Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 366 (AP)

Poosam Kondaiah v. State of A. P.

2014-03-10

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

body2014
Judgment : M.S.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. The appellant is the accused. He was tried in S.C.No.275 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I) at Khammam for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. Through Judgment dt. 20.10.2009, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two months. Hence this appeal by the accused. 2. Facts in brief are as under: The accused was married to one Savithri (hereinafter referred to as D1). For some time they lived happily and thereafter the accused became a habitual drinker and used to subject D1 to harassment. On 20.10.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. Thati Ramulu (PW-7), a village elder came and informed the de facto complainant – Kalthi Krishnaiah (PW.1) that the accused and D1 are quarrelling. Therefore, PW.1, his maternal-uncle Kottem Ramulu (PW.4) and Banoth Balu (PW.6) along with mother of PW.1 went to his sister’s house at Seetharampuram. They opened the door of the hut of the accused and found the accused standing there with an axe in hand, soaked with blood and also noticed the dead bodies of D1 and Gowramma (hereinafter referred to as D2), the mother of the accused, lying with injuries in a pool of blood. When questioned, the accused is said to have informed the people there that since his wife (D1) was not taking proper care of his mother (D2) there was a quarrel in which the accused hacked his wife (D1) with an axe, and when his mother (D2) intervened he beat her with the axe and that both died on the spot. On being informed over telephone, the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW.12) along with constables went to Seetharampur village. There, he recorded the statement of PW-1. The same was sent to Police Station, Garla Bayyaram, and on its basis, Crime No.100 of 2008 was registered and F.I.R. was issued. The Inspector of Police (PW.13) took up the investigation, scene of offence panchanama was conducted, blood stained clothes were seized, inquest over the dead body was conducted, and the dead bodies were sent to post-mortem examination. Alleging that the accused killed his wife and mother, the Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu. Alleging that the accused killed his wife and mother, the Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu. After the mandatory requirements are complied with, the case was committed to the II- Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. Charges were framed and the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and produced Ex.P.1 to P.12 and MOs.1 to 8. When examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the evidence on record. The result of the case has been already stated above. 3. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not establish that the accused committed the crime, and the learned trial Judge has erred in holding the accused, guilty of the charge. It is submitted that in the absence of the direct evidence, the prosecution could not connect link between the accused and the crime even by circumstantial evidence. He contends that the conviction of the accused appears to be based on his previous conduct, and the same cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused has committed the most heinous crime, which is beyond anybody’s comprehension and there is no reason worth mentioning on account of which the accused has caused the instantaneous death of his wife and mother simultaneously. She contends that the eye witness account of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the accused was almost caught red-handed with the weapon in his hands stained with blood, standing near the dead bodies and it is established that he has committed the crime. It is contended that the learned trial Judge analysed the evidence on record in proper perspective and has accordingly held the accused guilty of the charge. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, so as to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed or whether it needs to be modified or varied? 6. POINT: The incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 19th/20th October, 2008 in a thatched hut of the accused. 6. POINT: The incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 19th/20th October, 2008 in a thatched hut of the accused. Having noticed the galata from the hut of the accused, neighbours have alerted the brother of the deceased and others, who came there, and thereafter the accused came out of the hut and tried to run away. He was overpowered and handed over to the law enforcing agency. 7. The material evidence is that of PWs.1 to 7. Their evidence is consistent and is on similar lines. PW.1 is the brother of D1 and he deposed that on 20.10.2008 he was informed by PW.7 that the accused and D1 were quarrelling. Thereafter PW.1 went to the house of the accused and when the thatched door of the hut was opened, they have noticed the dead bodies of two ladies inside, with bleeding injuries and the accused was standing in the hut holding an axe with full of blood stains. The accused was apprehended. It is further in the evidence of PW.1 that the accused informed them that he has finished off the work (He said to have stated that “Ayipoyindi antha ayipoyindi”). PW.2 is the mother of D1 (mother-in-law of the accused). Her evidence is similar to that of PW.1. PW.3 is a neighbouring resident, and he deposed that he heard quarrels from the hut of the accused and on the next day morning when he was proceeding towards his house, the accused told him that ‘everything is over’. Thereafter, he informed the matter to PW.7, who came there. PW.4 is a village elder and he deposed that in the matter of quarrels between the accused and his wife, panchayat was held for settling the disputes. He claims that PW.7 informed him that the accused