Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 531 (AP)

Sk. Ramjani v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-04-10

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

body2014
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant herein was accused of killing none other than his daughter, by name Irfana Begum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), aged about 18 years at 12.00 noon on 12.10.2007 in Telephone Colony, Nizamabad. 2. It was alleged that the accused was married to PW.1 and the couple had two sons, by name Arif, who has gone to Dubai for livelihood, and Rafi-PW.2, and one daughter, the deceased. The accused was said to be an auto-driver. PW.2 was a student, and the deceased was learning tailoring work. At the time of occurrence, the accused was said to be taking rest in their house, since one of his upper limbs were broken and he was operated upon. On 12.10.2007 at about 1200 noon, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have gone to market to purchase provisions on the eve of ensuing festival, Ramzan, and in the house, the accused and the deceased were present. After returning home, PW.1 is said to have knocked the door and after quite sometime the accused opened the door, and his hands and clothes were stained with blood. Frightened on seeing the accused in that condition, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have gone inside the house and found the deceased in a pool of blood. She is said to have beaten by the accused with a big hammer on the head and with a sharp weapon. Several parts of her body are cut into pieces, and that the clothes on her were also torn. 3. On receipt of the information about the incident, the Sub-Inspector of Police – PW.12 rushed to the spot along with his staff, recorded the statement of PW.1, as Ex.P.1, registered Crime No.190 of 2007 under Sec.302 I.P.C., against the accused and took up the investigation. Scene of offence panchanama was drawn, inquest and post-mortem examination were conducted, and a charge-sheet was filed, alleging that the accused committed the murder of his daughter. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.327 of 2008. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Ex.P.1 to P.12 were filed, and MOs.1 to 8 were taken on record. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.327 of 2008. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Ex.P.1 to P.12 were filed, and MOs.1 to 8 were taken on record. Though the evidence was recorded by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizambad, the hearing of it was taken place before the Sessions Judge, Nizambad, as per the orders of this Court. Through its judgment dt. 24.09.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Hence this appeal by the accused. 5. Sri D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made against the accused are so unnatural, that one cannot just believe them. He contends that the accused was affectionate towards his family members, including the deceased, and making an allegation that such a person killed his daughter, that too in a gruesome manner, is beyond anybody’s comprehension. The learned counsel further submits that even according the prosecution witnesses the accused was taking rest after getting surgery to one of his limbs, and a person undergoing treatment cannot perpetrate such an act by lifting a heavy hammer. It is also his case that the deceased was none other than the daughter of the accused, and that the prosecution failed even to suggest or attribute any motive to the accused to kill his own daughter. The learned counsel further submits that the trial Court convicted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the close relatives i.e., wife and son of the accused, have deposed as PWs.1 and 2, and stated that it is the accused, who committed the murder of the deceased. She submits that the accused and the deceased alone were inmates of the house, when PWs.1 and 2 went outside, and they have consistently stated that on repeated knocking of the doors, the accused opened the door, with blood on his hands and clothes. She submits that, in case any other person has caused the death of the deceased, the question of the premises being bolted from inside and the accused opening the same does not arise. She submits that, in case any other person has caused the death of the deceased, the question of the premises being bolted from inside and the accused opening the same does not arise. She further submits that PWs.1 and 2, and other relatives of the family consistently stated that the accused used to behave cruelly with his daughter, particularly, when she wore attractive garments. 7. It does not even accord with a civilised society that a father would kill his grown up daughter, whatever be the cause. Unfortunately, even such instances are occurring and are being reported not so infrequently. The Court would certainly be slow to accept the version of the prosecution that a particular individual has killed his daughter, obviously, because the family system still prevails, and the human relations have not deteriorated to such disturbing levels. 8. In the instant case, however, the facts are a bit shocking. The family of the accused comprises of himself, his wife-PW.1, two sons, including PW.2, and the deceased. Their elder son by name, Arif is said to have gone to Gulf countries for earning livelihood. Therefore, the remaining four persons were residing in the house, which is taken on rent from PW.5. In October 2007, ‘Ramzan’ festival was scheduled on 14.10.2007, and two days before the festival i.e., on 12.10.2007, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have gone to market, for the purchase of provisions for the ensuing festival, leaving the deceased in the house along with the accused, who was said to be taking rest in the house on account of the operation conducted to one of his upper limbs. Sometime later, PWs.1 and 2 came back and found the door of their house bolted from inside. After repeated knocks on the door, the accused is said to have opened the door, and they found his hands and clothes with blood stains. Naturally, they were frightened, went inside the house, and found the deceased in a pool of blood. Both of them raised cries, on hearing which neighbours gathered there. Obviously, the neighbours were