Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1241 (AP)

Samineni Upender Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2007-12-27

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2007
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- The appellant was accused of killing his stepmother Samineni Savithramma, and causing grievous injury to PWs.3 and 4; at 2:00 a.m., on the intervening night of 6th and 7th April 2003. He was tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C., respectively, in S.C. No.4 of 2004 in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam. Through its judgment dated 29.7.2005, the trial Court convicted the appellant for both the offences. It sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Simple imprisonment for one year was imposed for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 2. The gist of the accusation against the appellant is as under: PW.4, Madhava Rao, married Kamalamma-DW.l, and through her, he had two sons, i.e. PWJ and the appellant. On the ground that Kamalamma deserted him, when PW.3 and the appellant were of very young age, he married Savithramma, the deceased. Through her, he had PW.1. One month after the marriage of PW.1, PW.4 effected partition of the properties, held by the family. Out of 10 acres, owned by the family, PWA allotted two acres each, to PW.3, the appellant, and PW.1, and he retained four acres for himself. Not being satisfied with the pattern of sharing, and complaining inequitable division, the appellant and his brother, PW.3, insisted on allotment of one acre more, each, to them. When PWA did not agree for it, the appellant nurtured grievance and grouse against his father, PWA, and the step-mother, the deceased. On the intervening night of 6th and 7th April 2003, PW.1 and his wife-PW.2 slept in one cot; PWA and the deceased, in another cot; and PW.3 and his minor son, in another cot; in front of the family house. At about 2:00 a.m., PWs.1 to 4 heard the cries of Savithramma, and when they woke up, they found the appellant hacking her with the axe. PWs.3 and 4 are said to have tried to rescue Savithramma, but the appellant had brandished the axe, and in the process, it had fallen down. At about 2:00 a.m., PWs.1 to 4 heard the cries of Savithramma, and when they woke up, they found the appellant hacking her with the axe. PWs.3 and 4 are said to have tried to rescue Savithramma, but the appellant had brandished the axe, and in the process, it had fallen down. Soon thereafter, he is said to have picked up a stick, which is the handle of plough, and hit PWs.3 and 4, resulting in grievous injury to the latter. PWs.6 and 7, the neighbours are said to have rushed to the spot, and on seeing them, the appellant is said to have fled away. PW.7, R.M.P. Doctor, had declared Savithramma, as dead. 3. The complaint, marked as Ex.P.1 was submitted by PW.1 at around 7:30 a.m., in the morning, and the investigation was taken up. Inquest of the dead body was conducted and the panchanarna thereof is marked as Ex.P.10. Post-mortem was conducted by PW.14 and the report is marked as Ex.P.11. The Doctor, who treated PW.3, was examined as PW.15. The wound certificate was marked as Ex.P.12, through PW.17. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty, and he had set up the plea of alibi. His wife, who deposed as PW.5, and was declared hostile; stated that the appellant went to his in-laws' place, to see his sons, who was said to be residing there. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of both the offences, and imposed the sentence, as indicated above. 5. Smt. P.S. Manjula Kumari, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has falsely implicated the appellant by taking advantage of the family disputes. She contends that the deceased was not at all the legally wedded wife of PWA, and, on the other hand, by developing illicit intimacy with her, he had deserted his first wife, D.W.1, the mother of PW.3 and the appellant, and caused great injustice to his sons, through her. She submits that clear suggestions were made to the effect that the deceased was not of virtuous character, and her murder could have been the handiwork of one of her paramours. She submits that clear suggestions were made to the effect that the deceased was not of virtuous character, and her murder could have been the handiwork of one of her paramours. Learned Counsel points out that the law abiding nature of the appellant is evident from the fact that he has put up with the unsavoury acts of his father, PWA, in driving out his mother; and the ill-treatment, meted out to him; and there was never any complaint against the appellant as regards his conduct towards his father, PW-4 and step-mother, the deceased. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there are glaring material contradictions in the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, and that the medical evidence does not at all corroborate with the ocular evidence. She contends that the independent witnesses have turned hostile, and it is only the interested witnesses, that have spoken about the involvement of the appellant. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the . occurrence was evidenced by, as many as four eyewitnesses, and all of them have consistently stated that they have seen the appellant, hacking the deceased with an axe. He contends that there existed a clear motive for the appellant to commit the offence, and that the trial Court had furnished clear reasons, in support of its conclusions. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant are inconsequential in nature, and that nothing has been elicited from PWs.1 to 4, to discredit their version. 9. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19. Out of them, the brief introduction of PWs.1 to 5 has already been given, in the preceding paragraphs. PWs.6 and 7 are said to be the neighbors of PW4" and they are said to have rushed to the scene of offence, immediately. Both of them were declared hostile. PW.8 is a photographer. PW.9 is said to have taken PW4 to the hospital for treatment. PW.10 is the scribe of Ex.P.l, the complaint. PW.l1 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PW.12 is a witness to the alleged confession by the appellant. PW.13 was examined as a witness to the inquest panchanama, and he was declared hostile. The Doctor, who has conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, was examined as PW.14, and PW.l5 treated PW.3. PW.l1 is a witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PW.12 is a witness to the alleged confession by the appellant. PW.13 was examined as a witness to the inquest panchanama, and he was declared hostile. The Doctor, who has conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, was examined as PW.14, and PW.l5 treated PW.3. The A.S.I of Police, who received Ex.P.1 and registered F.I.R., is examined as PW.I6; and PW.I7 is the Doctor, through whom, wound certificate was marked. PW.18 is the Investigating Officer, and PW. 19 is the C.I. of Police, who conducted investigation upto certain stage. 10. On behalf of the appellant, his mother, Samineni Kamalamma was examined as DW.1. 11. There is an eye-witness account of as many as four witnesses, i.e. PWs.l to 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant had attacked the evidence of these witnesses, stating that there are several inconsistencies and that they are interested. Therefore, it becomes important to analyze the evidence of the said witnesses. All of them have stated that they woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased. According to PW.I, by the time he woke up, after hearing the cries, the appellant was hacking his mother, with an axe. In the chief examination, PWs.2, 3 and 4 have deposed to the same effect. The manner, in which the appellant is said to have attacked PWs.3 and 4, would be dealt with a little later. 12. In his cross-examination, PW.1 stated that the accused gave 5 blows to his mother, with the axe. To put it, in his own words, he said; "By the time we woke up, the accused was hacking my mother. The accused gave five or six blows." The cross-examination of PW.3, III this regard, reads as under: " . . . I saw the accused hacking the deceased on her chest. The accused hacked the deceased thrice or four times on the chest. The accused hacked only once on the left hand of the deceased. The accused hacked the deceased nearly 10 times. When we tried to snatch away MO.6, axe, from the hands of the accused, he wielded and slashed the axe, in that process the axe had fallen down." 13. PWA spoke to the following effect, on this aspect, in his cross-examination: " . . . The incident ended for nearly 10 minutes. The accused hacked the deceased nearly 10 times. When we tried to snatch away MO.6, axe, from the hands of the accused, he wielded and slashed the axe, in that process the axe had fallen down." 13. PWA spoke to the following effect, on this aspect, in his cross-examination: " . . . The incident ended for nearly 10 minutes. I along with PWs.1 to 3 woke up simultaneously. I did not state before the police as in Ex.D.1 that when the accused was hacking my wife Savitri, I woke up and raised cries and thereupon PWs.1 to 3 woke up. I noticed one head injury, one injury on chest and another injury on left hand of my wife". If what is stated by these witnesses is true, there must have been 5 to 10 injuries, caused through axe, on the deceased. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by PW.14. EX.P.11 is the report. The following injuries were found on the dead body: "1. A deep cut laceration over the right temporal aspect of the head behind right ear measuring 5" x 12" x brain depth (brain tissue is seen through the wound). 2. An irregular laceration over the left elbow 3" x I" x muscle deep. 3. Swelling over the right forearm with fracture of both bones of the forearm. 4. An abrasion on the front of the chest 1 1/2 x skin depth. 5. An abrasion on the right side of the chest in the intra clavicular area of chest measuring 4" x muscle depth." 14. It may be true that one injury, noticed on the head, was sufficient, to cause the death of the deceased. But, if the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 were to have been true, there must have been 10 injuries, caused with the axe, as stated by PW.3, or, at least, 5, as stated by PW.1. The medical evidence vouches for existence of only one injury of this nature. 15. Then it needs to be seen, as to 1 how these witnesses have reacted, on s seeing the occurrence. PW.1 stated that t his father, PWA, and his step-brother, PW.3, went to rescue his mother, and at that time, the appellant started brandishing the axe. The medical evidence vouches for existence of only one injury of this nature. 15. Then it needs to be seen, as to 1 how these witnesses have reacted, on s seeing the occurrence. PW.1 stated that t his father, PWA, and his step-brother, PW.3, went to rescue his mother, and at that time, the appellant started brandishing the axe. It is said to have fallen down, and thereupon, the appellant is said to have taken up the handle of a plough (Medikarra), and beat PWA, twice on the head. Thereupon, PW.3 is said to have gone to rescue his father, and in the process, the appellant beat PW.3, on his head, with the same handle. As regards his role, in this regard, PW.1 said as under: "...When my father (LW4) and my elder brother (LW.3) went to the rescue of my mother, the accused started wielding (brandishing) the axe and in that process the axe had fallen down. Then the accused took the plough (Medikarra) available at the scene of offence and beat my father on his head twice. When Nageswara Rao (LW.3) went to the rescue of my father, the accused beat him (LW.3) on his head with plough handle (Medikarra). When I tried to intervene, the accused attempted to beat me also, due to fear I went aside. In the meanwhile on hearing our cries, M Satyam (LW.6), V. Raghuram (LW.7) and S. Karuna (L W.5), the wife of the accused came there, and on seeing them, the accused fled away, leaving the axe and plough handle (Medikarra) at the scene of offence..." 