Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 366 (TS)

Kurakula Jampaiah v. State Of A. P.

2020-03-10

A.ABHISHEK REDDY, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - Having been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C, having been sentenced to life imprisonment, having been imposed with the fine of Rs.500/-, and further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof, also having been convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C, having been sentenced to one year imprisonment, having been imposed with the fine of Rs.500/- and further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in default thereof, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 14.02.2013, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.421 of 2012, before this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that P.Laxmi (P.W.1), the mother of Suguna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), had lodged a written report (Ex.P.1) before the SubInspector of Police, Parkal Police Station, wherein she claimed that 'My elder daughter Palleboina Suguna D/o Late Yellayya, age 35 years, was married in the young age and was divorced. Since then my daughter is residing in a room adjacent to our house and she has illegal contact with our villager viz., Kurakula Jampaiah, since 15 years. In this context Jampaiah visit my daughter regularly. To-day i.e., on 27.10.2011, Thursday night at about 9.00 p.m., Jampaiah came to my daughter and he broke into quarrel with my daughter as to why she spent Rs.500/- towards the religious vow (puja) in her parent's house. At that time, myself, my three daughters viz., Naredla Bhadramma, Parisha Soundarya and Naredla Sumalatha and my second sonin-law Parisha Chinnanna who came for Deevali Festival were present there. Thereafter, Jampaiah and my daughter Suguna went into the room and shut the doors and we also went into our house to sleep. After some time during night at 10.30 p.m we saw flames and smoke coming out of the room of my daughter which is adjacent to our house and myself and my daughters Naredla Bhadramma, Parisha Soundarya, Narendla Sumalatha and my second son-in-law Parisha Chinanna shouted and hearing our shouts, my brother-in-law's son viz., Palleboina Prabhakar and Nagula Sammakka came to us and all of us went and knocked the doors and then Jampaiah with an intention to kill me attacked me with a knife and caused injury to my right hand. When we went into the room, we found my daughter was burnt to death. When we went into the room, we found my daughter was burnt to death. Jampaiah also sustained burn injuries on face and on the other parts of his body.' 3. On the basis of the said report, the Police, Parkal Police Station, chalked out a formal FIR, namely F.I.R No.271 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., and commenced the investigation. During the course of the investigation, the appellant was arrested by the police. Subsequently, he was put up for trial. 4. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses, submitted twenty documents, and produced five articles before the learned trial Court. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 5. Ms. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, P. Laxmi (P.W.1), the mother of the deceased, N.Bhadramma (P.W.2), the sister of the deceased, B.Soundarya (P.W.3), another sister of the deceased, and N.Sumalatha (P.W.4), the third sister of the deceased, P.Chinnanna (P.W.5), the brother-in-law of the deceased, Nagula Sammakka (P.W.6), P.Prabhakar (P.W.7), K.Yellaswamy (P.W.8), Ch. Saramma (P.W.9), G. Bhadraiah (P.W.10) and Ch. Raju (P.W.12) have turned hostile. Therefore, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Despite the fact that the witnesses have failed to support the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant. Hence, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted by this Court. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently pleaded that even if the witnesses turned hostile, their testimonies cannot be thrown out of the Court. For, that part of the testimony, which supports the case of the prosecution, can certainly be accepted, and can be used to convict an offender. In their testimonies, P.Ws.1 to 4 have rightly admitted that after their examination-in-chief, the case was compromised between them and the appellant. Therefore, in their cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have resiled from their examination-in-chief. But nonetheless, their examination-inchief is supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offences. Therefore, in their cross-examination, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have resiled from their examination-in-chief. But nonetheless, their examination-inchief is supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offences. Secondly, since the deceased was burnt inside the room, where she was staying with the appellant, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is upon the appellant to explain as to how the deceased had died. However, the appellant has not offered any such explanation. Therefore, his silence is a clear pointer to his guilt. Thirdly, even according to the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.15), the appellant had suffered simple burn injuries up to 13%, on the forehead and nose, on the right leg, and on the right foot. This evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who had burnt the deceased. Lastly, through the testimonies of Dr. K. Lalitha Devi (P.W.16) and Dr. B. Chokkaiah (P.W.17) and through the PostMortem Report (Ex.P.16), the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that the deceased had died a homicidal death. For, according to the doctors, the deceased had died due to shock, which was caused by the burns. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, and examined the record. 