Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 177 (AP)

Machunuri Shanker v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-02-06

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The sole appellant - accused in S.C.No.47 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak, filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence handed out to him by the trial Court. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence of committing murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and imposed the punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant married Lavanya @ Madhavi, the daughter of PWs.1 and 2, on 11.05.2006. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.30,000/-cash, 10 tulas of gold and 70 tulas of silver, were said to have been presented. The appellant and Madhavi are said to have lived about two months and Madhavi is said to have complained to her father - PW.1 that the appellant had an affair with one Saritha, living in the neighbourhood, so much so, that he got a tattoo painted on his hand, depicting the name of Saritha. PW.1 is said to have consoled Lavanya, stating that the things would improve in future. On 09.08.2006, the appellant and Lavanya are said to have come to the place of PWs.1 and 2, Aminapuram, to tie Rakhi to the brothers of Lavanya and they stayed for the night at that place. On the next day, both of them are said to have left on a scooter for the native place of accused – Sadullanagar. PW.1 is said to have received information at 8.30 P.M. on that day, to the effect that Lavanya died. He is said to have proceeded to the village and found the dead body of Lavanya in Bhulakshmi Kunta (tank) nearby Sadullanagar. He submitted a complaint – Ex.P.1 alleging that the appellant is responsible for causing the death of Lavanya. On receipt of the complaint, the Station House Officer, P.S., Hathnoor, registered Crime No.77 of 2006. The Investigating Officer, PW.13, caused the inquest by PW.12 and post-mortem through PW.8. The post-mortem revealed that there were two injuries on the head of the deceased and another injury on the front of the neck. Based upon the investigation conducted by him, PW.13 filed a charge sheet. The Investigating Officer, PW.13, caused the inquest by PW.12 and post-mortem through PW.8. The post-mortem revealed that there were two injuries on the head of the deceased and another injury on the front of the neck. Based upon the investigation conducted by him, PW.13 filed a charge sheet. The trial Court framed the following charge and conducted trial: “That you (M.Shanker) on 25.02.2005 after 5.00 p.m. near water ditch at Bulaxmamma kunta committed murder intentionally causing the death of Machunuri Lavanya @ Madhavi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and within my cognizance.” PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.33 were filed. M.Os.1 to 7 were taken on record. The trial Court held the accused guilty of committing murder of Lavanya and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Smt.C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, was based solely upon the circumstantial evidence and the documentary evidence is not consistent with the oral evidence. She contends that the post-mortem certificate revealed that the death occurred due to asphyxia. She submits that the very fact that the Scooter and the dead body were found in water, would disclose that, on account of the accident, the vehicle as well as the deceased slipped into water and not being able to swim, the deceased died due to asphyxia, as is evident from the post-mortem certificate. She submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the parents, and PW.3, the brother of the deceased, is hardly of any help and PW.4 was declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that even according to PW.5, he is said to have rushed to the spot on hearing commotion and he noticed the appellant also in an injured condition. She submits that the effort made by the prosecution to link the accused to the incident, through recoveries, did not fructify, on account of the fact that the witnesses connected with recovery, have turned hostile. She has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 949 (SC). Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a typical case in which, a person married to a woman had put an end to the life of the innocent woman to carry out his plan to marry another woman. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a typical case in which, a person married to a woman had put an end to the life of the innocent woman to carry out his plan to marry another woman. She contends that the circumstances of the case are so clear that hardly any other view, or inference, is possible. She contends that the consistent case through out was that it rained on 10.08.2006, the road was slippery and the question of anybody sustaining serious injuries, when the vehicle falls at that low speed, does not arise. She submits that PW.9 has categorically stated that the nature of injury that is found on the head of the deceased can be caused, if only somebody fell from the Scooter in a high speed. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the photographs marked in P-series clearly disclose that the depth of the water in the tank was hardly two feet, and the Scooter in its fallen condition is visible to the extent of half. It is pleaded that when the depth of the water was hardly two feet, the question of somebody dying in it, due to drowning, does not arise. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the conduct of the appellant in not reporting the incident to anyone, much less to PWs.1 and 2, and fleeing from the scene would remove whatever little doubt that existed about his involvement. The accused was, admittedly, the husband of the deceased. Their marriage took place on 11.05.2006 i.e. three months prior to the incident. On 09.08.2006, both of them, went on a scooter to the house of parents of the deceased i.e. PWs.1 and 2, on the eve of Rakhi festival. The deceased is said to have tied Rakhies to her brothers, and after spending night at that place, the accused and the deceased commenced the return journey to Sadullanagar. This part of it was not denied by the defence, be it in the form of suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, or otherwise. PW.1 received intimation about the death of his daughter at 8.30 P.M. Soon thereafter, he proceeded to the place and found the dead body of his daughter in the tank. He submitted a complaint and the investigation was taken up. The post-mortem report reveals that the following injuries were noticed on the dead body: “1. PW.1 received intimation about the death of his daughter at 8.30 P.M. Soon thereafter, he proceeded to the place and found the dead body of his daughter in the tank. He submitted a complaint and the investigation was taken up. The post-mortem report reveals that the following injuries were noticed on the dead body: “1. Laceration 3 x ¼ x ½ “ on right occipital region with sub-scalp hemorrhage around the injury. 