Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1062 (AP)

Dilodh Ashok v. State of A. P.

2008-12-15

A.GOPAL REDDY, REDDI KANTHA RAO

body2008
JUDGMENT (Per R. Kantha Rao, J.) This is an appeal against the judgment passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.212 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the sole accused before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge preferred this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows: The appellant, who was the sole accused before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, is the husband of the deceased-Sabitha. Both the appellant and the deceased used to work as scavengers. According to the prosecution, the appellant was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and was harassing her on that score. While so, on 16.05.2004, the appellant and the deceased celebrated their second marriage anniversary by inviting the relatives. They also arranged lunch. All the relatives left the house after having lunch. When PW.1-Neetusingh, who is the brother of the deceased, and PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1 about to leave the house, the appellant and the deceased requested them to stay at their house along with their children. Accordingly, PWs.1 and 2 stayed in the house of the appellant and the deceased along with their children. During the said night, all of them slept in one room keeping the doors open, as it was hot summer. While so, at about 3.45 a.m., on hearing sound of throwing a grinding stone, PWs.1 and 2 woke up and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a severe head injury and the appellant going away. Soon after receiving the injury with the grinding stone, the deceased died on the spot. When PWs.1 and 2 tried to catch hold of the appellant, he threw chilly powder into their eyes and escaped from the house. He went to the top of the house and tried to hang himself with a chunni. In the meanwhile, PWs.3 and 4, who are the neighbours, on hearing the sound, rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased in a pool of blood. They also saw the appellant going to the top of the house and trying to hang himself. Immediately they rushed there and cut the chunni. In the meanwhile, PWs.3 and 4, who are the neighbours, on hearing the sound, rushed to the spot and noticed the deceased in a pool of blood. They also saw the appellant going to the top of the house and trying to hang himself. Immediately they rushed there and cut the chunni. Tile appellant fell down Oil the ground and received injuries. Within two hours i.e., at about 6.00 a.m., on a report lodged by PW.1, a case in Crime No.284 of 2004 came to be registered in Vanasthalipuram Police Station. Part of the investigation in this case was conducted by Sri Madhusudhan Reddy-the then Sub-Inspector of Police. Subsequently, the same was taken over by PW.8 Sri D. Sidda Reddy, Inspector of Police, who after verifying the investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet. 4. During the course of the trial before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, examined PWs.1 to 8, marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Mos.1 to 6. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witnesses, but he marked a portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 as Ex.D.1 and portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.4 as Exs. D.2 to D.4. 5. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence forthcoming, found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned while acquitting him for the offence under Section 309 IPC. The appellant now challenges the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in this appeal. 6. In the course of their evidence before the trial Court, PWs.1 and 2 have categorically spoken to the facts of their hearing the noise of falling of grinding stone, their waking up and witnessing the deceased lying in a pool of blood with head injury and also noticing the accused running away and his throwing chilly powder into their eyes when they tried to catch hold of him. 7. 7. PWs.3 and 4, who are the neighbours and independent witnesses have spoken to the fact of their rushing to the house of the appellant after hearing the noise and witnessing the dead body of the deceased and the appellant attempting to commit suicide, and thereafter, rescuing him by cutting the chunni with which the appellant tried to hang himself. Mainly believing the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant. 8. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 9. PW.6, the autopsy surgeon, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Sabitha, noticed head injury on the body of the deceased, which is ante-mortem in nature. According to the opinion of the Doctor-PW.6 the head injury is possible with grinding stone like MO.1. Therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased died homicidal death while she was sleeping at her house. 10. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly indicates that they along with their children slept in the house of the appellant and the deceased during the said night and they witnessed the incident. In this context it is relevant to mention that there is no material brought on record by the appellant to show that PWs.1 and 2 are inimical terms with him. If that were so, he would not have invited them at all for their marriage anniversary. Therefore, it is highly difficult to presume that PWs.1 and 2 will falsely implicate the appellant leaving the real culprits. However, PWs.1 and 2 have also categorically spoken to the fact of the appellant suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and harassing her on that score. From this, it can be understood that the appellant has strong and enough motive to do away with the life of the deceased. Thus in this case the prosecution established the motive of the appellant to commit the offence. 11. From this, it can be understood that the appellant has strong and enough motive to do away with the life of the deceased. Thus in this case the prosecution established the motive of the appellant to commit the offence. 11. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that PWs.1 and 2, even according to their version, did not witness the actual occurrence and they only heard the sound of falling of grinding stone, and thereafter, saw the deceased and the appellant, as such, the possibility of some outsiders coming into the house and throwing the grinding stone on the head of the deceased cannot be ruled out. In the opinion of the learned counsel, the circumstances, which are said to be proved by the prosecution, are not enough to convict the appellant, and therefore, the order of conviction passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.1 wherein it was laid down that strong suspicion against the accused cannot take place of legal proof, and 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. 12. But the case on hand does not entirely rest on the circumstantial evidence and it is based on direct as well as circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 2. According to them, after hearing the sound of falling of grinding stone, they saw the deceased lying with broken head in a pool of blood and also the appellant trying to run away from the house. This apart, they have also testified the fact of the appellant suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and harassing her on account of suspicion. Even in a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances need not be too many. If the circumstances are two or three and they are strong enough, the Court can pass conviction basing on proof of those circumstances. Even in a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances need not be too many. If the circumstances are two or three and they are strong enough, the Court can pass conviction basing on proof of those circumstances. From the evidence forthcoming in this case, the above mentioned circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant is involved in the crime and there was no scope for the outsiders to come and smash the head of the deceased with grinding stone, since soon after the incident PWs.1 to 4 saw the appellant fleeing away, it is also one of the strong circumstances against the appellant. All the circumstances, in our view, leave no doubt as to the fact that the appellant is the person, who actually committed the offence and none-else. Thus, the trial Court, in our view, has rightly evaluated the evidence and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC does not call for any interference in this appeal. 13. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.