7. P. Laxmi (P.W.1), the mother of the deceased, informs the Court in her examination-in-chief that 'on the eve of Nomula panduga, my daughters Sumalatha, Soundarya, Bhadramma and my son-in-law Chinnanna came to my house, when I was not having any money with me, my eldest daughter Suguna gave me Rs.500/-, then accused picked up quarrel with my daughter as to why she gave me Rs.500/-. At about 10:00 in night we slept, the accused and my daughter Suguna have also slept by closing their doors. After half an hour I have noticed smoke coming from the room of my daughter and rushed to her room and found my daughter Suguna on flames, the accused came outside their room with a knife and I was stabbed on my right forearm. My daughters Sumalatha, Bhadramma and my son-inlaw Chinnanna followed me, Sammakka, Prabhakar, Yellaswamy have also witnessed the incident. My daughters Sumalatha, Bhadramma and my son-inlaw Chinnanna followed me, Sammakka, Prabhakar, Yellaswamy have also witnessed the incident. The accused stabbed me with an intention to kill me, but my daughters Bhadramma, Soundharya have saved me. After stabbing me the accused has left the scene. On the same night I have given a report to police which is Ex.P.1. Police examined me.' 8. The said examination-in-chief was carried out on 29.10.2012. On the said date, the defence chose not to crossexamine the witness. However, subsequently, the defence has cross-examined this witness on 05.12.2012 i.e., after a lapse of almost one month and few days. It is during the course of cross- examination that the witness resiled from the examination-inchief, and was declared as hostile. But, in the crossexamination carried out by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the witness clearly admits that "we have settled the matter outside". 9. Similar is the case with the testimony of N. Bhadramma (P.W.2), who has repeated the deposition of P. Laxmi (P.W.1), in her examination-in-chief as well. However, even this witness was cross-examined about one month and few days later by the defence. In her cross-examination by the defence, she has resiled from her examination-in-chief. Thus, this witness too has been declared as hostile. In her cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, she too admits the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise. 10. Similar is the case of B. Soundarya (P.W.3). Even this witness has resiled from her examination-in-chief one month and few days after the date of examination-in-chief. Even she admits that the matter has been compromised. 11. But nonetheless, the fact does remain that in their examination-in-chief, they do claim that the deceased was married to one Buchaiah about fifteen years ago. She was divorced later on. The deceased started living in a room near the house of the witnesses. The witnesses further state that the appellant and the deceased had illicit intimacy and they started living together. 12. P. Laxmi (P.W.1) further informs the Court that "on the eve of Nomula panduga, her daughter Suguna, the deceased, gave her Rs.500/-." It is on this account that the appellant picked a quarrel with her daughter. She further describes the incident that she noticed smoke coming from the room of her daughter, rushed to her room, and found her daughter Suguna in flames. She further describes the incident that she noticed smoke coming from the room of her daughter, rushed to her room, and found her daughter Suguna in flames. The appellant came out of the room with a knife, and stabbed her on the right fore-arm. 13. The testimony of P. Laxmi (P.W.1) is further supported by the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.14). Dr. K. Lalitha Devi (P.W.16) has also testified that she has examined P. Laxmi (P.W.1) and found laceration of 1 x 1/2 inch below the right elbow joint. According to her, the injury might have been caused with blunt weapon. She has proved the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.14). 14. Moreover, the testimony of P. Laxmi (P.W.1), that she found her daughter in flames, is further supported by the PostMortem Examination Report (Ex.P.16). According to the PostMortem Examination Report (Ex.P.16), the deceased had suffered 90% of burns and the burns were upto 3rd and 4th degrees. She had died due to the shock caused by the burns. 15. N. Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3) have supported the examination-in-chief of P. Laxmi (P.W.1). Similarly, even their testimonies have been supported by the Post-Mortem Examination Report (Ex.P.16). 16. Most interestingly, the testimonies of P.Laxmi (P.W.1), N.Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3) are further supported by the Wound Certificate (Ex.P.15) of the appellant. 17. According to Dr. K. Lalitha Devi (P.W.16), she had examined the appellant. She has discovered 13% of simple burns on the forehead, on the nose, on the right leg and on the right foot of the appellant. 18. Since according to P.Laxmi (P.W.1), N. Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3), the deceased was burnt in the very room, which she was occupying with the appellant, since the appellant too had suffered burnt injuries on his body, obviously, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the appellant to explain as to how the deceased was burnt, and how he had received burn injuries on his body. However, the appellant has maintained silence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, his studied silence also unerringly points towards his guilt. 19. According to the testimonies of P.Laxmi (P.W.1), N.Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3), the appellant had fought with the deceased over the fact that the deceased had given Rs.500/- to her mother, P.Laxmi (P.W.1). Thus, there was even a motive for killing the deceased. 20. 19. According to the testimonies of P.Laxmi (P.W.1), N.Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3), the appellant had fought with the deceased over the fact that the deceased had given Rs.500/- to her mother, P.Laxmi (P.W.1). Thus, there was even a motive for killing the deceased. 20. Hence, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant through the testimonies of P.Laxmi (P.W.1), N. Bhadramma (P.W.2) and B. Soundarya (P.W.3), through the medical testimonies of Dr. K. Lalitha Devi (P.W.16) and Dr. B. Chokkaiah (P.W.17), through the Wound Certificate (Ex.P14) of P. Laxmi (P.W.1), and through the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.16). Hence, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. 21. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellantaccused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, in the judgment, dated 14.02.2013, in Sessions Case No.421 of 2012, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, are hereby confirmed. 23. As the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, for serving the remaining period of his sentence.