2. Contusion 3 x 4 cm on the front of the neck, cut section of skin showing sub-coetaneous congestion.” The cause of the death was said to be due to asphyxia. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. There was no eyewitness to the occurrence. Therefore, one has to take into account, the situation that is obtaining on the ground and draw the inference duly keeping in mind, the conduct of an ordinary human being. The first circumstance is that the accused and the deceased were together and last seen by PWs.1 to 3, the parents and brother of the deceased, at 2.00 P.M., on 10.08.2006. There was not even a suggestion that the accused did not take the deceased along with him on the scooter. Assuming that the scooter, on which the accused and the deceased were travelling, met with an accident or has fallen down, one expects a particular kind of reaction from the accused, not only in his capacity as a fellow human being, but also as the husband of a newly married woman. If the accident was so fatal, the first injuries ought to have been to the person driving the scooter. The evidence does not disclose that the accused received any injury worth its name. On the other hand, there was a deep injury on the head of the deceased. If one takes into account the location of the injury, it is impossible to infer that it would be the result of the person falling from a scooter, that too, at a slow speed, on account of rain, or slippery soil. The second injury is on the front of the neck. Even this does not occur on account of the accident of that nature. The place of accident is abutting his native village. The second injury is on the front of the neck. Even this does not occur on account of the accident of that nature. The place of accident is abutting his native village. In case the accused found that his wife, the deceased, has fallen into water, any person in his place would have made an attempt to rescue her even at the cost of risking his life. The scene of occurrence as well as the photographs taken thereon, marked as Exs.P.13 to 21, disclose that the depth of the water in the tank was hardly two feet. The scooter was also found in a fallen condition in the water and half of it is visible. When the water is not so deep as to cover the scooter, in a fallen condition, the question of a person drowning to the extent of death, does not arise. The location of the dead body is such that part of it is on the ground and part of it is in the water. For all practical purposes what is depicted as tank is nothing but a ditch, from the point of view of the quantity of water. Not a single witness, who is said to have rushed to the spot on hearing the commotion, including PWs.4 and 5, have stated that the accused has informed them, of true facts that led to the death of the deceased. The scene of offence panchanama, marked as Ex.P.3, discloses that the pieces of broken bangles were found on the ground, at a distance of 10 feet from the dead body. It means that the falling, if at all, has taken place on the ground not in the water, and it is just un-understandable as to how the body has its way to the water. The inescapable conclusion is that the accused hit the deceased with a stone on the head, resulting in serious injury and before she breath the last, he shifted the body to the water, to ensure that the cause of death turns out to be asphyxia. It is true that human mind, if permitted to enter the area of speculation, hardly he finds any limit and can make the most impossible one, as a clear possibility. In the instant case, we are not at all undertaking an enterprise of free imagination. It is true that human mind, if permitted to enter the area of speculation, hardly he finds any limit and can make the most impossible one, as a clear possibility. In the instant case, we are not at all undertaking an enterprise of free imagination. Each and every aspect observed is supported by the acts and omissions on the part of the accused. The record discloses that soon after the accident there was commotion and before any substantial time intervened, the accused is said to have been shifted to hospital. If that be so, the condition of the deceased must be such that nothing which is on her body must be lost, and except that she lost her life, everything is in tact. The evidence of PW.3 discloses that none of the ornaments, including Mangalasutra, were present on the body of the deceased. Added to that, they were recovered from the accused on 14.08.2006. Though the panchas for the recovery have turned hostile, we have no doubt whatever as to the source of recovery of those ornaments. Two factors are sufficient to make the needle of suspicion to point to the accused. The first is that he did not inform the incident, leading to the death of his wife to anyone, let alone the police or the parents of the deceased. The second is that soon after the incident, he fled away and was apprehended only four days thereafter. The motive for committing murder of the wife of the accused is indeed glaring. Two months after the marriage, the deceased is said to have complained to PWs.1 and 2 that the accused is harassing her stating that he is interested in marrying one Saritha. It is not in dispute that he has a tattoo of the name of Saritha, on his body. Therefore, he has a clear intention to do away with the life of the deceased. A genuine doubt may arise as to why he married the deceased at all, in case he wanted to kill her and marry Saritha. The fact that gold ornaments of substantial value were recovered from him and the allegation that substantial amount was given at the time of marriage, provides an answer to this. The confessional statement, marked as Ex.P.9, whatever it is worth, would give a clear indication about his intention or the motive to kill the deceased. The fact that gold ornaments of substantial value were recovered from him and the allegation that substantial amount was given at the time of marriage, provides an answer to this. The confessional statement, marked as Ex.P.9, whatever it is worth, would give a clear indication about his intention or the motive to kill the deceased. We are indeed pained to note that an innocent girl, who married the accused hoping a bright future for her, lost her life in the most dastardly manner. Unfortunately, the instances of this nature are resulting in acquittal and indiscriminate people are getting encouraged by them. Fortunately, in the instant case, the evidence is such that no second opinion is possible. We find that the trial Court has arrived at the correct conclusion on proper appreciation of evidence on record. We do not find any basis to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.