Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 474 (TS)

Kamatham Sayamma v. State of A. P.

2020-06-12

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 11.07.2006, passed by the Special Judge for the trail of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act - cum - VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad in Sessions Case No.333 of 2005, the appellant - Accused No.2 preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant - accused No.2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part - II and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo five (05) years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part - II. She was further sentenced to undergo one (01) year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The trial Court ordered to run both the sentences of imprisonment concurrently. It is relevant to note that the appellant - Accused No.2 was also charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B and 404 of IPC, but she was acquitted of the said charges. 3. The deceased - Smt. Mangani Savithramma was having an extra marital relationship with accused No.1 for about 20 years. She used to meet accused No.1 mostly at Jadcherla and used to spend with him. Accused No.4 - Smt. Balamani, a widow, used to move with the deceased and she is also having an illegal intimacy with Accused No.3 - Pole Shivaiah. The deceased addicted to all bad habits, like drinking toddy and illicit liquor in the company of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. It is relevant to note that accused Nos.1 to 4 are also having said all bad habits. 4. The deceased also used to quarrel frequently with her mother demanding the pension amount of her father to meet her expenses. Since about two years, the deceased reduced meeting accused No.1, upon which accused No.1 became wild against the deceased. 5. On 07.04.2005 in the morning, the deceased left her house and went to Badepalli on the pretext of getting treatment for her wound in Government Hospital. She met Accused No.4 and both of them went to the house of her mother (PW.2) and argued with her mother about pension amount. The deceased also demanded PW.2, her mother to give some amount to meet her expenditure. She met Accused No.4 and both of them went to the house of her mother (PW.2) and argued with her mother about pension amount. The deceased also demanded PW.2, her mother to give some amount to meet her expenditure. Thereafter, the deceased met accused Nos.2 and 4 in the evening at Subhash Chowk and all of them went to the toddy shop. 6. On the same day i.e., 07.04.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., accused No.1 went to Badepalli and met the deceased, Smt. Golla Parwathama, accused Nos.2 and 3 at Subhash Chowk. Then accused No.1 bought half bottle whisky from nearby Wine Shop i.e., Sri Venkateshwara Wine Shop, in which PW.10 was working, took all of them to Moosa Toddy compound wherein all of them consumed the whisky. At about 8.30 p.m., accused No.3 met his concubine - Accused No.4 and pressurized accused No.1 to provide whisky. Then, accused No.1 purchased two quarter bottles of whisky and asked them to accompany him to railway track to have whisky. Then, PW.5 - Golla Parwathamma returned to her house, while Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the deceased went along with railway track and halted at Km.No.94/9-12 behind Raghavendra Threatre, where accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased sat at one place and accused Nos.3 and 4 sat just away to them and started taking whisky. The deceased was in highly intoxicated condition and was out of mood to share the lust with accused No.1. Taking advantage of her condition, accused No.1 tried to lure accused No.2 and asked her to cooperate with him. Then, Accused No.2 refused to fulfill his desire on a plea that he is having illegal intimacy with the deceased for last about 20 years. At that particular point of time, accused No.1 expressed his anguish over the deceased as she was being away to him for the last two years and moving on her own accord and bore grudge against her and waiting for opportunity to see the end of the deceased. 7. Accused No.1 promised to do away with the life of the deceased and to give her ornaments to accused No.2 on which accused No.2 agreed to the proposal of accused No.1 to kill the deceased. While the deceased was in an inebriated condition, accused No.1 repeatedly hit the head of the deceased to railway track and caused severe bleeding head injury, resulting in her death. While the deceased was in an inebriated condition, accused No.1 repeatedly hit the head of the deceased to railway track and caused severe bleeding head injury, resulting in her death. It is also alleged by the prosecution that accused No.2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and removed the gold ear tops weighing 3 grams and a pair of silver anklets weighing 40 tulas from the possession of the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4, who were present near the scene of offence, witnessed the incident and rushed to accused Nos.1 and 2. After confirming the death of the deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2 dragged the body in between the tracks and fled away. It is further alleged that on the same day night, accused Nos.1 to 4 went to Shadnagar and taken shelter in the undisclosed shopping complex for the night. Thereafter, accused Nos.3 and 4 provided shelter to accused Nos.1 and 2. 