Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 552 (AP)

Malluri Rama Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-04-16

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

body2014
Judgment L.N. Reddy, J. 1. Even to narrate the facts of this case some amount of courage and strong will is needed. The entire case turned around the saga of a woman, who figured as victim with reference to one incident, and accused, in relation to another. 2. The sole appellant herein was tried as A1 together with A2 and A3 in S.C. No. 61 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rayachoty, Kadapa District. The facts that were presented by the prosecution before the trial Court were: 3. A1 is the wife of one Malluri Madana Mohan Reddy of Malluruvandlapalli Village. Their marriage took place somewhere in the year 1998, and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. Thereafter, the, relationship is said to be not that cordial, particularly because, the A1 is said to have been sent to Kuwait by her mother and husband of A3, Sriramula Reddy, and after coming out from Kuwait, A1 was said to be living in the house of her parents at Kanakantivaripalli Village, Hamlet of Bonamala, Chinnamandem Mandal. Madan Mohan Reddy is said to have caused the death of his mother-in-law i.e., mother of A1 herein, and the husband of A3 i.e., one Sri Sriramula Reddy, on the intervening night of 28th/29th of April, 2006. Crime No. 29 of 2006 was registered and the Madan Mohan Reddy, the deceased, was being tried in S.C. No. 51 of 2007 by the same trial Court; and he came out on bail. 4. On 05.09.2007, Madan Mohan Reddy is said to have gone to Kanakantivaripalli village, where A1 and A2 were staying. The prosecution alleged that A1 spread chilli powder on Madan Mohan Reddy, A2 and A3 pushed him down, and thereupon, A1 killed him with sickle. She is said to have separated the head of Madan Mohan Reddy from the trunk, and took it to the police station at Chinnamandem at about 10.00 p.m. on 5.9.2007 and handed over it to P.W. 8, a constable. 5. On the basis of the information received by P.W. 8, Crime No. 58 of 2007 was registered and investigation was taken up. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted, and body was sent for postmortem examination. 5. On the basis of the information received by P.W. 8, Crime No. 58 of 2007 was registered and investigation was taken up. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted, and body was sent for postmortem examination. On the basis of alleged confession of A1 and other material gathered in the course of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3. All the three accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and Exs. P1 to P10 were filed. MOs. 1 to 8 were also taken on record. D.W. 1 was examined to speak the fact that A2 and A3 were not present at the scene of offence. 6. Through its judgment, dated 30.12.2009, the trial Court acquitted A2 and A3, but convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months was imposed. Hence, this appeal by A1 (for short "the accused"). 7. Sri D. Kondanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that barring the alleged confession of the accused before P.W. 8, there has no other evidence on record, to allege that she committed the murder of her husband. He submits that though P.W. 2, the father of the deceased, stated that P.W. 3 informed him of witnessing the occurrence, the evidence of P.W. 3 does not support it. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was himself a criminal, having committed the murder of his mother-in-law, and a close relation i.e., husband of A3, and once he came out from the jail, he became target for many. He submits that the trial Court itself disbelieved the confession said to have been recorded by P.W. 8, and with that, there does not exist any material to convict the accused. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that it is a rare case in which, soon after committing the offence, the accused proceeded to the police station, together with the head of the deceased and made a clear confession. She contends that though technically speaking the confession said to have been recorded by P.W. 8, does not accord with law, the fact that the accused took the head of her husband to the police station, is proved beyond any pale of doubt. 9. She contends that though technically speaking the confession said to have been recorded by P.W. 8, does not accord with law, the fact that the accused took the head of her husband to the police station, is proved beyond any pale of doubt. 9. Just imagine a scene, where a woman holds the head of her husband, that too, by cutting it by herself. The civilization in which, we live, does not permit us to believe that such things can happen. However, this is the picture presented by the prosecution. It is no doubt true that Madan Mohan Reddy was put to death on 05.09.2007 at Kanakantivaripalli Village, the native place of her in laws, and that his head was separated from the trunk. The whole controversy is as to whether A1 is the person, who committed that crime. Here itself a note of caution needs to be added to the effect that it is no part of the duty of the Court to find out, if not A1, who else may have caused the death. 10. It has already been mentioned that there is no formal or informal complaint to the police about the incident. The crime was registered on the basis of the information said to have been furnished by none other than the accused i.e., wife of the deceased, that too, claiming to be the person, who caused the death. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 8 discloses that he was the only constable available at the station, and he recorded the confession statement of the accused, after summoning some witnesses. Howsoever, truthful or otherwise it may be, it cannot be accepted. A police constable is neither authorized to register a crime nor to record the confessional statement. Obviously for this reason, the trial Court ignored almost the entire evidence of P.W. 8. 11. The other evidence of the prosecution was that of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 3 stated that on 05.09.2007, Madan Mohan Reddy proceeded to Kanakantivaripalli Village on a bicycle to bring his wife back and that he accompanied him on the same bicycle. He stated that when they reached the village, an obstruction was found on the road, and in that view of the matter, he got down from the bicycle, whereas, Madan Mohan Reddy, proceeded. He stated that when they reached the village, an obstruction was found on the road, and in that view of the matter, he got down from the bicycle, whereas, Madan Mohan Reddy, proceeded. He further stated that he proceeded by walk and by the time, he reached the house, where the accused was staying, a galata took place between the couple, i.e., the accused and the deceased and 2, 3 persons also gathered there. On witnessing that, P.W. 3 is said to have come back and informed the matter to the father of Madan Mohan Reddy, P.W. 2. The latter is said to have proceeded to Kanakantivaripalli Village on 06.09.2007 together with his relatives, and there, he found the dead body of his son. This witness stated that P.W. 3 informed him that he has seen the accused and two others killing the deceased. That however is not the evidence of P.W. 3 himself. The net result is that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution, to connect the accused with the crime. 12. It is true that there are strong circumstances to suspect the involvement of the accused in the death of her husband. They include: a) The death took place right in front of the house of her mother; b) She did not make any complaint to anyone about the death; c) She had a grievance or grouse against the deceased, since he was accused of killing the mother of the accused herein. 13. However, there are serious lapses on the part of the prosecution. Firstly, when the accused is said to have come to the police station by holding the head of her husband, any sensible or police officer would have arranged for the confession before a Judicial Magistrate. Secondly, though the sari of the accused is said to have been stained with blood, it was not sent for analysis by Forensic Laboratory. It may look somewhat odd, that a lady who caught the head of her husband to the police station is sought to be treated as innocent. Fortunately or unfortunately, law stipulates certain parameters for declaring a person as guilty. Even the confession must accord with law. 14. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, even if, taken on its face value, cannot connect A1 with the crime. A2 and A3 have already been acquitted by the trial Court. Fortunately or unfortunately, law stipulates certain parameters for declaring a person as guilty. Even the confession must accord with law. 14. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, even if, taken on its face value, cannot connect A1 with the crime. A2 and A3 have already been acquitted by the trial Court. The benefit of doubt, naturally needs to be extended to the accused. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 61 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, dated 30.12.2009, against the appellant-A1, are set aside. The appellant-A1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A1 shall be refunded to her.