Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1222 (AP)

JADDU JUVVANNA v. STATE OF A. P.

2006-09-29

A.GOPAL REDDY, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2006
G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the sole accused assailing the conviction given by the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast track Court),adilabad in S. C. No. 173 of 2004 forthe offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ipc ). He was charged for the offence under section 302 IPC for allegedly killing his wife by throttling her neck during the intervening night of 16/17-1 -2004 in his house at Soan village, nirmal Mandal, Adilabad district. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused had a son and he went away from the native place for more than one year for the purpose of earning. The daughter-in-law remains in the house. The deceased is the wife of the accused. The accused developed illicit intimacy with the daughter-in-law. The deceased quarrelling with the accused to discontinue the illegal intimacy with the daughter-in-law. Therefore, the accused decided to do away with the deceased. Accordingly the accused killed the deceased by throttling her neck and she died due to asphyxia. Initially the accused gave an impression to the people that the deceased died due to sickness, but on noticing the injuries on the dead body of the deceased, the witnesses suspected that it was not a natural death. The accused tried to cremate the dead body, but as the custom prevailing in their community do not permit it and at the instance of the relatives the dead body was buried. Subsequently, it came to light that the accused killed the deceased. Therefore, the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and postmortem was conducted and the doctor opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to pressing of neck. After the crime was registered and inquest was held, the witnesses were examined and after conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE defence of the accused was one of denial. ( 4 ) THE point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction given to him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are liable to be set aside by reversing the judgment of the lower Court. ( 5 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. ( 5 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 12. Nooralordocumentary evidence was adduced on defence side. ( 6 ) THE lower Court convicted the accused for both the offences. He was sentenced to undergo for imprisonment for life for the offence punishable undersection 302 IPC and he was also sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 7 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor contended that the accused was in the company of the deceased during the night of the date of offence. There was nobody in the house at the time of occurrence. By next morning the dead body of the deceased was in the house. He made the relations to understand that the deceased died due to ill-health, but while burying the dead body of the deceased, the injuries on the dead body were found and suspected that it was not a natural death. The dead body was buried. P. W. 1 gave the complaint four days later to the police mentioning that on 17-1 -2004 at about 10-00 a. m. he came to know the death of the deceased. He went to their house and made enquiries about the cause of death. The accused told him that she died due to ill-health. Afterwards accused buried the dead body, but it is suspected that the accused murdered his wife as she had resisted his extra-marital relations with his daughter-in-law. Therefore, he requested to enquire into the matter by visiting the scene of offence and to take action according to law. The police registered a crime, visited the scene of offence and exhumed the dead body of the deceased. The doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, was examined as P. W. 9. He stated that on 21 -1 -2004 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on requisition from the police. The dead body was in decomposed state and found a fracture on hyoid bone. On the basis of the examination of the dead body, he gave opinion that the dead of the deceased could have been caused due to asphyxia and cerebral anoxis. He gave Ex. P-10 postmortem report. The dead body was in decomposed state and found a fracture on hyoid bone. On the basis of the examination of the dead body, he gave opinion that the dead of the deceased could have been caused due to asphyxia and cerebral anoxis. He gave Ex. P-10 postmortem report. The doctor further opined that the fracture of hyoid bone found by him is possible, if the neck is pressed with hand. The doctors opinion coupled with the evidence of inquest panchas establish that the deceased was killed by pressing her neck. ( 8 ) P. W. 1, the Village Secretary, deposed that on 17-1 -2004 he came to know about the death of the deceased. He went to the accused and on enquiry the accused informed that the deceased died due to ill-health and three days after that there was a talk in the village that the accused killed the deceased on account of his illegal contacts with his daughter-in-law and the deceased resisting the same. ( 9 ) P. W. 2, the brother of the deceased, deposed that on hearing the news of the death of the deceased, he came to the house of the accused and found a towel placed around the neck of the dead body. They have a custom in theircommunity to bury thedead body, but the accused insisted that the dead body should be cremated. They got suspicion and checked the dead body of the deceased by removing the towel placed around the neck and found an injury on the neck of the deceased and that as it was late in the night, they did not complain to the police and the dead body was buried. He further stated that the accused had a son by name Rajeshwar to his first wife. He was in other counties for the last two years. Oneyear afterthe son left the country, the deceased (?)developed illicit contact with his daughter-in-law Laxmi and started harassing the deceased. The accused bore grudge against the deceased and resorted to kill her. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 who is the sisters son of the deceased, deposed that on reachingthescene, he found the dead body covered with a cloth and he saw the dead body when it was taken out for burial. According to their custom, the dead body was washed and hefound an injury on the neck of the deceased. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 who is the sisters son of the deceased, deposed that on reachingthescene, he found the dead body covered with a cloth and he saw the dead body when it was taken out for burial. According to their custom, the dead body was washed and hefound an injury on the neck of the deceased. They resisted the proposal of the accused to cremate the dead body and ultimately the dead body was buried. He also stated that the accused developed illicit intimacy with his daughter-in-law and used to beat the deceased. ( 11 ) P. W. 4, a resident of the village of the accused, deposed that on seeing the dead body, she found an injury on the neck of the deceased and had observed those wounds when the dead body was put to wash. The accused proposed for cremation of the dead body, but due to the intervention of the relations, the dead body was buried. They insisted for burying of the dead body, as there were injuries on the dead body, and if the dead body is cremated, it is not possible to verify the injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 5, a resident of Scan village, corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 4. P. W. 6 is a photographer. P. W. 7 is one of the mediators who was present at the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and he further stated that on exhumation of the dead body, he found an injury on the neck of the deceased and they concluded that the death of the deceased was due to neck injury. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is one of the mediators for the arrest of the accused and his confessional statement. ( 14 ) P. W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the present crime. P. W. 11 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. P. W. 12 is the Mandal Revenue officer, who acted as a mediatorfor exhumation of the dead body of the deceased. ( 15 ) THE evidence placed by the prosecution would indicate that there was an illicit intimacy of the accused with his daughter-in-law, when his son was in abroad since two years. P. W. 12 is the Mandal Revenue officer, who acted as a mediatorfor exhumation of the dead body of the deceased. ( 15 ) THE evidence placed by the prosecution would indicate that there was an illicit intimacy of the accused with his daughter-in-law, when his son was in abroad since two years. It was also made out by the prosecution that when the deceased was resisting the illegal contacts of the accused with his daughter-in-law, he was beating her and decided to kill her. It is also further made out that the anxiety exhibited by the accused to cremate the dead body of the deceased despite the relations insisting that as per custom prevailing in their community the dead body of the deceased shall be buried is also an indication that the accused was responsible for the commission of offences. According to the opinion of P. W. 9, the doctor, there was fracture of hyoid bone which will be caused due to the result of pressing of the neck. The inquest panchas also corroborated with the evidence of doctor that they noticed an injury on the neck of the deceased and the death was caused due to the pressing of neck. Despite the evidence of all these witnesses, there was no explanation from the accused either by way of cross-examination or examining the defence witnesses under what circumstances the death of the deceased occurred when he is in exclusive control of the dead body of the deceased in his house and when there was no access to anybody else and in the absence of the explanation by the accused, the only inference that could be drawn is that except the accused, there is no possibility of any other person killing the deceased. The lowercourt rightly came to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for commission of offences. ( 16 ) AFTER going through the oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the lower Court, we are convinced that the prosecution connected the chain of circumstances ruling out the possibility of any other person killing the deceased and the circumstances pointed out that the accused alone was responsible for the commission of offences. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. ( 17 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower Court in all respects.