8. On the complaint lodged by the Assistant Station Master, South Central Railways, Mahaboobnagar, a case was registered and investigated into the same. 9. After completion of the investigation, PW.15 filed charge sheet against the appellant - accused No.2 and other accused. 10. The learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302 and 379 read 34 of IPC. After following the procedure, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file and made over to VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad for disposal. 11. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of IPC and 379 read with 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 and 2; charge under Section 212 of IPC against accused Nos.3 and 4 and charge under section 404 read with 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4. The appellant - accused No.2 denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. 12. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witness viz., PWs.1 to 16 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. MOs.1 and 2 were also exhibited during the course of trial. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced. 13. 12. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witness viz., PWs.1 to 16 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. MOs.1 and 2 were also exhibited during the course of trial. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced. 13. After completion of trial and on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilt of the charges under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC, while accused Nos.3 and 4 for the charge under Section 212 of IPC and accordingly, convicted them for the said charges imposing the sentences of imprisonment in the manner stated above. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and imposition of sentences of imprisonment, accused No.2 preferred the present appeal. 15. Heard Mr. Andhugula Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of the respondent. 16. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no direct evidence in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the incident. He would further contend that the deceased was in highly intoxicated condition at the time of accident. She used to quarrel with her mother and also husband. According to him, the deceased has addicted to alcohol and she is having other bad habits, like drinking toddy and liquor and she is also having illicit intimacy with accused No.1. 17. He would further contend that the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.2 involved in the incident and committed the offence under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC. According to him, the trial Court without appreciating the contradictions which are serious in nature in the depositions of PWs.13 and 15, convicted the appellant only basing on the circumstantial evidence though there is no eye witnesses to the incident. 18. He would further contend that the trial Court failed to see that there are serious contradictions in the depositions of PWs.2 to 9, 11 and 12, even then, convicted the appellant. 18. He would further contend that the trial Court failed to see that there are serious contradictions in the depositions of PWs.2 to 9, 11 and 12, even then, convicted the appellant. He would further contend that the trial Court having held that evidence of PWs.2 and 4 that accused No.1 killed the deceased is a hear-say evidence and they are not direct witnesses to the occurrence, the piece of hear-say evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 that accused Nos.1 to 4 cannot be received is substantial piece of evidence, but it is one of the circumstances, PW.2 and PW.4 being the mother and husband of the deceased, gathered the information of cause of death of the deceased from PW.3 and PW.5 and other witnesses after the death of the deceased as they are close relatives of the deceased and accordingly recorded conviction for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC. According to him, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the said offences. 19. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the trial Court gave specific reasoning by referring the depositions of prosecution witnesses and documents as mentioned in the impugned judgment. Though there is no direct evidence, the trial Court by considering circumstantial evidence, recorded the conviction for the said offences. He would further contend that the trial Court is having power to record conviction even by relying upon circumstantial evidence. There is no circumstance/reason that warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal. 20. In view above, the only issue that falls for consideration by this Court is: whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC against the appellant - accused No.2 is sustainable, both on facts and in law? 21. PWs.2 and 4 are important witnesses. