Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1643 (AP)

NAMBURI KARUNASREE v. STATE OF A. P.

2006-12-29

A.GOPAL REDDY, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2006
G. YETHIRAJULU, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by A-l in S. C. No. 85 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional sessions Judge, Khammam. The appellant along with A-2 and A-3 was charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for allegedly killing her mother-in-law by administering poison at 9. 00 a. m. , on 5-8-2003 at their house. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows: a-l is the daughter of A-2 and A-3. A-l was married to PW-2. PW-1 is the father and the deceased was the mother of PW-2. At the time of marriage, A-2 and a-3 agreed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- towards dowry, but paid only Rs. 40,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within two years, but they failed to do so, therefore, PW-2 and the deceased used to ask A-2 and A-3 to pay the balance amount and they stopped coming to the house of the deceased. A-l went to her parents' house for delivery and she gave birth to a daughter. Five months later, A-l was brought to the house of the deceased and due to that, A-l wanted to get rid of the deceased and attempted to kill the deceased with rat poison on a previous occasion. On the date of incident at about 9. 00 a. m. , A-l mixed pesticide poison granules in the tea and gave it to the deceased. On consuming the tea, while expressing that the tea is giving a different taste, the deceased fell down and died. When PW-2 asked A-l as to why the deceased died after consuming tea, A-l disclosed that she mixed pesticide poison into tea and due to that the deceased died. PW-1, the husband of the deceased, gave Ex. P-1 complaint to the police. The police registered a crime, took up investigation, observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The Forensic science Laboratory, after examining the viscera, came to a conclusion that the deceased died due to organophosphate insecticide poison. The police arrested the accused and sent them for remand and after conclusion of the investigation, they laid the charge-sheet. The Forensic science Laboratory, after examining the viscera, came to a conclusion that the deceased died due to organophosphate insecticide poison. The police arrested the accused and sent them for remand and after conclusion of the investigation, they laid the charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs. l to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and m. Os. l to 3. On defence side, DW-1 was examined and Ex. D-1 was marked. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions judge found A-2 and A-3 not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted. A-l was found guilty of the offence under section 302 of IPC and accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Court, dated 22-6-2005, A-l preferred the present Appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 4 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial and the further defence is that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5. ( 5 ) IN Ex. Pl complaint given by PW1, he stated that on 5-8-2003 in the morning time at about 9. 00 a. m. , the deceased asked a-l for a tea. A-l brought and gave the tea in a tumbler. The deceased while consuming the tea expressed that she is getting some foul smell in the tea. On hearing those words, A-1 went into the lane. PW-2 followed her and noticed A-l throwing insecticide pills by picking them from saree. PW-2 brought those granules to him and they recognized it as insecticide pills. In the meanwhile, the deceased fell unconscious. When A-l was asked as to what she mixed in the tea, she replied that she killed the deceased by mixing the insecticide pills in the tea in the presence of PWs. 3 and 4. They shifted the deceased to the hospital in an auto and when they reached near the outskirts of Gokinepalli, the deceased died. They brought back the dead body of the deceased and on the advice of the villagers, he gave a complaint to the police. 3 and 4. They shifted the deceased to the hospital in an auto and when they reached near the outskirts of Gokinepalli, the deceased died. They brought back the dead body of the deceased and on the advice of the villagers, he gave a complaint to the police. It is further mentioned that PW-4 and one Lakki Shanthamma informed them that A-l asked them to give rat poison to kill the deceased. The accused resorted to poison the deceased with the object to eliminate her. In killing the deceased by A-l, the role of A-2 and a-3 was also there. ( 6 ) PW-1, in his evidence, deposed that the marriage between A-l and PW-2 took place about three and half years prior to the incident. The deceased was the mother of PW-2. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-l. At the time of marriage, a-2 and A-3 agreed to give Rs. 1,20,000/-towards dowry and paid only Rs. 40,000/-and promised to pay the balance of rs. 80,000/- within a period of two years, but they failed to keep up the promise. PW-2 and the deceased used to demand a-2 and A-3 to pay the balance amount as and when they visit their house. A-2 and a-3 did not give any reply and stopped coming to their house. When A-l was carrying second month for delivery, she went to her parents' house. Since then, the deceased and PW-2 used to demand the balance amount and A-l used to quarrel with the deceased or each and every trivial matter. After giving birth to a daughter, A-l came to their house two months after the delivery and slept for one night in the house and went back to her parents' house at Vallabhi Village. About five months after the delivery, he went to the house of the accused to bring the children to their house. The maternal grandmother of A-l also accompanied to their house. On the next day morning, the maternal grandmother of A-l returned to her house. The incident took place on the day after A-l was brought to their house i. e. , 5-8-2003. On the date of offence at about 9. 00 a. m. , pw-2 and himself were preparing a cradle in the varandah of their house for the daughter of PW-2. The incident took place on the day after A-l was brought to their house i. e. , 5-8-2003. On the date of offence at about 9. 00 a. m. , pw-2 and himself were preparing a cradle in the varandah of their house for the daughter of PW-2. The deceased was also sitting nearby them in the varandah and she asked A-l to bring a tea for her. A-l brought the tea in a steel tumbler and gave it to the deceased and the deceased drank the same. By drinking the tea the deceased stated that the tea is tasting vagaru (pungent taste ). Within two minutes thereafter, the deceased stood up and stated to them that she lost her vision and so saying she fell down and became unconscious. Immediately PW. 2 and himself started weeping and crying. On seeing it, a-l ran away towards rear side of their house. PW-2 followed her. A-l sat on the rear side of their house by keeping the hands on her waist. When PW-2 demanded to unfold the hands, A-l unfolded her hands and PW-2 found a packet in the hands of A-l containing pesticide granules. On hearing their cries, PWs. 3 and 4 came to their house. After their arrival, PW-2 brought A-l from the rear side of the house with pesticide granules packet. They questioned A-l in the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 as to why the deceased had fallen after consuming the tea and why she was keeping pesticide granules in her hand, for which A-l stated that at the instance of a-2 and A-3, she mixed the pesticide granules in the tea and gave it to the deceased. They did not ask A-l the reason for administering the pesticide poison to the deceased and she did not tell the cause to them. Again A-l went to the rear portion of the house. In the meanwhile, he brought PW-7, an RMP doctor of their village and he examined the deceased and advised to take to a specialist doctor for treatment. Immediately, they secured an auto and took the deceased to the Government hospital, Khammam. They also accompanied the deceased. When the auto passed gokinepalli Village, the deceased found dead. They brought back the dead body of the deceased to their house. Later, they decided to give a complaint against the accused and accordingly, he presented Ex. Immediately, they secured an auto and took the deceased to the Government hospital, Khammam. They also accompanied the deceased. When the auto passed gokinepalli Village, the deceased found dead. They brought back the dead body of the deceased to their house. Later, they decided to give a complaint against the accused and accordingly, he presented Ex. P-1 complaint and it was registered as a crime. The version of PW-1 corroborated with the earliest version given in Ex. P-1 on all material aspects. ( 7 ) PW-2, the husband of A-1, deposed that on the date of offence at about 9. 00 a. m. , when PW-1 and himself were tying a cradle to the varandh for the use of his kid, the deceased asked A-l to bring tea to her. A-l went inside and brought m. O. 1 flask containing tea and steel tumbler. She poured the tea from the flask into the M. O. 2 tumbler and gave it to the deceased. PW-1 and himself also asked a-l to serve the tea to them, but A-l stated to them that the tea in the flask is exhausted and so saying she went inside. The deceased drank the tea served by A-1. While drinking the tea, the deceased stated that the tea is "vagaru". Within 5 or 6 minutes, the deceased fell down by saying that she is feeling something bad in the stomach and giddiness and later she became unconscious. They immediately stopped tying the cradle and tried to talk with the deceased as to what happened, but she could not talk to them. When the deceased fell down, A-l went inside the house and he followed her. She was going to the rear side of the house and took out a packet from her waist into her hand and after seeing him, she behaved suspiciously. He held the hand of A-l and he smelt the odour of pesticide granules. A-1 