Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 317 (AP)

Indoor Dattu v. State Of A. P.

2006-03-07

K.C.BHANU, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2006
K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-11 -2003 in Sessions case No. 392 of 2003 on the file of the II additinoal Sessions Judge (F. T. C.), Adilabad. The appellant is the sole accused in the sessions Case. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302. I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: the deceased-lndur Lingamma is wife of the accused. P. Ws. 5 to 7 and 11 are neighbours of the deceased and the accused. P. W. 9 is brotherof deceased. The deceased, the accused and the material witnesses were living in Kapri village. On 8-1-2002 at about 10. 00 a. m, the accused and the deceased started on a bullock cart along with their 3 years aged son from theirhouse. wentto Government School where P. W. 10 was working as a teacher and left their son in the company of one Swamy, who was studying in the school and related to accused. Since they were proceeding to a forest to collect firewood, the accused took an axe along with him. When they went to the land of P. W. 12, the accused hacked the deceased with M. 0. 14-axe due to which she died on the spot. P. Ws. 13 and 14 saw him while he was returning to village. P. W. 11, who is neighbourer of accused, saw the accused sitting in front of his house, who was weeping and in confused condition. When she questioned the accused, he revealed that he killed his wife in the land of P. W. 12. Thereupon, P. W. 11 rushed to P. Ws. 1 to 3 and informed about the confession made by the accused before her. P. Ws. 1 to 3 went to the house of accused and in their presence also the accused made extra Judicial confession that he killed his wife in the land of P. W. 12 since she developed illegal contacts with others. P. W. 1 required P. W. 2 and another to watch the movements of the accused and later went to the spot, verified the fact, prepared Ex. P-1-complaint and presented before police. Basing on the same, p. W. 17-Sub Inspector of Police registered the crime. P. W. 1 required P. W. 2 and another to watch the movements of the accused and later went to the spot, verified the fact, prepared Ex. P-1-complaint and presented before police. Basing on the same, p. W. 17-Sub Inspector of Police registered the crime. The accused confessed as in ex. P-22 when he was questioned by P. W. 19 inspector of police in the presence of P. W. 16 and others, led them to the land of P. W. 12 and produced M. O. 14-Knife which was seized under Ex. P.-23. The accused also produced his blood stained clothes M. Os. 15 and 16, which were seized under Ex. P-24. Thereafter, p. W. 19 conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased in the presence of P. W. 16 and others under Ex. P-20, seized M. Os. 1 to 11 and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W. 19 also conducted panchanama of scene of incident under ex. P-21 in the presence of P. W. 16 and others, seized M. Os. 12 and 13, examined P. Ws. 2 to 10, got photographed the dead body and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE substance of the charge framed against the appellant/accused is that on 8-1 -2002 at about 11. 00 a. m. at the outskirts of Kapri village in the fields of one Yelti keshav Reddy, the accused committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of his wife-lndur Lingamma by beating her with handle of axe on her head and throat suspecting herfidelity, and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 302 I. P. C. When the charge was put to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) TO substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 19 and got marked 32 documents Exs. P-1 to P-32 besides case property M. Os. 1 to 16. ( 5 ) AFTER closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused characterized their evidence to be false and stated that P. Ws. 1 and 12 foisted this case against him. He reported no defence evidence. ( 5 ) AFTER closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused characterized their evidence to be false and stated that P. Ws. 1 and 12 foisted this case against him. He reported no defence evidence. ( 6 ) BASING on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. , convicted and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused. ( 7 ) SRI E. Venkata Reddy, advocate, appointed as state brief contended that there is no direct evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased; that the extra judicial confession said to have been made to some of the prosecution witnesses is retracted and therefore it requires corroboration; that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is highly improbable; that there is delay in lodging the complaint; that the prosecution failed to prove that M. 0. 14-axe was used in commission of the offence; hence, he prays to allow the appeal. ( 8 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the death of deceased is homicidal; that immediately after the incident, the accused gave extra Judicial confession to several people and the same is not shown to have been made under threat or coercion; that there is evidence to show that the deceased and the accused were seen last together; that in view of the fact that the accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife, there was clear motive for the accused to commit the murder and he alone had grouse to do away the life of the deceased and there was no scope or possibility for any other person to commit murder of the deceased; that when the accused and the deceased were seen last together, it is not the case of the accused that she was done to death by some unknown assailants; that the trial court on an elaborate consideration of evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same; hence, he praysto dismiss the appeal. ( 9 ) P. W. 16 is one of the inquest mediators when the police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and also for seizure of M. Os. 1 to 11. He deposed that the inquest panchayatdars found one injury each on the neck and head, and concluded that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by her. P. W. 18 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased body of the deceased and found the following ante- mortem injuries. (1) Laceration present on the right parietal region 2 x 2 x 3 cms; (2) Comminuted fracture of right parietal bone; (3) Subdural haemotoma was present on the right parietal region; (4) Laceration over left supra clavical region 1 x 1 x 1 cm; (5) Contusion over left iliac fossa 4 x 2 cms. He opined that the deceased appeared to have died of cardiac respiratory arrest due to injury to vital organ viz. brain. Ex. P-26 is the post mortem certificate. He further stated that those injuries could be possible by beating with butt end of the axe like M. O. 14. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of p. W. 18. So, from the medical evidence, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution established its case against the appellant/accused for the charge levelled against him. ( 10 ) THE entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence only. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of prosecution. Now, it has to be seen whether the prosecution established its case against the appellant/accused for the charge levelled against him. ( 10 ) THE entire case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence only. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of prosecution. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the following points have to be proved by the prosecution in view of principles laid down by the Apex Court in a decision in padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra pradesh and others (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form achain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else;and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen that whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the appellant/accused as the assailant of the deceased. ( 11 ) THE motive for the offence is that the accused was suspecting fidelity of his wife. The evidence of P. W. 5 would go to show that the accused used to quarrel with his wife on the ground that she was not maintaining good character; that because of the harassment, the deceased left the company of the accused and started living with her parents; that about one month after, himself, the accused and his sister went to the house of deceased and brought her back to the house of accused. It is admitted by P. W. 5 that while the accused was in jail in another case, she was living with her parents. He has no grouse or enmity against the accused to speak false. His evidence would go to show that the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased. P. Ws. It is admitted by P. W. 5 that while the accused was in jail in another case, she was living with her parents. He has no grouse or enmity against the accused to speak false. His evidence would go to show that the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased. P. Ws. 8, 9 and 12 have categorically stated that the accused was suspecting fidelity of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. The above evidence would clearly go to show that there was a clear motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. ( 12 ) P. W. 6 stated that about 20 months back at about 10. 00 a. m, the deceased and the accused went to attend farm work and after coming to know about the incident, he went to the scene and saw the dead body with injuries. His evidence remained unchallenged. P. W. 7 also stated that on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased along with their two years old baby left their field on a cart, left their child in the house of one Swamy and they went to fields. Except suggesting that they both did not go together to the fields, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P. W. 7. The evidence of P. W. 10 would go to show that the accused and the deceased usually go to fields to attend farm work that on that day between 10. 00 and 11,00 a. m, the accused left his three year baby in the school with narala swamy. His evidence does not incriminate anything against the accused. At the same time, it is clear from the above evidence that when the accused started from the house, the deceased was also present along with him. ( 13 ) THE evidence of P. W. 11 also would go to show that at about 10. 00 a. m, the accused and the deceased went into forest to collect firewood and the accused took an axe with him; that around 11. 00 a. m, the accused alone returned home and he was in a confused manner in the house and when he questioned as to why he was so disturbed and confused, he stated before him that he killed his wife in the land of keshav Reddy. 00 a. m, the accused alone returned home and he was in a confused manner in the house and when he questioned as to why he was so disturbed and confused, he stated before him that he killed his wife in the land of keshav Reddy. So, the evidence on record would clearly indicate that on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased left their house along with their child, left the child for care and custody in the school and at about 11. 00 a. m, the accused alone returned to the house and informed some of the prosecution witnesses that he killed his wife. It is not the case of the accused that some unknown assailants attacked his wife and caused injuries to her or that for some other reason, some unknown assailants attacked the deceased and caused her death. In view of the time gap between the accused and the deceased going to the forest and the accused alone returning to the house, it would clearly indicate that this crime might have been committed by the accused alone and none else. ( 14 ) BESIDES these circumstances, there is evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 which would clearly go to show that the accused made extra judicial confession to them stating that he killed his wife by axing her. No doubt, extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, at the same time, if it is found to be true, correct and trustworthy, it can be acted upon. Whether extra judicial confession can be a sole basis for conviction or whether it should be corroborated on material particulars, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. P. Ws. 1 to 3 are strangers and it is not shown that they made any threat orcoercion to give the extra judicial confession. Further more, Ex. P-1, which is the earliest report, would go to show that the accused gave extra judicial confession to p. W. 1 and accordingly P. W. 1 went to police station and lodged Ex. P-1-report basing on which P. W. 17-Sub Inspector of Police registered the case. When once the recitals in Ex. P-1 are found to be true and correct, the law is well settled that they can be used to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1. P-1-report basing on which P. W. 17-Sub Inspector of Police registered the case. When once the recitals in Ex. P-1 are found to be true and correct, the law is well settled that they can be used to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1. Therefore, it is clear that in the earliest opportunity, the accused gave confession, which is not shown to be out of threat or coercion. Since the accused retracted the extra judicial confession said to have been made to these witnesses, the rule of prudence requires that it should be corroborated on material particulars. The other evidence on record would go to show that there is clear motive for the accused to commit the offence. Some of the prosecution witnesses saw the accused and the deceased going towards forest for collecting firewood and sometime later the accused alone returning from the forest. There is consistent evidence to the fact of accused informing about causing the injuries to the deceased to some of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, all these circumstances would clearly go to show that the circumstantial evidence unerringly points out the guilt of the accused only and none else. ( 15 ) THERE is yet another circumstance which would clearly go to show that P. W. 19- inspector of Police arrested the accused, before whom the accused gave confessional statement as in Ex. P-22 and offered to show the place where he concealed blood stained axe and in pursuance of the same, the accused produced M. O. 14 from the lands of keshava Reddy and the same was seized under Ex. P-24-panchanama. P. W. 18-Doctor opined that the injuries on the deceased could be possible by hitting with butt end of axe like M. O. 14. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record in right perspective and on an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty forthe offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 16 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12-11 -2003 in Sessions Case No. 392 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, adilabad.