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased and PW.4 is the husband of the deceased. 22. PW.2 - Mrs. T. Satyamma, mother of the deceased, during chief-examination, has deposed as to why the accused killed her daughter and the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. Police asked her whether the deceased was her daughter. 23. During cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know personally who and how her daughter was killed. At about 9.00 a.m., she came to know that her daughter died. Police asked her whether the deceased was her daughter. 23. During cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know personally who and how her daughter was killed. At about 9.00 a.m., she came to know that her daughter died. Her daughter used to visit her once in 15 days or in a month. Her daughter used to quarrel with her with regard to pension money. A day prior to the death, her daughter came to her house in the noon time, took meals and asked for pension money, but PW.2 did not give the same. Then the deceased left the house. 24. PW.4 - Mr. M. Chinna Narsimhulu, husband of the deceased, deposed that accused Nos.1 to 4 killed his wife near Jadcherla Bridge. 25. During cross-examination, he categorically admitted that his wife used to drink liquor. He has stated to police that on 07.04.2005 in the noon time his wife intimated him that she had to go to Jadcherla Hospital for leg injury and hence, he gave a sum of Rs.160/-. She suffered some injury on her leg and became septic and hence she had to go to the Hospital. 26. PW.3 - Mr. Masaiah, relative of deceased, deposed that one day prior to the death of deceased, at about 8.00 p.m., while he was going to his house after closing his work, he found the deceased and Accused Nos.2 and 4 were talking together near the chowrasta. He spoke to the deceased. 27. During cross-examination, he has admitted that initially he has seen the deceased at about 2.00 p.m. on that day, but he did not speak to her. 28. PW.5 - Mrs. Parvatama, friend of the deceased, deposed that prior to the death of the deceased, she found the deceased near a shop and they spoke together. She further deposed about ordering silver ring in the shop and then she and the deceased went to the bus stand. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were present at the bus stand at that particular point of time. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the deceased were talking together under a Neem tree at Jadcherla bus stand. 29. During cross-examination, PW.5 has admitted that she knows accused No.2 personally. She heard the name of Sivaiah and others while the same was being uttered by him. 30. PW.6 - Mr. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the deceased were talking together under a Neem tree at Jadcherla bus stand. 29. During cross-examination, PW.5 has admitted that she knows accused No.2 personally. She heard the name of Sivaiah and others while the same was being uttered by him. 30. PW.6 - Mr. Rajender Singh, owner of jewellery shop, deposed about accused No.4 coming to his shop on 09.04.2005 by wearing silver anklets and two ear studs and sought to pledge the same for borrowal of money and that all the accused came to his shop and pledged silver anklets and ear studs and borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500/-. 31. PW.11 - Mr. Murali Goud, owner of toddy shop, deposed that accused Nos.1 to 4 were their customers, while accused No.4 was their regular customer. On 07.04.2005 in the noon time at about 1.00 p.m., accused Nos.2 to 4 along with another woman whose name is not known to him, came to his toddy shop and purchased four toddy bottles. He can identify the woman (deceased) brought by the accused. The woman, who was brought by the accused on that day, is the same woman who is found in Exs.P5 to P7, photographs shown to him and that once again in the night at about 7.00 p.m., all the accused along with the deceased came to his shop and brought whisky bottles, sat in their toddy compound and consumed the same. Later they left. 32. During cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that accused No.3 is a resident of Jadcherla and that he is residing in Sriram Nagar of Jadcherla. The distance between their toddy compound and accused No.3 is about ½ km. He do not know the residential village of accused No.2. Accused No.4 resides at Rajapur, Gollapalli as informed by her. The deceased woman also used to come to their shop once in every two days. He further admitted that in the noon time, accused Nos.2, 4, deceased and another woman came and purchased toddy. Accused No.3 do not come alone with those women in the noon time to their shop. He did not know the name of another woman who accompanied accused Nos.2, 4 and the deceased. He do not know the name of fourth woman is Golla Parvathamma. Accused No.3 do not come alone with those women in the noon time to their shop. He did not know the name of another woman who accompanied accused Nos.2, 4 and the deceased. He do not know the name of fourth woman is Golla Parvathamma. He can identify the said woman who accompanied accused Nos.2, 4 and the deceased in the noon time if they shown to him. In the night at about 7.00 p.m., all the accused and deceased came to their shop. 33. PW.12 - Mr. Venkatesh, worker in the wine shop at Jadcherla, deposed that on one day in the year 2005 at about 7.30 p.m., accused No.1 came to their shop and purchased cheap liquor whisky ½ bottles and took 5 bottles. Once again accused No.1 came to his shop at 8.30 p.m, and so also accused Nos.1 to 4 and two other women came to their shop and purchased two quarters of cheap liquor whisky and took six glasses. The deceased who apparent on the photographs under Exs.P5 to 7, was one of the women who accompanied the accused to their shop at 8.30 p.m. on that day. After purchase of the same cheap liquor whisky bottles, all of them left the place. 