was brought to the deceased, while she was holding pesticide packet in her hand. When the packet was opened, some pesticide granules fell on the ground. In the meanwhile, pws. 3 and 4 came to their house. In their presence, when A-l was asked as to why she kept pesticide granules in her hand, she replied that she brought the pesticide granules from the village of A-2 and A-3 and gave them to the deceased. In the meanwhile, pws. 3 and 4 came to their house. In their presence, when A-l was asked as to why she kept pesticide granules in her hand, she replied that she brought the pesticide granules from the village of A-2 and A-3 and gave them to the deceased. A-2 and a-3 instigated her to administer the same on the deceased with a hope that if the deceased dies, she would get the management of the house. ( 8 ) PW-7, an RMP doctor who examined the deceased, advised them to take the deceased to Government Hospital, khammam. When she died on the way to gokinepalli Village, they brought back the dead body of the deceased and kept in the varandah of the house. The villagers advised PW-1 to give a complaint to the police and accordingly, they presented ex. P-1 complaint. ( 9 ) PW-3, a resident of the opposite house to the house of PW-1, deposed that the deceased died on the date of offence at about 9. 00 a. m. She heard the cries and rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying on the ground unconscious and froth was coining from her mouth. PWs. l and 2 were also present with the deceased. A-l was going towards rear side of the house. PW-4 also came to the scene of offence at the same time. PW-2 followed A-l to the rear side of the house. Within five minutes, PW-2 brought a-l and pointed out that pesticide granules were in the hands of A-l. When PW-1 asked, A-l denied the administration of poison and subsequently admitted that she mixed the pesticide granules in the tea at the instance of A-2 and A-3. In the meanwhile, PW-7, an RMP doctor was brought by PW-1. The doctor advised them to take the deceased to the hospital for better treatment. PWs. l and 2 took the deceased in an autorickshaw to Khammam and within 45 minutes, they brought back the dead body of the deceased to the house of PW-1. ( 10 ) PW-4, a resident of the same village, deposed that on the date of incident, he heard cries from the house of pw-1. She immediately rushed to the house and found PW-3 going to the house of PW-1. ( 10 ) PW-4, a resident of the same village, deposed that on the date of incident, he heard cries from the house of pw-1. She immediately rushed to the house and found PW-3 going to the house of PW-1. Simultaneously on entering the house, the deceased stated to them that she is feeling something bad in the stomach. Within few minutes thereafter, she became unconscious. When they were asking PW-1 as to how the incident occurred, they noticed PW-2 bringing A-l from a lane. They found M. O. 3, pesticide granules packet, in the hands of A-l. When questioned by PW-1, A-l stated that at the instance of A-2 and A-3, she administered the poison. Subsequently, PW-7 examined the deceased and advised to take the deceased to Government Hospital, khammam. On the way to the hospital the deceased died and they brought the dead body of the deceased to the house of pw-1. ( 11 ) PW-5, a resident of the same village, deposed that on the date of offence at about 9-00 a. m. , one Chittibabu and himself were at the centre of the village. They heard the cries of PW-1 and went to their house. The deceased was lying on a cot in the varandah of the house and froth was coming out from the mouth of the deceased. PW-1 brought PW-7 and on his advise, they took the deceased to the government Hospital, Khammam and on the way, the deceased died and they brought back the dead body to the house of PW-1. All the witnesses denied a suggestion that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. ( 12 ) FROM the above evidence, the prosecution is able to establish that A-l mixed pesticide granules in the tea given to the deceased and the deceased on consuming the tea, remained unconscious and when they were on the way to the hospital, the deceased died and they brought back the dead body. There are no major contradictions in the version given by PWs. l to 5 and the minor contradictions, if any, will not affect the veracity of the witnesses regarding the narration of the commission of the offence. There are no major contradictions in the version given by PWs. l to 5 and the minor contradictions, if any, will not affect the veracity of the witnesses regarding the narration of the commission of the offence. ( 13 ) PW-8, the then Village Secretary, deposed that on the date of offence, he was informed by the villagers that the deceased died on account of administering pesticide poison in the tea by A-l. He immediately went to the house of A-l and saw the dead body lying in the varandah. He prepared Ex. P-1 report as per the instructions of PW-1 and PW-1 took the said report and presented the same to the police. He further stated that he was one of the panchas for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased on the next morning from 8. 