Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 275 (AP)

Mousul @ Mannur Narayan Reddy v. State Of A. P.

2006-03-01

K.C.BHANU, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2006
T. MEENA KUMARI, J, J. ( 1 ) THE present appeal is preferred by the appellant- accused aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned iv Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast track Court), L. B. Nagar, Rangareddy district, in Sessions Case No. 1106 of 2002 on 18-6-2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows : ( 3 ) ON 17-3-2002 at 9. 15 hours, the complainant (P. W. I), who was doing Timber business under the name and style of M/s vishwakarma Timber Depot at Kothapet X roads, lodged a complaint stating that the accused used to work as machine operator under him and that a room was provided to him by P. W. I to live along with his family. The wife of the accused viz. , Yashoda (for short, the deceased) also used to work as a maid-servant at the house of P. W. 1. ( 4 ) WHILE so, on 17-3-2002 morning at about 8-15 hours, the complainant (P. W. I) having come to know that the accused beat his wife indiscriminately with a wooden stick and caused injuries, went to the room of the accused and knocked at the door, but the accused did not open it. After sometime, the accused opened the door and came out stating that he became mad and threw the stick and ran away. When he peeped into the room, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and also found the son and daughter of the deceased sitting on a cot. On enquiry, the children informed that the deceased and the accused entered into a quarrel in connection with a purse belonging to one Laxmaiah (P. W. 2 ). When the deceased demanded to return the money and the purse, the accused removed cash from it and threw empty purse. ( 5 ) ON receipt of the above complaint, a case in Crime No. 22 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 was registered against the accused and investigated into. During the course of investigation, an inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased, and P. W. 4, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. During the course of investigation, an inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased, and P. W. 4, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. ( 6 ) AFTER filing the charge-sheet, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Hyderabad, East and North, rangareddy District, committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Rangareddy Division. The learned Sessions Judge registered the same as a Sessions Case and made over the same to the learned I Additional Sessions judge, Rangareddy District. After formation of Fast Track Courts, the above Sessions case was transferred to the learned IV additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, rangareddy District for disposal. ( 7 ) THE charge levelled against the appellant-accused reads as follows :"on 17-3-2002 at about 8. 15 hours, at the house of owner of M/s. Vishwakarma Timber depot, Kothapet X Roads, the accused did commit murder of his wife viz. , Yashoda, the deceased, by beating her with stick and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. "when the charge was readover and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty. ( 8 ) IN Order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined P. Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-18 besides m. Os. l to 9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was subjected to examination under Section 313 cr. P. C by putting incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The plea of the accused is of total denial. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused. ( 9 ) ON appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found the appellant-accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Having aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal. 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Having aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal. ( 10 ) AT the very out set, it is pertinent to note that Sri N. Ashok Kumar, appearing for the appellant-sole accused informed that since the appellant-accused escaped from central prison, Cherlapally and no instructions have been received from the relations of the appellant-accused, he would not like to continue to be on record. Hence, this Court appointed Sri S. Subba Reddy, Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist this Court. ( 11 ) HEARD Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended that the cross-examination of P. W. I itself falsifies ex. P. l complaint and the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is very contradictory and therefore, much weight cannot be attached to it. It is further contended that non-examination of the children, who were alleged to have been present at the relevant point of time, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the procedure followed in recovery of M. Os. l to 8 and sending the same to the FSL, is contrary to law. It is further contended that the judgment under appeal is only on conjectures and surmises and as such, a conviction cannot be based on mere surmises in the absence of any direct evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence, the conviction and the sentence imposed against the appellant-accused, are liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor contended that merely on the ground that P. W. I does not know the telugu language, Ex. P-1 as well as his evidence cannot be thrown away. It is further contended that in view of the F. S. L. report (Ex. P. l8) opining the blood found on the material objects as that of the deceased, an inference can easily be drawn that it is the accused, who committed the