34. During cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that accused Nos.1 and 3 visit his shop daily, that accused, the deceased and another woman visited their shop on 07.04.2005 and purchased whisky and glasses. The police examined him at his shop and he knows the names of accused Nos.1 and 3. He did not tell any names of the accused to the police. He further admits that opposite to their wine shop, there is toddy compound and the accused and the deceased came to their shop on 7th day of a month, but he does not remember the exact month. 35. PW.14 - Dr. Ch. Swaroopa Rani, a Civil Assistant Surgeon, deposed that he conducted autopsy and as per Ex.P12 - post-mortem examination report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to severe head injury and hemorrhage leading to shock and death. 36. PW.15 - Mr. D. Ramanjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, RPS, Kachiguda deposed receipt of information from PW.1 regarding dead-body of the deceased on the railway track. He further deposed about commencement of investigation, conducting of post-mortem examination etc. The accused absconded since the death of the deceased. 36. PW.15 - Mr. D. Ramanjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, RPS, Kachiguda deposed receipt of information from PW.1 regarding dead-body of the deceased on the railway track. He further deposed about commencement of investigation, conducting of post-mortem examination etc. The accused absconded since the death of the deceased. He also deposed that on 20.04.2005 he received information about suspected persons as the accused, then he secured the presence of mediators, went to the house of accused No.3 situated at Badepally village in Jadcherla and apprehended all the accused in the house of accused No.3 at about 11.00 a.m. He has further deposed about the interrogation, confession by accused No.1 and recovery of MOs.1 and 2 which were pledged. 37. The above stated facts and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses would show that admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. 38. In view of the specific contentions raised by both sides and also on perusal of evidence and the impugned judgment, it is relevant to mention the principles to be applied while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 3164 held as under: “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 39. In view of the above said principles, it is relevant to note that minor contradictions did not endanger to the prosecution case. Therefore, the minor contradictions can be ignored provided that both the foundation and the super structure of the prosecution case can withstand the critical analysis of the judicial scrutiny. 40. In view of the above said principles, it is relevant to note that minor contradictions did not endanger to the prosecution case. Therefore, the minor contradictions can be ignored provided that both the foundation and the super structure of the prosecution case can withstand the critical analysis of the judicial scrutiny. 40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 41. In view of the above legal principle, now coming to the case on hand, according to the prosecution, the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and other accused. To prove the said fact, the prosecution has examined PWs.3, 5 and 11. PW.3, relative of the deceased deposed that she saw the deceased with accused Nos.2 and 4 on the date of incident. As stated above, PW.5, villager of the deceased that on the date of incident, she went to Badepally and found the deceased near a shop and both of them went to the house of PW.2 and also about the quarrel between PW.2 and the deceased with regard to pension money. PW.5 pacified the said disputes between them. From there, they went to the bus stand where accused Nos.1 to 4 were present. Later, PW.5 went to her village. While going to her village, she saw the presence of the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 4 and they were found talking to each other. 42. PWs.11 and 12 are the owners of toddy shop and worker of wine shop respectively and they deposed in their evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of all the accused including appellant - accused No.2. It is relevant to note that the depositions of PWs.3, 5, 11 and 12 are consistent and corroborative. 