has killed his wife and mother and he was apprehended. He claims to have gone to the house of the accused and apprehended him when he was trying to escape. He stated that the accused was armed with an axe at that time and when questioned the accused told them that he has killed his wife and mother on the ground that the wife was not treating his mother properly. PW-5 is the sister of the accused and the daughter of D2. He stated that the accused was armed with an axe at that time and when questioned the accused told them that he has killed his wife and mother on the ground that the wife was not treating his mother properly. PW-5 is the sister of the accused and the daughter of D2. She deposed that on being informed about the tragedy in the family, she came to the village and noticed the dead body of his mother and sister-in-law lying on the cot with injuries. She further stated that the accused told her that D1 questioned him how long she should serve his mother D2 and on that he axed his wife and when their mother intervened, he also axed their mother, with the same axe. PW.6 is a local resident and he stated that he also reached the house of the accused and noticed what all the other witnesses have found. His evidence is similar to that of the other witnesses. On similar lines is the evidence of PW.7, another local resident. 8. Upon perusing the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, we find it to be consistent and cogent, and there is no room for any doubt that they are all truthful and natural witnesses, and who have absolutely no axe to grind against the accused. They all deposed in one voice that on the morning of 20.10.2008 when they went to the hut of the accused, they found the dead bodies of two women (D1 and D2) lying in the hut and the accused was standing there holding blood stained axe (M.O.1). All the witnesses are elaborately cross-examined, but nothing concrete is elicited to disbelieve their statements. The witnesses are the neighbouring residents, own sister, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the accused. They are the last persons to implicate the accused, if really he was an innocent, as claimed by him during the course of trial. 9. The oral evidence is consistent with that of the medical evidence on record. The Doctor (PW.10) deposed that he conducted autopsy over the two dead bodies on the same day. Exs.P.8 and P.9 are the post-mortem reports issued by him. He found nine injuries on the dead body of Savithri (D1) and six injuries on the dead body of Gowramma (D2). The Doctor (PW.10) deposed that he conducted autopsy over the two dead bodies on the same day. Exs.P.8 and P.9 are the post-mortem reports issued by him. He found nine injuries on the dead body of Savithri (D1) and six injuries on the dead body of Gowramma (D2). It is further in his evidence that the injuries on the dead bodies are possible with a weapon, such as an axe like M.O.1. 10. The evidence of Investigating Officers, namely PWs.12 and 13, is on the aspects, which are not seriously disputed. It is in the evidence of PW.12 Sub-Inspector of Police that on telephonic information he went to the village of Seetharampuram and noticed the dead bodies of two ladies and obtained the complaint (Ex.P.1) from PW.1 and sent it to the Police Station for registering the crime. He claims that he has received the telephonic message at about 8.00 a.m. from an unknown villager. PW-13, the Inspector of Police, deposed that he took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence, effected the arrest of the accused, conducted scene of offence panchanama, inquest and sent the dead bodies to post-mortem examination. He recorded the statements of the material witnesses, which is found to be consistent with what the prosecution witnesses deposed in the Court. 11. The oral, medical and documentary evidence on record establishes beyond pale of doubt that it is the accused, who has committed the crime, which is beyond anybody’s comprehensions. 12. A feeble attempt was made by the defence during the course of trial to say that the accused was not in the village at the time when the incident took place. Except for making vague suggestions, nothing concrete has come on record to even remotely think that the accused was not in the village when the incident took place. On the other hand, there is positive evidence to the contra. 13. It may be misnomer to call the accused a human-being. In flash of seconds, he has put an end to the life of one woman who gave birth to him, and another woman with whom he has vowed to spend the remainder of his life. Such a person looses, no doubt, the right to life. At least, he is not entitled to be in the midst of a civilized society. That is what has happened in the case in hand. Such a person looses, no doubt, the right to life. At least, he is not entitled to be in the midst of a civilized society. That is what has happened in the case in hand. The accused after his draconian act of killing his wife and mother, when she tried to interfere, and was standing near the corps with a blood stained axe till the relations and the villagers assembled outside their hut. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has sentenced the accused to spend the rest of his life in incarnation. The provocation for the said beastly act on the part of the accused, as per his own statement made before the relations and the village elders, is that his wife asked him as to how long she should serve his mother and for that he has splashed the neck of his wife and when his ailing mother came in between he did not even spare her also. 14. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has delivered verdict of guilt against the accused. Upon perusing the evidence on record, we see no reason to take any view other than the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, who has had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The material objects, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.