Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 415 (AP)

Bandi Devakumar v. State of A. P. , Rep. by P. P.

2023-02-20

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
JUDGMENT: A convict/accused presented this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. questioning his conviction and sentence. The judgment impugned is dated 16.09.2010 of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.69 of 2009. After due trial, this appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and therefore, learned Sessions Judge convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. It is that judgment which is under challenge. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal are required to be recapitulated here: The victim is a woman and is the wife of the accused/appellant. It was in the year 1996 they fell in love and with the consent of elders they got married and begot two children. One of their two children is a son and he died and the other child is a daughter who is living with the parents. The husband has been an auto rickshaw driver. The victim woman is working in a private hospital nursing the patients and attending Electrocardiogram work at the hospital. It is stated that the accused has been in the habit of consuming alcohol. During the matrimonial life, on certain occasions, certain disputes arose between the spouses and on two such occasions the wife had to complain the troubles to the police. On one occasion she complained about cruelty towards her for the purpose of dowry. Intervention of elders resulted in a compromise, but it seems the case was not yet withdrawn. On another occasion the accused allegedly took away Rs.5,000/- cash and a mobile phone belonging to the wife. On this occasion when she complained to police the spouses were sent to family counseling center where, it is stated, expressing remorse the accused gave an undertaking that he would look after his wife’s welfare. It is in the backdrop of these facts and circumstances the offence alleged took place allegedly. The scene of offence is the very rented house where the spouses are living. It is in the backdrop of these facts and circumstances the offence alleged took place allegedly. The scene of offence is the very rented house where the spouses are living. It is stated that on 17.06.2008 at about 8:00 A.M. the woman was getting ready to attend her job at the hospital and the husband told her not to go to hospital as his mother and brother were to come home at about 10:00 A.M. She spoke to the hospital authorities informing that she could not attend the duty because of her ill-health. It is about that time the accused indulged in a debate with his wife and from out of his pocket he picked up a new blade and got inflicted injuries on both of his forearms by himself and then he told his wife that she was complaining to police and he did not like it and he beat her and felled her down and then sent away his daughter and inflicted, with blade, injuries on both her wrists and as they were not oozing blood he told the same and then sat on her chest and using his both knees pressed her hands to the floor and using the blade cut her throat. On finding blood coming out he was satisfied and he got up and went out the house and latched the door from outside. His daughter went and fetched the sister-in-law of the victim, who was living in the neighbourhood. She took her to the hospital. The hospital authorities sent information to the police who in turn came there and recorded her statement at 1:30 P.M. on 17.06.2008 itself and registered Crime No.343 of 2008 for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused, recovered the crime weapon/blade/M.O.1 and filed the police report before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada where it was numbered as P.R.C.No.46 of 2008. Acting upon this police report of Machavaram Police Station, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and furnished him with copies of documents on which the prosecution was intending to rely upon and then finding it a case of trial to be exclusively conducted by a Sessions Court it acted in accordance with Section 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge who in turn assigned the trial in this case to learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court. Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the presence of the accused was secured and it was recorded that he was defended by his own learned counsel. A charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to him to which he entered a plea of not guilty and thereby further trial followed. Prosecution, on its behalf examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. Witnesses were cross-examined by learned defence counsel. The incriminating evidence available on record was denied as false during Section 313 Cr.P.C. hearing. The accused did not choose to adduce any oral, documentary or material evidence. On considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge stated that by the evidence of doctor/PW.5 and Ex.P.2-wound certificate the following injuries were noticed on the body of the victim woman/PW.1 : (1) Cut throat injury is 10 cm transversely present over the level of thyroid cartilage; muscle deep, bleeding present; (2) An incised wound present over the right writ size 2x1x 1 cm reddish in colour; (3) An incised wound present over the left size 5x2x3 cm; muscle deep. The opinion of the medical doctor was that the injury on the throat was grievous in nature while the injuries on both the writs