16. From this, it becomes clear that PW.I tried to intervene only after the appellant is said to have caused injuries to PWs4 and 3; that PWs.6 and 7 have come there, and the appellant fled away on seeing them. PW.2, on the other hand, said that, her husband, PW.I; brother-in-law, PW.3 and father-in-law, PWA, have tried to snatch the axe from the hands of the appellant, and in the process, it has fallen at the scene of the offence. She further deposed that herself, PW.1, and PWs.3 and 4 have raised cries, and on hearing the same, PWs.6 and 7 came to the scene of the offence, and on seeing them, the appellant fled away. To the same effect is the deposition of PW.3, in his chief-examination. She further deposed that herself, PW.1, and PWs.3 and 4 have raised cries, and on hearing the same, PWs.6 and 7 came to the scene of the offence, and on seeing them, the appellant fled away. To the same effect is the deposition of PW.3, in his chief-examination. It reads as under: "I along with PW.1 and my father (LWA) tried to snatch away MO.6, axe, from the hands of the accused. He wielded (brandished) the axe and in that process MO.6, axe, had fallen down. Then the accused picked up MO.7, Medikarra, and beat my father and me. The accused beat my father with MO.7 twice on his head. He beat me on my head with the same Medikarra. We raised cries. On hearing our cries, M. Satyam (LW.6), V. Raghuram (LW.7) came to the scene of offence and on seeing them the accused throwaway MO.7, Medikarra, and fled away from the scene of offence." 17. The evidence of PW4, in this regard, is virtually a replica of what was stated by his son, PW.3. Both of them have stated that an attempt was made to intervene by themselves and PW.1. It has already been pointed out that PW.1 thought of intervening, only after PWs.3 and 4 were attacked by the appellant. Thus, there is a material contradiction and inconsistency, on an important aspect, in the version presented by the alleged eyewitnesses. This, in turn, is at variance, with what was stated in the complaint, Ex.P.1. It proceeds, as though the complainant has seen the appellant coming with an axe and causing injuries to his mother. It was also stated that the complainant-PW.1 and his elder brother-PW.3, tried to interfere, and the appellant has beat their father PW.4. The raising of cries was said to be, after the occurrence of the incident. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion is extracted here: "...About 2'0 clock my elder brother Samineni Upender Rao came with an axe and axed my mother on her head, hands and killed her due to grudge as my father, mother did not gave some more property to him. Then myself and my elder brother Nageshwara Rao interfered, he beat my father and my brother, then my father received injuries. Then myself and my elder brother Nageshwara Rao interfered, he beat my father and my brother, then my father received injuries. Then we raised cries, then he beat my elder brother Nageshwara Rao and fled away." PWA was said to have been beaten by the appellant, with the handle of plough (medikarra), on the head. In the same night, he was taken to the hospital at Khammam, by PW.9, on a tractor belonging to Kodali Seetharamaiah. The Injury Certificate is marked as EX.P.14. Two lacerated injuries were found. The cause of injury was mentioned in EX.P.14 as: "alleged to have been attacked by his son at about 2 a.m., on 7.4.2003 with an axe." The difference is perceptible. The substantial variation of this nature, both as to the manner in which PW.1 is said to have noticed the appellant, what is said to have occurred at the scene of offence, and the object with which, injury is said to have been caused to PW4, is not without significance. 18. PWs.1 to 4 belong to the same family, and in view of the fact that the incident is said to have taken place, as a sequel to the disputes in the family partition, their evidence needs to be scrutinized with a bit of caution. Credence can be added to their evidence, if it is supported by the evidence of any independent witnesses. 19. The two persons outside the family, who are said to have arrive~ at the scene of occurrence, immediately, and at the earliest, are PWs.6 and 7. In fact, PW.7, an RMP practising in the village, is said to have declared the deceased dead, after arriving at the spot. PWs.1 and 2 have also stated that the appellant ran away from the scene, after seeing PWs.6 and 7. The said witnesses, however, were declared hostile, and in their cross-examination, nothing substantial could be elicited. 20. Suggestions were made to PWs.1 and 4, to the effect that the marriage of the deceased with her maternal uncle of Chennaram Village, was still subsisting, and that she was not the legally wedded wife of PW4. It was also suggested that the deceased had illicit connections with some persons in the village, and that her death may have been caused due to internal rivalries, among the said persons. PW4 did not state that his marriage with DW.1 was dissolved. It was also suggested that the deceased had illicit connections with some persons in the village, and that her death may have been caused due to internal rivalries, among the said persons. PW4 did not state that his marriage with DW.1 was dissolved. It was suggested to PW.3 that PWs.1 and 4 have promised him to give 1 1/2 acres of land and they have already transferred the house to him, to speak in their favour. 