Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 881 (AP)

Vangala Balamallu v. State of A. P.

2006-07-24

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2006
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 01.05.1998 passed in S.C. No. 845 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned II Additional Sessions Judge found A1-Vangala Balamallu guilty for the offences under Sections 304-Part-II and 201 IPC and A3-Gandla Narasiah @ Muthyala Narsaiah guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced A1 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 304-Part-II IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months and A3 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are A1 and A3. They along with another accused person (A2-Buchala Mallaiah) were put on trial before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for the offences under Sections 304 and 201 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is:— A1 and A2 are adjacent owners of lands. A2 was digging a well in his l and. A1 permitted stocking of the soil removed from the well of A2 on his land. While so, Vangala Ramaiah, the father of A1 objected for A2 stocking earth on his land. There was some altercation between A1 and Vangala Ramaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and in the said altercation A1 pulled a stick from the hand of the deceased and beat him on abdomen. As a result, the deceased fell and later got up and left the field proclaiming that he would report to the police. Ultimately, the deceased found hanging in his cattle shed. A report-Ex. P1 came to be presented by RW. 1, the Sarpanch of the village. P.W. 11 received Ex. P1 report, registered a case in Crime No. 182 of 1995 under Section 174 Cr. P.C. and took up investigation. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 7 and another namely Gaddam Bhoomaiah (L.W. 10). He examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. Ex. P4 is the inquest report. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 10-Dr. P.C. and took up investigation. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 7 and another namely Gaddam Bhoomaiah (L.W. 10). He examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. Ex. P4 is the inquest report. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W. 10-Dr. S. Krishna Murthy, Medical Officer in Government Civil Hospital, Siricilla conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body on 30.12.1995 at 10.00 a.m. and found the following injuries. 1. Semi circular ligature mark of about 1? width around the neck except on the back. 2. Contusion over the right mandible measuring 1 ½? × 1?. 3. Contusion over the left lower part of thorox and left Hypochondrim extending into left infra axillary area measuring 3? × 1?. 4. Fracture of left thorasic ribs 9th, 10th, 11th ribs at the mid axillary line. 5. Rupture of spleen present, approximately 200 ml of blood clots present around the splenic area. 3. He opined that the deceased died due to splenic rupture. Ex. P. 6 is the postmortem report issued by P.W. 10. P.W. 12-Sub-Inspector of Police altered the Section of Law and filed Ex. P18 memo of alteration of Section of law. P.W. 13 took up investigation, arrested A1 to A3 and recovered the weapon-M.O. 1-stick in pursuance of the disclosure statement of A1 in the presence of P.W. 8 and another. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siricilla. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 68 of 1996 and committed;, the case to the Sessions Division, Karimnagar. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No. 845 of 1996 and made over the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, for disposal according to law. 4. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed three charges. Charge No. 1 against A1 for the offence under Section 304 IPC. Charge No. 2 against A1 for the offence under Section 201 IPC and charge No. 3 against A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 201 read with 304 IPC. He read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Charge No. 2 against A1 for the offence under Section 201 IPC and charge No. 3 against A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 201 read with 304 IPC. He read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and proved 10 documents and exhibited one material object as M.O. 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 guilty for the offences under Sections 304-Part-II and 201 IPC and A3 guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as stated above, by judgment dated 01.05.1998. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by A1 and A3. 6. The learned legal aid Counsel appearing for the appellants 1 and 2/A1 and A3 submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 cannot be believed since they did not speak anything during the course of inquest. He would further submit that there is no evidence against the appellant No. 2-A3 that he concealed the offence committed by A1 and thus, he contends, the conviction of the appellants 1 and 2/A1 and A3 for the offences under Sections 304-Part-II and 201 IPC is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are independent witnesses and there is no reason to speak false against the appellants/accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants 1 and 2/A1 and A3 for the offences under Sections 304-Part-II and 201 IPC is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered in this criminal appeal. 8. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to substantiate the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged. P.W. 1 is the first informant and he is the Sarpanch of the village. Ex. P1 is the report presented by him, which formed the basis for register of a case in Crime No. 182 of 1995 under Section 174 Cr. P.C. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W. 1 is the first informant and he is the Sarpanch of the village. Ex. P1 is the report presented by him, which formed the basis for register of a case in Crime No. 182 of 1995 under Section 174 Cr. P.C. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased as well as the wife of appellant No. 1/A1. P.W. 4 is the daughter of the deceased and wife of appellant No. 2/A3. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are residents of Jillella Village. They were near the scene of offence attending to their respective agricultural works in fields on the date of the incident. P.W. 7 is the panch witness for the inquest held on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 8 is the panch witness for confession and recovery of M.O. 1-stick in pursuance of the disclosure statement of A1. P.W. 10 is the Postmortem doctor. P.Ws. 11 to 13 are the investigating officers. A1 is the son and A3 is the son-in-law of the deceased. A2 is the owner of the land, which is adjacent to the land of A1. 9. The plea of the accused is that the deceased committed suicide being not able to put up with the pain due to phailaria. The defence pleaded by the accused is proved to be absurd by the evidence of postmortem doctor. The accused did not choose to cross-examine the post-mortem doctor. The injuries noticed on the dead body by the post-mortem doctor have been detailed in the aforesaid portions of the judgment. The opinion of the postmortem doctor is crystal clear that the deceased died due to splenic rupture. It can be said without any controversy that the death of the deceased is homicidal. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 are the independent witnesses. Nothing is suggested to them that they have any hostility towards the accused or they are the witnesses set up by the police. Their evidence is crystal clear that it is A1, who beat the deceased with a stick on the abdomen. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found that the appellant No. 1/A1 is responsible for the death of the deceased. What Section 201 requires is that the accused must have had the intention of screening the offender. The trial Court appreciated the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found that the appellant No. 1/A1 is responsible for the death of the deceased. What Section 201 requires is that the accused must have had the intention of screening the offender. To put it differently, the intention to serene the offender must be primary and sole object of the accused. The fact that the concealment was likely to have the effect is not sufficient. Section 201 speaks of intention as distinct from a mere likelihood vide the decision of Supreme Court in Sou. Vijaya @ Baby v. State of Maharashtra (1) 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998 10. The offences under Section 201 IPC is of independent nature, though it cannot be separated from the substances of main offence, to bring home a charge under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that an offence has been committed, (2) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence, (3) that with such knowledge or belief he (a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or (b) gave any information relating to that offence which he then knew or believed to be false (4) That he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. (5) If the charge is of an aggravated form, it must be further proved that the office in respect of which the accused did as in (3) and (4) supra, was punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to ten years. 11. With regard to the appellant No. 2/A3, there is no evidence whatsoever that he assisted the appellant No. 1/A1 in concealing the offence committed by him. Except the fact that the appellant No. 2/A3 happened to be the brother-in-law of A1, there is no other evidence to connect him with the screening of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed by A1. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant No. 2/A3 for the offence under Section 201 IPC is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant No. 2-Gandla Narsaiah @ Muthyala (A3) for the offence under Section 201 IPC and he is acquitted of the same. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant No. 2-Gandla Narsaiah @ Muthyala (A3) for the offence under Section 201 IPC and he is acquitted of the same. Fine amount paid, if any, is ordered to be refunded. The conviction and sentence of the appellant No. 1-Vangala Balamallu-A1 for the offences under Sections 304-Part-II and 201 IPC is confirmed. 13. The bail bonds were already been cancelled as per the orders dated 05.06.2006 and the trial Court was directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrants. As on this day, no communication has been received from the trial Court with regard to execution of N.B. Ws. In case, Non-Bailable Warrants are executed against the appellants No. 1 and 2/A1 and A3, the appellant No. 2-Gandla Narasaiah @ Musthyala Narsaiah (A3) shall be set at liberty forthwith. With regard to the appellant No. 1/Vangala Balamallu (A1), he shall be committed to prison to serve the reminder of sentence.