were found simple in nature. They were found to be fresh aged within six hours, which matched with the time of offence alleged by the prosecution. In the opinion of the doctor such injuries could have been caused by a sharp object and that matched with the crime weapon M.O.1-blade alleged by the prosecution. They were found to be fresh aged within six hours, which matched with the time of offence alleged by the prosecution. In the opinion of the doctor such injuries could have been caused by a sharp object and that matched with the crime weapon M.O.1-blade alleged by the prosecution. Having noticed such injuries, at the relevant time on the body of the married woman, the case of the married woman/PW.1 was considered and the learned Sessions Judge found the comprehensive narration of events given out by PW.1 about the way in which her very husband inflicted such injuries on her. PW.2 is the sister-in-law of PW.1 who was fetched by the daughter of the accused and she stated in her evidence that by the time she came to the house of the victim she found her with bleeding injuries and she shifted her to hospital. In the neighbourhood of this crime scene there is a fancy shop of PW.4 and that witness said that he saw the injured woman being taken to hospital by PW.2. With such evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the accused intended to kill his wife and in that attempt he caused such grievous injury on her throat which is a vital part and his conduct in latching the house from outside further demonstrated his criminal intention to see his wife dead. It is essentially on these facts and reasoning the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted him and sentenced him accordingly. 3. It is that judgment which is challenged in this appeal. Be it noted that the appellant has not questioned the judgment of the trial Court either on the ground of violation of principles of fair trial or on the ground that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself or that the charge made against him is misleading or that the witnesses testified were bent upon to see his incarceration for any vengeful reasons. Grounds raised in this memorandum of appeal are to the effect that the evidence of PW.1 did not find corroboration and the description of the injuries she suffered did not match with the medical evidence and an earlier undertaking allegedly given by the accused at the family counseling center being not produced in evidence are fatal. Grounds raised in this memorandum of appeal are to the effect that the evidence of PW.1 did not find corroboration and the description of the injuries she suffered did not match with the medical evidence and an earlier undertaking allegedly given by the accused at the family counseling center being not produced in evidence are fatal. Learned counsel further argued that the facts established, at any rate, do not indicate ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. and the reasoning of trial Court is erroneous. It is for these reasons, the learned counsel argued to upset the impugned judgment and acquit the accused. It is to be recorded here that initially this appellant preferred the appeal by engaging his own learned counsel but during the subsequent phases he expressed his inability to have a counsel on his own and in such circumstances, at the intervention of this Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee afforded a learned legal aid counsel who ably argued the matter in defence of the appellant. 4. As against these arguments of the learned legal aid counsel, the submissions of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is that many facts are not in dispute and the disputed facts were properly established by cogent and convincing and consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses supported by necessary documents and the conclusions arrived at on all the facts of the learned Sessions Judge are in accordance with law and therefore, no interference is need in this appeal. 5. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, the point that falls for consideration is: Whether the evidence on record, beyond reasonable doubt, show complicity of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.? 6. Point: Undisputed facts on record do indicate that the love marriage between spouses occurred in the year 1996 and the crime incident allegedly took place in June, 2008. During that 12 years of matrimonial life despite bickerings and despite wife complaining to police, the spouses have always been living together. This indicates that the spouses are deeply inclined to have their life together. They have a girl child, who is with them. The weapon used in this case is a normal blade. During that 12 years of matrimonial life despite bickerings and despite wife complaining to police, the spouses have always been living together. This indicates that the spouses are deeply inclined to have their life together. They have a girl child, who is with them. The weapon used in this case is a normal blade. In the first instance, as per the evidence of PW.1 and her earlier statement contained in Ex.P.1 which thereafter became F.I.R/Ex.P.5 consistently show that the accused in the first instance inflicted injuries on his own body. Thereafter he inflicted injuries on the writs of his wife. He was challenging her for complaining to police on earlier occasions and then with those pent up emotions he further went on to inflict injuries on his wife. The evidence is that when he slashed on the hands of his wife they did not