Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 426 (AP)

Vakkala Naresh v. State of A. P.

2008-06-26

D.S.R.VERMA, K.C.BHANU

body2008
JUDGMENT (Per K.C. Bhanu, J.) This Criminal Appeal, filed by appellants/A-1 to A-3, is directed against the judgment dated 10-1-2006 in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the learned Sessions Judge found A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC; and A-2 and A-3 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 1 09 IPC accordingly convicted them of the said charges, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: P.W.1 is resident of Narayanagiri village. A-2 is his elder brother, and A-1 and A-3 are sons of A-2.House of P.W.1 is located by the side of house of accused. Wife of A-2 died due to illness. Now and then, A-1 and A-3 started abusing and beating A-2, and P.W.1 used to intervene and pacify the situation. A-1 and A-3 objected for his interference in their family matters. On 18-2-2004 at about 3.00 p.m. it is alleged that when P.W.1 went to agricultural cooli work, A-1 hacked the deceased V. Kanaka Lakshmi, who is wife of P.W.1, indiscriminately at the instig8tion of A-2 and A-3. When the persons gathered there, tried to catch hold of accused, they ran away. On being informed about the incident, P.W.1 went to house, saw the dead body of deceased and lodged Ex. P-1 complaint to police. Basing on the same, P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case in crime No. 24 of 2004. P.W.15-Inspector of Police observed the scene of occurrence and seized blood stained earth and control earth. He held inquest on dead body of deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He arrested the accused on 26-2-2004 at 7.00 a.m. and in pursuance of confession of A-1, seized M.O. 3-axe used for the commission of the offence, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. The substance of the charge framed against the accused is as follows: That on 18-2-2004 at about 3.00 p.m at Narayanagiri village, the accused did commit murder by causing death of V. Kanaka Laxmi with common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 3. The substance of the charge framed against the accused is as follows: That on 18-2-2004 at about 3.00 p.m at Narayanagiri village, the accused did commit murder by causing death of V. Kanaka Laxmi with common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4 . To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P .Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 besides case property M.Os. 1 to 6. 5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the case. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. 6. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the charges, accordingly convicted and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the A-1 to A-3. 7. It is represented by Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that appellants 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 died during pendency of the appeal. Recording her submission, the case against A-1 and A-2 is abated. Therefore, the appeal is confined to appellant No. 3/A-3 only. 8. The learned counsel appearing for appellant No.3/A-3 contended that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; that some of the prosecution witnesses did not speak about the presence of A-3 and one eye-witness-P.W.6 also did not speak about the alleged instigation made by A-3 to A-1 to cause death of deceased; that there was no motive for A-3 to commit or share common intention with A-1 and A-2. Hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant No. 3/A-3. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. Hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant No. 3/A-3. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is very clear that at the instigation of A-2 and A-3, A-1 caused the injuries to the deceased and therefore the trial Court rightly found A-3 guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with 109 IPC; that there is no other reason for them to speak false against the accused; that after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 10. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the charge leveled against the appellant no. 3/A-3? 11. The relationship is not in dispute. A-2 is elder brother of P.W.1. A-1 and A-3 are sons of A-2. Deceased is wife of P.W.1. P.W.2 is son of P.W.1, and P.W.4 is wife of P.W.2. House of P.W.1 is located by the side of house of P.W.1. It is the case of prosecution that A-1 and A-3 used to abuse and beat A-2 who is their father; as brother of A-2, P.W.1 used to intervene and pacify the situation for which A-1 and A-3 entertained grouse against him; A-1 and A-3 used to ask P.W.1 not to interfere with their personal affairs; a panchayat was also held in which elders advised P.Ws.1 and 2 not to intervene in the mattes of accused, and therefore there was no talking terms between them. Except that incident of interference by P.W.1 in the family affairs of A-1 and A-3, there is no other evidence to show the motive for A-3 to abet A-1 to kill the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not much relevant in view of the fact that they came to the scene of occurrence after coming to know about the death of deceased. Therefore, their evidence is not incriminating against A-3. 12. P.W. 3 is neighbourer whose house is separated by4 or 5 houses from the house of accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not much relevant in view of the fact that they came to the scene of occurrence after coming to know about the death of deceased. Therefore, their evidence is not incriminating against A-3. 12. P.W. 3 is neighbourer whose house is separated by4 or 5 houses from the house of accused. It is her evidence that at about 3.00 p.m she went to house of her mother whose house is located by the side of house of P. Ws. 1 and 2, to inform about her intention to bring grass to her cattle; that at that time, she saw A-1 killing the deceased with axe. It is her further evidence that A-2 and A-3 instigated A-1 to kill the deceased. As seen from her evidence, the purpose for which she went to house of her mother is not consistent because in chief-examination, she stated that she went there to inform her mother about bringing of grass to cattle, whereas in cross-examination she stated that she went to house of her mother to ask her to keep water to her buffalo. In view of the inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.3, her presence at the relevant point of time of the incident is doubtful. 