convinced that the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused, and started beating him. Therefore, the accused escaped from the scene. On receipt of the information, police arrived at the spot, recorded the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P.1), and completed the other formalities required under law. 9. Obviously, the neighbours were convinced that the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused, and started beating him. Therefore, the accused escaped from the scene. On receipt of the information, police arrived at the spot, recorded the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P.1), and completed the other formalities required under law. 9. It is no doubt true that there is no eye-witness to the incident. However, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was strong enough. PW.1 faced a typical situation. The deceased was her daughter and the person, who figured as accused, is her husband. Unless some serious acts of dishonesty are attributed against a woman, she would not be inclined to depose against her husband. Even if such a woman is convinced that her husband may have committed certain wrongs, she may not speak against her husband with the sole object of retaining her husband in her company.Theevidence of PW.1 has to be viewed in that context. It is only when she was fully convinced from the events witnessed by her, she deposed that the murder of her daughter was committed by her husband, i.e., the accused. Through out her cross-examination, not a syllable was suggested indicating any ill-will, hatred or animosity between her and the accused. PW.2 is a minor son of the accused and PW.1. His evidence is verbatim the same, as that of PW.1. Here again, one has to take into account, the fact that a son would not be inclined to send his father to prison, just on account of any dislike or fancy. 10. One important aspect which is to be noted is that PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated that the accused used to be contemptuous against the deceased from her childhood, particularly, when she wears attractive garments. Sometimes it may be an inherent quality of the person or the hatred that emanates on account of any specific event. A third person cannot gauge or measurethe conduct of a person in matters of this nature. 11. PW.3is a close relation of PW.1 and the accused, and PW.4 is the cousin brother of PW.1. These two witnesses have spoken about the conduct and the attitude of the accused towards his daughter, the deceased. PW.5 is the owner of the premises in which the family of the accused was living. 11. PW.3is a close relation of PW.1 and the accused, and PW.4 is the cousin brother of PW.1. These two witnesses have spoken about the conduct and the attitude of the accused towards his daughter, the deceased. PW.5 is the owner of the premises in which the family of the accused was living. He stated that after PWs.1 and 2 left their house for market, Mr.Shaik Ahmed Hussan- LW.16, grandfather of the deceased, knocked the door of the house of the accused at about 02.15 p.m. and when the door was not opened for quite sometime, he went away. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 are said to have come to their house at about 2.30 p.m., and for about ten minutes, the door did not open, even after it was knocked by them. PW.5 is also said to have come out and witnessed that PW.1 crying that his daughter was killed. He too is said to have entered into the house and found the deceased in a pool of blood, and several parts of her body were cut into pieces. The hammer and a sickle were also said to be near the dead body of the deceased. More important aspect is that PW.5 is said to have found the hands of the accused were stained with blood, and that he was making an attempt to wash his hands. The attitude of the accused towards the deceased was clearly spoken to by PW.5. According to him, the accused never sent his daughter to anybody’s house, nor did he allow her to wear good garments. He has also stated that the accused beat the deceased twice or thrice and that he had shouted at him in that context. All the witnesses referred to above have stated that the accused fled away from the house once the neighbours gathered and started either questioning or attacking him. 12. When such is the consistency of the evidence, the invariable conclusion is that the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, we find the circumstances, such as the accused alone being in the company of the deceased by the time PWs.1 and 2 left the house, and the accused not coming forward with any version of his own, in relation to the death of his daughter. Apart from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, we find the circumstances, such as the accused alone being in the company of the deceased by the time PWs.1 and 2 left the house, and the accused not coming forward with any version of his own, in relation to the death of his daughter. It was not even suggested by the defence that any possibility of the murder of the deceased being committed by a third person, existed. The age of the deceased girl is such that, at the most there can be an attempt to commit sexual assault on her. Even if a criminal makes an attempt to commit such an offence, one does not expect him to kill the girl of that age in such a gruesome manner, going to the extent of cutting various parts of her body, that too in broad day light in the midst of densely populated area. This is a typical case in which the prosecution as well as the Court can adopt the process of elimination of every possible factor and to zero upon the only possibility. Even if that is adopted, the inescapable conclusion is that it is only the accused, who has committed the murder of the deceased. The circumstances, such as that – (a) The accused and the deceased alone were in the house, at the time of the incident; (b) The door was locked from inside, for quite sometime, as spoken to, by Ex.PW.5; (c) Blood was noticed on the hands and clothes of the accused; (d) The accused did not raise alarm about the attack on his daughter, did not file complaint, but ran away from the seen; prove that it is only the accused, that caused the death of his daughter. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court. 13. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.