00 a. m. to 11-00 a. m. and the inquest panchas opined that as the body was emitting pungent odour, they opined that the deceased died due to administering of pesticide poison. He was also one of the mediators for the observation report and seizure of M. Os. l and 2 from the scene of offence. When A-l was present in the house of PW-1, he interrogated her and on the information given by A-l, the pesticide granules were recovered in the rear portion of the house, which was hidden on the sunshade, and they were produced by A-l before them and the police seized M. O. 3 packet containing pesticide granules. ( 14 ) PW-9, the Sarpanch of Rayagudem village, also spoke about the recovery of m. O. 3, pesticide granules, at the instance of a-l. ( 15 ) PW-10, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, deposed that on examination of the body, she did not find any external injuries. On dissection of the body, she found lungs and peritoneal cavity congested. She also found the brain and manejes and cerebral vessels congested. Stomach contained about 100 ml of gastic fluids. Small intestines contained digest fluids. She preserved viscera and the same was sent for Warangal for analysis. She received ex. P-9 FSL Report and on the basis of it, she gave final opinion that the deceased died on account of consumption of organo phosphate, an insecticide poison. ( 16 ) PW-11, the Sub-Inspector of police, deposed that on receipt of Ex. She preserved viscera and the same was sent for Warangal for analysis. She received ex. P-9 FSL Report and on the basis of it, she gave final opinion that the deceased died on account of consumption of organo phosphate, an insecticide poison. ( 16 ) PW-11, the Sub-Inspector of police, deposed that on receipt of Ex. P-1 report at 11-30 p. m. , on 5-8-2003, the same was registered as a crime and issued FIRs to all the concerned and he assisted the inspector of Police in conducting the investigation. ( 17 ) PW-12 the Inspector of Police, deposed about the investigation conducted by him. In the cross-examination, he stated that PWs. 3 and 4 did not state before him that they have seen a packet of pesticide granules and A-l stated to them that at the instance of A-2 and A-3, she mixed the pesticide granules in the tea and served it to the deceased. ( 18 ) THE evidence of the above witnesses and the inquest panchas clearly indicate that the deceased died of insecticide poison. It is also established by the prosecution that M. O. 3 pesticide granules were recovered at the instance of A-l. It was also established that A-l administered poison to the deceased by mixing it in the tea served on the deceased at 9. 00 a. m. , on the date of offence. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was delay in preferring the FIR. Though the offence alleged to be committed at 9. 00 a. m. , the complaint was not given to police till 11-30 p. m. , therefore, there was delay 13-30 hours in preferring the complaint, therefore, there is any amount of doubt about the implication of A-l, therefore, she is entitled for the benefit of doubt. ( 20 ) IN Vidyadharan v. State of kerala, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1019 (SC) = (2004) 1 SCC 215 , the Supreme Court held that the delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. ( 20 ) IN Vidyadharan v. State of kerala, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1019 (SC) = (2004) 1 SCC 215 , the Supreme Court held that the delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained. ( 21 ) IN State of Punjab v. Ramdev singh, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 160 (SC) = (2004) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court held: "delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the First Information Report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version, as was done by the high Court in the present case. " ( 22 ) IN Malkhansingh v. State of m. P. , 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 191 (SC) = (2003) 5 SCC 746 , the Supreme Court held: "the delay, if any, in lodging the First information Report was if fully explained by the prosecution and was strongly supported by the circumstantial evidence, such delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. " ( 23 ) THOUGH there is delay in giving complaint to the police, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence took place at 9. 