examination by the accused that any sharp edged weapon can cause the above said injuries. He suspected some fractures to the skull and left hand and referred P. W. 1 to Radiologist. He further deposed in the cross examination by the accused that any sharp edged weapon can cause the above said injuries. He suspected some fractures to the skull and left hand and referred P. W. 1 to Radiologist. ( 17 ) P. W. 7 is the Assistant Radiologist. P. W. 13 is the investigating officer who inspected the scene of offence and P. W. 11 is the photographer. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 13 and also Exs. P1 to P10 and Ex. D1, the relevant portion of 161 Cr. P. C. statement in the evidence of P. w. 3 and MOs 1 to 6, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused under Sections 342 and 307 IPC had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As can be seen from the material available on record, it appears to be a controversy or dispute between the relatives and incidentally, the neighbours who had been the tenants. ( 18 ) SECTION 342 of the Indian Penal code dealing with punishment for wrongful confinement reads as under: 342. Punishment for wrongful confinement:- Whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. It is no doubt true that injured/p. W. 1 was dragged by the accused into his portion and she was confined for some time and she was beaten. From the evidence of P. W. 6 it is clear that the said injuries could have been caused by kitchen knife, MO1. Ex. P2 is the wound certificate and there was no bony injury and after receiving x-ray, this witness opined that the above injury is simple in nature. In view of the nature of quarrel and the weapon used, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients under Section 307 IPC as such are not satisfied since it cannot be said that the accused had intended to take away the life of the injurede/p. W. 1, but made an attempt in that direction, that to with a weapon of the nature as MO1 even as per the version of the prosecution. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC definitely cannot be sustained. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC definitely cannot be sustained. ( 19 ) IN view of the same, the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to Section 342 IPC as such and the conviction recorded in relation to Section 342 IPC no doubt are hereby confirmed. But however, the Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months imposed under Section 342 IPC is hereby set aside and instead, the appellant/accused is liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 342 IPC and conviction and sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC are hereby set aside and instead the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and liable to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only ). It is brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) had already been paid. It is needless to say that in view of the modification of sentence by imposing fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 342 IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC and in view of the fact that the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC had already been paid by the accused, the same is hereby recorded. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the above said modifications.