42. PWs.11 and 12 are the owners of toddy shop and worker of wine shop respectively and they deposed in their evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of all the accused including appellant - accused No.2. It is relevant to note that the depositions of PWs.3, 5, 11 and 12 are consistent and corroborative. It is also relevant to note that the appellant - accused No.2 failed to elicit anything contra during the cross-examinations of the above said witnesses to disprove the case of the prosecution. 43. On the analysis of the entire evidence, there is another circumstance of recovery of gold ear tops and silver anklets from the possession of PW.6, owner of jewellary shop. He has deposed that all the accused came to his shop and pledged the silver anklets, ear studs and borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500/-. PW.8, mediator, deposed that on disclosure by the accused, MOs.1 and 2 were seized from the possession of PW.6. It is also relevant to note that MOs.1 and 2 were identified by PW.4, husband of the deceased and he deposed that MOs.1 and 2 belongs to his wife. 44. In view of the above specific and circumstantial evidence, which is chain of evidence to complete the entire incident and recovery of MOs.1 and 2 clearly prove the involvement of the appellant - accused No.2 and also accused No.1 in the crime. The circumstantial evidence including depositions of PWs.3, 5, 11 and 12, recovery of MOs.1 and 2 and the medical evidence clearly establish the case of prosecution and the death of deceased. 45. On perusal of the depositions of prosecution witnesses and also on perusal of Exs.P1 - complaint, P2 - confessional statement, P9 - FIR and charge sheet and also according to the case of prosecution, there was no motive or mens rea which is preplanned to do away the life of the deceased. 46. On the analysis of the entire evidence, it is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased sat at one place while accused No.3 and 4 sat at one place which is away to them and started taking whisky. The depositions of PWs.11 and 12 would show that all accused including appellant - Accused No.2 had toddy and purchased whisky and they have taken the same to railway track. The depositions of PWs.11 and 12 would show that all accused including appellant - Accused No.2 had toddy and purchased whisky and they have taken the same to railway track. All the accused including the appellant - accused No.2 and the deceased were inebriated condition, accused No.1 promised accused No.2 that he would remove gold ear tops and silver anklets from the deceased and give the same to the appellant. Thus, the appellant - accused No.2 has taken promise from accused No.1. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 tried to lure accused No.2 and asked her to cooperate with him. The appellant - accused No.2 refused to fulfill the desire of accused No.1 on the ground that accused No.1 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased for the last 20 years. Accused No.1 was in intoxication condition at that particular point of time and, therefore, has expressed his anguish over the deceased as she has reduced meeting accused No.1 since last two years and she was kept away from him. Then accused No.1 informed accused No.2 that he was waiting for an opportunity to do away the life of the deceased. In the said conversation under the intoxication condition, accused No.1 promised to do away the life of the deceased and to give her ornaments to accused No.2. In the said condition, accused No.1 hit the head of the deceased to the railway track which caused severe bleeding injury resulting in the death of the deceased. 47. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is consistent and the chain of events in the manner discussed supra which is complete in nature would show that the appellant - accused No.2 caught hold the legs of the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 removed the pair of ear tops (gold) weighing 3 grams and a pair of silver anklets weighting 40 tulas from the possession of the deceased. After confirming the death of the deceased, the appellant - accused No.2 and accused No.1 dragged the body of the deceased in between the tracks and fled away. Thereafter, they borrowed the amount by pledging the said ornaments. 48. The above said circumstantial evidence would establish the guilt of the appellant - accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 49. Thereafter, they borrowed the amount by pledging the said ornaments. 48. The above said circumstantial evidence would establish the guilt of the appellant - accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 49. On the critical analysis of the entire evidence, the trial Court gave a finding that the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence as no direct evidence for the offence at the scene of offence to take into consideration of the scene of offence i.e., railway track where there are movements of public after midnight, the Court has to scrutinize the evidence carefully with the other circumstances of the case. Thus, the trial Court has scrutinized the evidence including the circumstantial evidence carefully and held that PW.2, mother, PW.4, husband of the deceased are important witnesses. The evidence of both the witnesses, PWs.2 and 4, that accused No.1 killed the deceased is a hear-say evidence; admittedly there are no direct witnesses to the occurrence. The piece of hear-say evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 that accused Nos.1 to 4 cannot be received is a substantial piece of evidence, but it is one of the circumstances, PW.2 and PW.4 as mother and husband of the deceased, gathered the information of cause of death of the deceased from PW.3 and PW.5 and other witnesses after the death of the deceased as they are close relatives of the deceased. The trial Court also gave a specific finding that the evidence of PW.3, relative of the deceased, that he saw the deceased with accused Nos.2 and 4 is consistent. The trial Court also gave a finding with regard to arrest, seizure of the material objections in disclosure of the accused, as per the disclosure statement and seizure report i.e., Exs.P2 and P3, the accused were arrested at the house of accused No.3 supported the case of the prosecution and in view of the consistent evidence of PW.8, the minor discrepancy will not vitiate the case of prosecution. The trial Court also gave a finding that the prosecution has proved the seizure of MOs.1 and 2 and with regard to identification parade conducted by PW.15 - Investigating Officer, identifying the property. The trial Court also gave a finding that the prosecution has proved the seizure of MOs.1 and 2 and with regard to identification parade conducted by PW.15 - Investigating Officer, identifying the property. The trial Court also gave a finding that the statement of accused No.2 that accused Nos.3 and 4 committed the offence is not tenable since the confessional statement of co-accused i.e., accused No.2 in the present case against other accused cannot be received. With the said findings, the trial Court recorded the conviction against the accused including the appellant – accused No.2 herein. 50. The appellant - accused No.2 failed to establish any circumstance/ground to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court against her. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that there is no circumstance/reason that warrants interference with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court in so far as conviction is concerned. 51. The learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.2 would submit that the appellant is a woman, leading her life as a coolie. He would further submit that there was no mens rea/intention to do away the life of the deceased to the appellant - accused No.2. He would further submit that the deceased, appellant - accused No.2 and other accused were highly intoxicated condition at the relevant point of time. He would further submit that the appellant - accused No.2 was in jail for a considerable period and she has to look after her family. With the said submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed this Court to take a lenient view on the quantum of sentence of imprisonment. In this regard, it is relevant to note that by the judgment dated 22.07.2016 in Crl. A. No.1014 of 2006 preferred by accused No.1 in the present crime, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad confirmed the conviction against accused No.1 and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court against accused No.1 for each of the offences was modified as that of the period which the accused No.1 has already undergone under each offence. It is relevant to note that this Court is having power to record sentence of imprisonment for a lesser period by giving special reasons in writing, and the said principle is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 52. It is relevant to note that this Court is having power to record sentence of imprisonment for a lesser period by giving special reasons in writing, and the said principle is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 52. In view of the above submissions, discussion supra and considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and also the impugned judgment, it can be seen that the accused and the deceased hail from rural area of Mahabubnagar District, poor families and they are illiterates. They were addicted to intoxication and other bad habits, like illicit relations etc. in the manner stated above. It is a classic case of people hails from rural background, living in poverty and illiterates, suffering from various social evils, like intoxication, poverty, illiteracy etc. As discussed above, the deceased and the accused were in intoxication condition, accused No.1 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased for the last 20 years, accused No.3 is having illegal intimacy with accused No.4. All of them were eking out their livelihood as coolies/daily wage labour. They have committed the said offences in the said circumstances and in the intoxication condition. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 53. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant - accused No.2 for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II and 379 of IPC in S.C. No.333 of 2005 is confirmed. However, the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court against the appellant - accused No.2 for each of the said offence is modified as that of the period, which the appellant - accused No.2 has already undergone under each offence. 54. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall, stand closed.