13. P.W.4 is daughter-in-law of the deceased. According to her, on the date of the incident at about 3.00 p.m she heard cries of P.W.3 and saw A-1 hacking the deceased with axe on her neck on left side, due to which she fell down and A-2 and A-3 asked A-1 to kill the deceased; thereafter, A-1 gave 2 or 3 blows on various parts of the body of deceased; when the persons present there tried to catch hold of A-1, he threatened with dire consequences and ran away; thereafter, A-1 to A-3 locked their house and went away from the scene of occurrence. She admitted in cross-examination that at the time of the incident, she was at the house of Parasharamulu, who is son of brother of P.W.1, but she further states that on hearing hue and cry of the deceased, she rushed to the scene of offence. So, her own saying shows that she was not present at the time of the incident. Admittedly, the incident lasted about 2 or 3 minutes because immediately after A-1 hacking the deceased, they left the house. 14. So, her own saying shows that she was not present at the time of the incident. Admittedly, the incident lasted about 2 or 3 minutes because immediately after A-1 hacking the deceased, they left the house. 14. P.W. 5 is sister of the deceased. It is her evidence that one house intervenes her house and house of P. Ws. 1 and 2; on hearing cries of P.W. 3 from the house of P.W.1, she saw A-1 going away with a blood stained axe while the deceased was lying on ground with bleeding injuries; that he did not see A-2 and A-3 at that time. Therefore, presence of A-2 and A-3 was not spoken to, by P.W. 5. If really A-2 and A-3 were present at the time of the incident, the incident of all the accused going away after locking their house, as deposed by P.W.4, would have been witnessed by P.W.5 also. 15. P.W.6 is neighbourer, whose house is located opposite to house of P.W.1. It is her evidence that after hearing cries of P.W. 3 from the house of P.W.1, she came and saw A-1 beating with axe on various parts of body of deceased. She did not specifically state that A-1 caused the injuries to the deceased at the instigation of A-2 and A-3. Though she stated that A-1 to A-3 went away, but that does not incriminate anything against A-3. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 7 also does not incriminate anything against A-3 because he stated that he came to know about the incident. 16. P.W. 8 is one of the inquest mediators when police conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased under Ex. P-2 inquest panchanama. There is no dispute about death of deceased due to the injuries sustained by her and the same thing is opined in Ex. P-2. P.W.9 did not support the case of prosecution. 17. P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased and found the following injuries. 1. One cut laceration 11 x 6 cm x cranial cavity deep skin flap embedding 5 cm x 4 cm parietal bone. The meninges and brain injured exposing through the wound with fissure fracture 6 cm six on left parieto temporal bone extending into middle cranial fossa in base of skull. 2. 1. One cut laceration 11 x 6 cm x cranial cavity deep skin flap embedding 5 cm x 4 cm parietal bone. The meninges and brain injured exposing through the wound with fissure fracture 6 cm six on left parieto temporal bone extending into middle cranial fossa in base of skull. 2. Cut laceration 8 cm x 3 cm on back of head in occipital region 12 cm above C7 vertebrae. 3. Laceration 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of neck 7 cm below left ear. 4. Cut laceration 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm left parietal region with surrounding 4 cm contusion. 5. Contusion scalp left parietal region 5 x 4 cm after reflection. He issued Ex. P-4 postmortem certificate. He opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to head injury. There is no dispute about the cause of death of the deceased. 18. P.W.11, who is one of the mediators allegedly present at the time of arrest of the accused, giving of confessional statement and recovery of M.O. 1, did not support the case of prosecution. 19. P.W.12 is the photographer who took photographs of dead body of deceased. P.W.13 was present at the time of recovery of M.O.1-axe. Even assuming for a moment that the evidence of P.W.13 is true and correct, the same does not incriminate anything against A-3. 20. P.W.14-the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who simply registered the case basing on Ex. P-1-report given by P.W.1. P.W.15 is the investigating officer. 21. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that there is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to instigation of A-3 made to A-1 to kill the deceased. So also, there is no motive for A-3 to instigate A-1 to kill the deceased. In view of these inconsistencies with regard to instigation and also when the presence of P .W. 3 itself is doubtful at the relevant point of time of the incident, benefit of doubt should be given to A-3. If the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is taken into consideration, there is no instigation by A-3. These aspects have not been considered by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence leading to arrive at a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against A-3 are liable to be set aside. 22. If the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is taken into consideration, there is no instigation by A-3. These aspects have not been considered by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence leading to arrive at a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against A-3 are liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, the appeal against Appellants 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 is abated, as died. As regards Appellant No. 3/A-3 is concerned, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 10-01-2006 in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The appellant No. 3/A-3 is found not guilty of the charge levelled against him and he is acquitted of the same, and accordingly, he is set at liberty. The fine amount, if any, paid by A-3 shall be returned to him forthwith.