result in enough bleeding and that caused dissatisfaction for the accused and he then inflicted injury on her throat. Throat is a vital part of the body and the evidence of PW.5/the doctor is that had it not been attended at an appropriate time it would have caused fatality. One of the arguments for the accused was that the injuries on PW.1 were self-inflicted. Be it noted that there was no argument to the effect that the victim was the aggressor and she picked up a blade and then she inflicted injuries on her husband and to avoid any complications she inflicted injuries for herself on her own body. A woman who was getting ready to go to her office to attend her employment had no occasion to change her mind and took up a blade and create all this havoc only to see that her husband is put behind bars. The evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of the medical doctor/PW.5 were properly analysed by the trial Court. This sworn evidence of PW.1 finds full support from her Ex.P.1 statement in terms of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is undisputed that victim’s sister-in-law lives in the neighbourhood and she/PW.2 was fetched by the accused’s daughter and she noticed the injuries on PW.1 and she took her to hospital. Thus, soon after the alleged offence this witness reached the spot and found consequences of the offence visible from the body parts of PW.1. It is undisputed that victim’s sister-in-law lives in the neighbourhood and she/PW.2 was fetched by the accused’s daughter and she noticed the injuries on PW.1 and she took her to hospital. Thus, soon after the alleged offence this witness reached the spot and found consequences of the offence visible from the body parts of PW.1. This version of PWs.1 and 2 about injuries on the body of PW.1 found full support from a neighbouring shopkeeper –PW.4. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the evidence of PW.1 did not find corroboration is a contention without merit and thus negatived. 7. Hurt and grievous hurt could be caused only with an intention to cause injuries or could be caused with an intention to liquidate the life. What was there in the mind of the accused at the relevant time was known to him and to none else. However, when he was put on trial and when the evidence is led against him, it is from the established facts and circumstances alone a Court of law should deduce the intention of the accused. In this regard, the learned trial Court observed that if really the accused did not have the intention to kill his wife he could have caused hurt and left the place but he left the place while latching the door from outside preventing his wife to come out of the house and put her effort to sustain herself. It was this aspect of the evidence that clinched the decision of the learned trial Court. On this aspect of the matter it is for the learned counsel for appellant to demonstrate before this Court that the conduct of the accused in latching the door from outside disabling the victim from surviving does not demonstrate his intention to kill. It shall be recorded that from the evidence on record nothing plausible to think otherwise is brought to my notice by way of any argument. It is in these circumstances, this Court finds that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. has to be sustained. 8. When arguments were advanced on 16.02.2023 by learned counsel on both sides, it was brought to the attention of this Court by both sides that the appellant/accused/husband and the victim/PW.1/wife of the accused physically attended the Court. 8. When arguments were advanced on 16.02.2023 by learned counsel on both sides, it was brought to the attention of this Court by both sides that the appellant/accused/husband and the victim/PW.1/wife of the accused physically attended the Court. Both of them stated that subsequent to the crime incident they have been living together and living happily and they stated that the case may be wound up considering their reunion. 9. Criminal law prescribes punishment with a view to bring deterrence in the mind of the criminal making him to reform. It is to bring attitudinal change, punishments are prescribed. In the case at hand the very victim finds a reformed husband and was pleading for winding up of the case. Since the offence established is one that is not compoundable it was not within the realm of the victim to secure full liberty to her husband. However, the present pleasant living of the spouses is one factor that should not be lost sight of by a Court of law. This aspect of the matter shall be given its due weight in quantifying the sentence. It is in that view of the matter, the sentence inflicted by the learned trial Court demands modification in this appeal. 10. The accused was sentenced by the learned trial Court on 16.09.2010 and he was taken to prison and he underwent a part of his sentence. Thereafter, he preferred this appeal with a delay of 132 days and by an order dated 30.03.2011 the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted. It was thereafter on 01.04.2011 on his application in Crl.A.M.P.No.687 of 2011 the execution of substantive sentence was suspended and bail was granted to him. Thus, he served out one year eight months (642 days) imprisonment. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment by way of rigorous imprisonment for four years imposed by the learned trial Court is modified and the imprisonment the appellant/accused which he underwent so far is substituted. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.