00 a. m. , and the deceased struggled for sometime and took sometime for PWs. l and 2 to realize that the deceased was administered poison and it took further time to secure an autorickshaw to take the deceased to the hospital at Khammam. When the deceased died on the way to Khammam, they again returned with the dead body of the deceased and kept it in the varandah. Since a-l was the member of the family, initially, pw-1 hesitated whether a complaint has to be given to the police or not, but ultimately on the advise of PWs. When the deceased died on the way to Khammam, they again returned with the dead body of the deceased and kept it in the varandah. Since a-l was the member of the family, initially, pw-1 hesitated whether a complaint has to be given to the police or not, but ultimately on the advise of PWs. 3 and 4 and other villagers, they decided to give a complaint to the police. The Police Station is at a distance of 20 Kms from their village, therefore, it might have taken at least one hour to one half hour to reach the Police Station after getting Ex. P-1 drafted and signed. In the light of the above reasons and as the prosecution did not implicate many persons at the time of giving the complaint, the accused is not entitled for the benefit of doubt on the ground of delay. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of pws. 1 to 5 leading to a conclusion whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is true, therefore, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. ( 25 ) IN Shamsuddin v. State of M. P. , 2005 SCC (Crl.) 842, the Supreme Court held that: "minor variations in the evidence of a witness, which do not effect the credibility of the evidence, cannot be the basis to discard the intrinsic value of the evidence. " ( 26 ) THOUGH there are some variations in the version of the witnesses, they are minor in nature and there are no material contradictions in the evidence of PWs. l to 5. The witnesses, instead of giving a parrot like version, gave their evidence in the natural way by describing the incident in their own language, therefore, some minor contradictions are bound to occur. As the incident proper has been well explained by all the witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that the contradictions, if any, which are minor in nature are not going to affect the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of doubt on this ground. As the incident proper has been well explained by all the witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that the contradictions, if any, which are minor in nature are not going to affect the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of doubt on this ground. ( 27 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that though A-l was attributed the administering of poison, she did not abscond from the house and that itself is an indication that A-l did not commit any offence, otherwise she would have escaped from the house due to fear, therefore, the case is foisted against her when the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison by herself and in support of the said version, the accused examined dw-1. ( 28 ) THE learned Counsel further submitted that the FSL Report do not disclose any poison on flask or tumbler, therefore, the version of the prosecution witnesses that A-1 poured tea in the tumbler from the flask by mixing the poison and gave to the deceased cannot be accepted, therefore, absence of poison on M. Os. 4 and 5 creates any amount of doubt whether a-l was responsible for administering the poison. He further submitted that the lower court mostly relied on the 161 Cr. P. C. , statements of the witnesses instead of scanning the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in the Court, therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. ( 29 ) DW-1 spoke about the balance of dowry amount and payment of Rs. 65,000/-to PWs. l and 2 after two years of the marriage. One month thereafter, A-2 and another man went to PW-2 and gave rs. 15,000/ -. When they demanded return of the documents executed by A-2 as security, pws. l and 2 refused to return the documents, unless they pay interest @ 24% per annum on the balance amount and later, on hearing of the death of the deceased, A-2 and A-3 and others went to the house of PW-1 and saw the dead body of the deceased. ( 30 ) DW-1 is a close relation of A-2 and A-3. He is not free from bias due to relation with A-2 and A-3. ( 30 ) DW-1 is a close relation of A-2 and A-3. He is not free from bias due to relation with A-2 and A-3. But, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that A-l decided to eliminate the deceased to remove her obstruction from the family and in that process, she once tried to kill the deceased by administering rat poison, but not succeed and resorted to commit the present offence in her further attempt to eliminate the deceased, therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the presence of A-l at the house is creating a doubt about her complicity in this offence. ( 31 ) AFTER taking into consideration the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the lower court, we are convinced that the lower court rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of A-l beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the entire evidence, we are convinced that the prosecution made out a clear case against A-l and the lower Court rightly convicted her and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. ( 32 ) IN the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the lower Court in all respects. .