offence and therefore, the accused is not even entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 14 ) PERUSED the material available on record and the judgment under appeal. ( 15 ) AT the very outset, let us examine the cause of the death of the deceased. ( 14 ) PERUSED the material available on record and the judgment under appeal. ( 15 ) AT the very outset, let us examine the cause of the death of the deceased. In this regard, the evidence of P. W. 4, medical Officer, P. W. 6-one of the inquest mediators, Ex. P3-Inquest Panchanama and ex. P-2-Post-mortem certificate are relevant for consideration. ( 16 ) P. W. 4-MEDICAL Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased :1. A laceration 9 x 8 cm. , x bond deep over the right fronto temporal area, 5 cm. , above to ear, near to midline obliquely placed red in colour;2. A laceration 5 x 1 cm. , x bone deep over the middle of head obliquely placed, red in colour;3. A laceration 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the right forehead 5 cms. , away from midline, 4 cm. , above eyebrow, read in colour. The above lacerations surrounded with contused abrasion;4. A scalp contused abrasion 20 x 18 cm. , over the skull covering fronto, tempero, parietal areas, red in colour, after reflexion of the scalp;5. A depressed commuted fracture 5 x 4 cms. , over the right fronto temporal bones obliquely placed with radiating fissure fracture indifferent directions diffused subdural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage present all over the brain;6. Closed fracture of left forearm bones at lower l/3rd with haematoma. His testimony clearly goes to show that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury. ( 17 ) THE evidence of the P. W. 6 and ex. P-3 inquest panchanama coupled with the medical evidence discloses that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by her. ( 18 ) NOW, let us examine as to whether the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 19 ) IN this regard, we have to examine the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. ( 20 ) P. W. I deposed that he gave a complaint to the police as to the death of the deceased. The endorsement on Ex. ( 19 ) IN this regard, we have to examine the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. ( 20 ) P. W. I deposed that he gave a complaint to the police as to the death of the deceased. The endorsement on Ex. P7 f. I. R. clearly shows that as if P. W. I has given the written complaint, which was in telugu whereas from his cross-examination, it is elicited that he can not write and read telugu language and he got written the complaint by the police and he subscribed his signature. In view of this controversy, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution, we feel that the approach of P. W. I is not in all fairness. ( 21 ) THE testimony of P. W. 2, who was a watchman in P. W. 1 s mill, goes to show that the accused was working in the timber depot and one day prior to the incident, he lost his purse. He further deposed that when p. W. I went to the house of the accused and knocked the door, the accused opened the door and came out with a stick. He also deposed that himself, his wife and P. W. I went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the wife of the accused and also found two children sitting near the dead body. From this evidence, it is clear that himself, his wife and P. W. I went to the house and saw the dead body and children sitting on the cot. But, he did not state as deposed by P. W. I, according to whom, when he enquired the children as to what happened, they revealed that their mother and father quarrelled with regard to the purpose of P. W. 2. If really, P. W. 2 and his wife accompanied P. W. I to the house of the accused, it is not known as to what has prevented him from disclosing the facts alleged to have been spoken to by the children. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not give any complaint as to the loss of his purse. He deposed that he does not know the cause of death of the deceased. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not give any complaint as to the loss of his purse. He deposed that he does not know the cause of death of the deceased. ( 22 ) AS per the evidence of P. W. 3, wife of P. W. 2, when the children were questioned, the boy informed that the quarrel was due to a purse. At that time P. W. 2 was also present. In this regard, the evidence of P. W. 2 is not in corroboration with that of p. W. 3. Apart from that, the evidence of p. W. I is also not consistent with that of p. Ws. 2 and 3 as to their presence along with him at the time of entering into the room/house of the accused and also as to the enquiring the children in their presence. ( 23 ) THUS, a bare perusal of the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3 goes to show that their evidence is inconsistent with each other. In this view of the matter, it is much difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to what was the real cause leading to the commission of the offence in question. ( 24 ) IT is well settled that in the absence of mens rea and apart from that in the absence of any incriminating circumstances, a person cannot be connected with a crime on mere possibilities or probabilities. ( 25 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the procedure adopted by the investigating agency with regard to recovery of the material objects and also with regard to sending them to the FSL is contrary to law. A perusal of Ex. P -18 FSL report goes to show that Ex. P-18 has been addressed to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Saroomagar sub-Division, Rangareddy District. Now, it has to be seen as to whether there was any violation of the procedure by the Investigating Agency.