Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 160 (AP)

Bandaru Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2008-02-26

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Mr Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) A1 in S.C.No.129 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Khammam, filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, handed out to her by the trial Court. She, along with A2 were accused of committing the murder of a minor girl by name Swaroopa, none other than her daughter, on 03.12.2003, by administering poison. The trial Court acquitted A2, but convicted the appellant, of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The case presented by the prosecution to the trial Court runs thus: A1 is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 is her brother. She was married to P.W.7 and they were blessed with two daughters, the deceased, being the elder, and another by name Divya. P.Ws.1 to 3, on the one hand, and the appellant with her minor daughters, on the other, were living in the separate house located opposite to each other in Tanikella Village. On 03.12.2003, at about 11.30 a.m., Swaroopa came from their house and fell on the lap of P.W.2, her grandmother, and immediately started vomiting. P.Ws.4 to 6 gathered there and administered tamarind water to Swaroopa, to ensure that the poison in her stomach comes out. Simultaneously, they made attempts to shift her to Government Hospital. In the meanwhile, she died. 3. P.W.1, the father of A1 submitted a complaint, marked as Ex.P1, stating that A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2, left her husband, P.W.7 and that she administered poison by mixing the same in banana, to Swaroopa, with a view to remove the obstacle for her illegal contact with A2. F.I.R., marked as Ex.P8 was registered, followed by inquest and post mortem. The charge sheet was filed on the basis of the information gathered during the course of the investigation. While the appellant pleaded guilty, A2 pleaded not guilty. Full-fledged trial was conducted. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial Court, the appellant denied of the acquisitions against her. Ultimately, she was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. 4. While the appellant pleaded guilty, A2 pleaded not guilty. Full-fledged trial was conducted. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial Court, the appellant denied of the acquisitions against her. Ultimately, she was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. 4. Ms.P.Sujatha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no direct evidence in this case and the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is shaky, in many respects. She contends that while P.W.1, the father of the appellant and the author of Ex.P1, did not support the case of the prosecution, P.W.2, though supported the case, left several aspects unexplained. She contends that P.W.2 never said that the deceased had informed her about the administration of poison by anyone and the whole story of prosecution was based on imagination. 5. Learned counsel further submits that there is inordinate delay of nine hours in submitting Ex.P1 and the same was not explained at all. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the circumstantial evidence in this case is so strong that it hardly leaves any doubt about the commission of the offence by the appellant. He submits that apart from the extra judicial confession made to P.W.5, the appellant had pleaded not guilty in the trial Court itself, and in the light of the other circumstantial evidence, her guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the delay in filing Ex.P1 is inconsequential, having regard to the fact that the persons involved are from the same family. 6. It has already been pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 3 are father, mother and brother respectively of the appellant. P.Ws.4 to 6 are the neighbours of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.7 is the husband of the appellant. P.W.8 is a panch to the inquest. P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem and P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P4 and the post mortem certificate as Ex.P5. The F.S.L. Report and final opinion are marked as Exs.P6 and P7 respectively. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, the following questions arise for consideration. 1. Whether there is any unexplained delay in submission of the complaint by P.W.1; and 2. Whether the evidence on record is adequate, to sustain conviction against the appellant. 8. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, the following questions arise for consideration. 1. Whether there is any unexplained delay in submission of the complaint by P.W.1; and 2. Whether the evidence on record is adequate, to sustain conviction against the appellant. 8. The allegation against A1 is that she administered poisonous granules to her daughter, the deceased, by hiding them in a banana, at 11.30 a.m. on 03.12.2003. Immediately, the girl is said to have fallen on the lap of P.W.2 residing in the opposite house, and started vomiting. An effort was made to save her, but ultimately, she was declared dead at about 12.30 in the noon. Ex.P1, the complaint was submitted by P.W.1 at 9.30 p.m. on the same day. Soon thereafter, F.I.R. in Ex.P8 was registered. 