21. PW4 has stated that the mother of the appellant and PW.3, i.e. DW.1, deserted him, even while the children were of very tender age, and thereafter, he married the deceased. If one looks into the evidence of DW.1, Kamalamma, certain interesting things become evident. According to her, she was given Acs.3-00 of land by her parents, and by selling the same, an extent of Acs.3-00 was purchased at Chirumarri Village, from the maternal aunt of PW4. She alleged that the deceased was coming to their village as Mutha Coolie, and PW4 developed illicit intimacy' with her. The consequences thereof, in the words of DW.1, are as under: " .. . The deceased Savitri used to come to our village as Mutha Coolie to attend the coolie work in our land and she developed illicit intimacy with PW.4. From that date onwards PW.4 started to harass me and used to beat me for each and every thing and unable to bear the ill-treatment meted out by husband, I left to my parents house. My father again brought me to the house of PW.4 and advised me to live with my husband amicably, but PW.4 did not mend his behaviour. Finally my husband beat me and necked out me from his house and I took shelter in the house of my maternal uncle and sent a word to my father and on the advice of my uncle, I took a rented house in the village of my father. My mother-in-law Kamalamma brought up PW.3 and accused and performed their marriages. The evidence of PW.1 and PW4 that the deceased Savitri brought up PW.3 and accused and performed their marriages is false. After I was driven out of the house of PW4, he brought the deceased to his house and began to live with her. The deceased Savitri was not loyal to my husband and she was having illicit intimacy with two others. After I was driven out of the house of PW4, he brought the deceased to his house and began to live with her. The deceased Savitri was not loyal to my husband and she was having illicit intimacy with two others. Three panchayats were held with regard to the character and conduct of the deceased Savitri." The cross-examination of this witness, by the prosecution, was concentrated, only about her alleged statement made before the police. None of the facts stated by her in the chief-examination were controverted. 22. The record discloses that the complaint was submitted at 7.30 a.m. It was not as if there were no facilities of transport, or none to help, the members of the family. PW.4 was taken in the same night, by PW.10, to the hospital at the District headquarters, which is far away, when compared to the police station. 23. EX.P.1 was scribed by PW.10. Though he is a native of that village, he was residing at Khammam for education of his children. On the intervening night of 6th and 7th April 2003, he was not at Chirumarri Village, his native place. He is said to have known about the death of c the deceased, through telephone from his parents-in-law, and that he came to the scene of offence at 6 a.m. It was suggested to him that EX.P.1 was written after deliberations and consultations. The distance between the village and the police station is 10 Kms., and even if there was any impediment in submitting the complaint, during the night, it could have been presented early in the morning. In the month of April, everything would be clear by 5.30 a.m. PW.1 is an educated person, and he did not choose to submit the complaint. It was drafted, only after PW.10 came from the District headquarters, in the morning. There was no plausible explanation for the delayed submission of the FIR, and the possibility of the delay being utilized for deliberations and consultations, cannot be excluded. 24. Another aspect of the matter is that PW.5, the wife of the appellant, who was examined by the prosecution, stated in her chief-examination that her son, aged 6 years, was studying at Anumanchipalli, the native place of her parents; and a day prior to the incident, the appellant had been to their village to see their son. 24. Another aspect of the matter is that PW.5, the wife of the appellant, who was examined by the prosecution, stated in her chief-examination that her son, aged 6 years, was studying at Anumanchipalli, the native place of her parents; and a day prior to the incident, the appellant had been to their village to see their son. Though this witness was declared hostile and in the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that her statement about the appellant, having been to the place of her parents, is not true. However, since no independent witness has spoken to the presence of the appellant in the village, at the time of occurrence, the statement of PW-5 in her chief-examination cannot be brushed aside. 25. The above discussion discloses that there are several missing links, inconsistencies and improvements, in the: case presented by the prosecution. If the appellant were to have had any grievance about unequal division of the property, it should have been against his father, PW4. The case of the prosecution that the deceased had brought up the appellant like her son, on the one hand, and the appellant hacked the deceased to death, on the other hand, presents a highly improvable circumstance. The various suggestions made about the subsistence of the marriage of the deceased with her paternal uncle, the doubt cast upon her character, the allegation that PW4 had driven out D.W.1, the mother of the appellant and PW.3, would have their own relevance and significance. When the whole episode is shrouded with so much of mystery and doubtful circumstances, it is not at all safe to convict the appellant. The benefit of doubt needs to be extended to him. 26. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence handed out by the trial Court against the appellant. He shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount jf any paid by the appellant shall be refunded.