9. It may be true that the complainant-P.W.1 is none other than the father of the appellant and in the ordinary course of things; there may not be much to confabulate, to implicate his own daughter. However, having regard to the nature of allegations and the oscillation of stands by the respective witnesses, the delay is bound to be utilized in evolving a version, to implicate the persons of their choice. It is noteworthy that P.W.1 did not stand by Ex.P1. No explanation is forthcoming from P.W.10, the Investigating Officer also as to the delay in submission of the complaint and registration of the case. Under these circumstances, it is clear that there was inordinate unexplained delay, in filing Ex.P1. 10. As for the second question: none of the witnesses have stated that they have seen the appellant either procuring poisonous granules, or mixing them with any banana, much less administering the same to the deceased. Whatever may be the reason or provocation for third parties in resorting to such acts, in the ordinary course of things, a mother cannot be expected to have recourse to such a cruel and heinous step of killing her own daughter. The motive attributed to A1 is that she developed illicit intimacy with A2 and felt the deceased as an obstruction for their affair. Even this does not hold water. The reason is that A1 was residing right in front of the house of her parents and she had another younger daughter. The motive attributed to A1 is that she developed illicit intimacy with A2 and felt the deceased as an obstruction for their affair. Even this does not hold water. The reason is that A1 was residing right in front of the house of her parents and she had another younger daughter. Except making a bald allegation that she developed illicit intimacy with A2, none of the witnesses have spoken to any particular instance or consequential action taken in that regard. 11. The purport of the evidence suggests that the appellant deserted her husband, P.W.7 and developed illicit intimacy with A2. However, on a close scrutiny, an altogether different picture emerges. None other than P.W.2, the mother of the appellant admitted that it is P.W.7, who deserted the appellant and that he married another woman. Further, had it been a case where the appellant wanted to live with A2, a resident of different village, nothing prevented her from shifting to that place, instead of living right in the glare of her parents and brother. Therefore, the very basis pleaded by the prosecution against the appellant is shaky. 12. The father of the appellant i.e., P.W.1 did not vouch in the contents of Ex.P1. The mother of the appellant, P.W.2, no doubt spoke against her. However, her deposition is more in the form of an opinion, than of noticing any specific acts. The only thing to which she is a witness is that the deceased came and fell upon her lap and soon thereafter, developed vomiting. Neither P.W.2 has seen the appellant administering any poison to the deceased nor did she state that the deceased informed her about the manner in which the poison came to be administered. The motive spoken to by her stood virtually belied, by the answers given by her in the cross examination. 13. At this stage, it needs to be observed that though the presence of P.Ws.4 to 6 was spoken to by P.W.2, it is only P.W.6, who stated that the deceased girl informed them that her mother, the appellant administered the poison. P.W.2 is the first person, who came in contact with the deceased. No such revelation is coming from her. Further, P.W.5 stated in the chief examination itself that when they searched in the house of the appellant, they did not find or recover any poisonous granules. P.W.2 is the first person, who came in contact with the deceased. No such revelation is coming from her. Further, P.W.5 stated in the chief examination itself that when they searched in the house of the appellant, they did not find or recover any poisonous granules. The extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant, to her, cannot be taken into account at all. 14. Though the medical evidence suggests that the death of the deceased was on account of consumption of poisonous material, the question as to the manner in which the poison came to be administered, remains almost a mystery. A clear suggestion was made to P.W.3, the brother of the appellant, that the deceased died on account of the humiliation and mental agony caused due to the desertion of A1 by P.W.7. P.W.2 stated that P.W.7 was married to another woman and that it is he, who deserted the appellant. P.W.7 also pleaded ignorance about the cause of death of the deceased. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.129 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Khammam, dated 28.10.2005, against the appellant-Bandaru Parvathi, W/o.Narasimha Rao, are set aside. She shall be released forthwith, unless her presence is required in any other case.