Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1162 (AP)

State Of A. P. v. Sopeti Chandra Mouli Mouli

2024-08-21

K.SREENIVASA REDDY, K.SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-State is directed against the judgment, dated 04.07.2007 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam whereby the respondent/accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and accordingly he was convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charges framed against the respondent/sole accused are that on 24.08.2005 in his house at Haridasupuram village, the accused did commit murder by intentionally causing death of his mother Smt.Sopeti Eeswaramma (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) by way of electrocution with live electric wire, placing it around her neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; that on the same date, time and place mentioned above, he committed theft of gold ornaments present on the person of the deceased after killing her by electrocution with a dishonest intention and took them away and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC; and that on the same day, time and place mentioned above, the accused having committed the offence of murder and theft, caused the evidence of those offences to disappear by burying the dead body of the deceased in the backyard of his house in order to screen himself being an offender from legal punishments for the said acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. P.W.2 is father of the accused. Basing on the statement of P.W.2, P.W.1-Panchayat Secretary of Haridasupuram lodged a report with police. Accused is youngest son of the deceased and P.W.2. He is an unemployee, married and blessed with two children. He ran a cloth business and incurred loss to a tune of Rs.60,000/-. His parents cleared some portion of his debts. Basing on the statement of P.W.2, P.W.1-Panchayat Secretary of Haridasupuram lodged a report with police. Accused is youngest son of the deceased and P.W.2. He is an unemployee, married and blessed with two children. He ran a cloth business and incurred loss to a tune of Rs.60,000/-. His parents cleared some portion of his debts. Two months prior to the incident, wife and younger son of the accused went to his in-laws’ house. P.W.2 went to Parlakhemundi to look after his sister. The accused, his elder son and the deceased were in the house on 24.08.2005. In order to pledge gold ornaments of the deceased, the accused moved the matter before the deceased on 24.08.2005. But, the deceased did not agree therefor and abused the accused for his laziness. Having felt insulted and determined to secure the gold ornaments of the deceased with an evil intention, the accused decided to kill the deceased, secured a rubber glove from L.W.12- K.Rukmangadha Rao and small bundle of binding wire from his house, connected it to end of service wire and other end of the service wire to a switch board and placed it around neck of the deceased while she was cutting vegetables and killed her with electrocution. The accused removed gold ornaments present on the dead body and buried the same in the backyard of the house with an intention to screen evidence. Later, he pledged the gold ornaments for Rs.30,000/- with P.W.8 and clear his debts due to P.Ws.4 to 6 and others. On the next day, with the help of P.W.10, the accused dumped gravel at the backyard of the house and buried the dead body of the deceased. On 27.8.2005, he left the house, by handing over the keys of the house to P.W.7 and asked him to give the same to his father P.W.2 whenever he comes and stated that he was going to his father-in-law’s house to get back his family and returned home on 31.8.2005 with family. When family members asked him about the deceased, the accused stated that she left the house on getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The family members suspected the accused as whereabouts of the deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned him, and the accused admitted his guilt. When family members asked him about the deceased, the accused stated that she left the house on getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The family members suspected the accused as whereabouts of the deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned him, and the accused admitted his guilt. The dead body of the deceased was noticed in the backyard of their house covered by soil and smelting foul smell. Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.14 registered the case in crime No.65 of 2005 of Nandigam police station, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 4. In support of the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 were got marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 9. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State. 5. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offences with which he was charged and whether the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sustainable or not ? 6. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State contended that though there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence of the incident in question and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on, by the prosecution do form a chain, so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the respondent/accused alone and none else. He submitted that there is recovery of material objects at the instance of the respondent/accused and extra judicial confession made by the respondent/accused before his own father P.W.2. He submits that the trial Court, having believed the extra judicial confession and the circumstances, erred in convicting and sentencing the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC. He submitted that there is evidence that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. He submits that the trial Court, having believed the extra judicial confession and the circumstances, erred in convicting and sentencing the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC. He submitted that there is evidence that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Appeal and convict and sentence the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/ accused contended that the deceased is own mother of the accused and there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit her murder. He submits that there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused is the assailant of the deceased, and the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to P.W.2 cannot be relied on, to convict the accused for the charges levelled against him. He submits that P.W.2 gave a different version in his evidence then the one mentioned in the alleged extrajudicial confession, and in the absence of any intention, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced him. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 8. P.W.13, who worked as the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandigam mandal, deposed that at request of police, he conducted exhumation proceedings in the backyard of house of the deceased with the assistance of villagers and the dead body of the deceased was exhumed and identified by P.W.2, her husband, as that of the deceased. He further deposed that thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4-inquest report dated 13.09.2005. 9. P.W.12, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tekkali, deposed that on 08.09.2005, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at the place where the dead body was exhumed. He deposed that identification marks could not be identified as skin was peeled off; dead body was moderately built, etc. He found a linear electric burn mark width of 1 mm to 2 mm, all around the neck, except posterior part. He opined that cause of death of the deceased is due to electric shock resulting in respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. Ex.P17 is the postmortem examination report. From the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and the recitals in Exs.P4 and P17, homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established. 10. He opined that cause of death of the deceased is due to electric shock resulting in respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. Ex.P17 is the postmortem examination report. From the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and the recitals in Exs.P4 and P17, homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established. 10. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled that all the circumstances must firmly and unerringly point out the guilt towards the accused; that all the circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. All the circumstances should not only be consistent with the case of prosecution but also should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein it is held at para No.153 as under: “A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2622 ) where the following observations were made : "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (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. (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 complete 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.” The various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the accused with commission of the crime, but when taken together may unmistakably point out the guilt of the accused. The Court has to see the cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. P.W.1-Panchayat Secretary lodged report Ex.P1 to police basing on the statement of P.W.2, who is father of the accused. According to the case of prosecution, the accused is youngest son of the deceased and P.W.2. On 24.08.2005, when no other person was present in the house, the accused pressurized his mother (the deceased) to give her gold ornaments for pledging the same for clearing the debts contracted by him. As she refused to give the ornaments, the accused secured a rubber glove from L.W.12- K.Rukmangadha Rao and small bundle of binding wire from his house, connected it to end of service wire and other end of the service wire to a switch board and placed it around neck of the deceased while she was cutting vegetables and killed her with electrocution. The accused removed gold ornaments present on the dead body and buried the same in the backyard of the house with an intention to screen evidence. Later, he pledged the gold ornaments for Rs.30,000/- with P.W.8 and clear his debts due to P.Ws.4 to 6 and others. When family members asked him about the deceased, the accused stated that she left the house on getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The family members suspected the accused as whereabouts of the deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned him, and the accused admitted his guilt. When family members asked him about the deceased, the accused stated that she left the house on getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The family members suspected the accused as whereabouts of the deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned him, and the accused admitted his guilt. The dead body of the deceased was noticed in the backyard of their house covered by soil and smelting foul smell. 12. P.W.2 is husband of the deceased and father of the accused. P.W.15 is brother of the accused and another son of P.W.2 and the deceased. According to the prosecution, pursuant to the confession made by the accused before P.W.2, who is none other than his father, P.W.1 set the criminal law into motion. Coming to evidence, P.W.2 deposed that the accused confessed his guilt before him stating that there was exchange of words in between him and the deceased with regard to money matter, during which he slapped the deceased, on which she fell down on electric stove and got electric shock, and died instantaneously, and that being afraid of the same, he buried the dead body in the backyard of their house. P.W.2 further deposed that he himself lodged a complaint to police narrating the aforesaid facts. It is his further evidence that after lodging the report to police, police examined him during which he stated the entire case as stated above. He denied a suggestion that he stated the entire facts to P.W.1, who in turn reduced his statement into writing in Ex.P1 report and lodged the same to police. On this aspect, P.W.2 was declared hostile. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to discredit the aforesaid version deposed by P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief. 13. P.W.15 is another son of P.W.2 and brother of the accused. He too deposed that the accused confessed before him and P.W.2 that as the deceased did not give money, he got enraged and pushed her, on which she fell on electric stove and died due to electric shock. He further deposed that he was sitting outside the police station when his father (PW2) submitted a written report with his signature. On this aspect, P.W.15 was declared hostile. During crossexamination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to discredit the aforesaid version deposed by P.W.15 in his examination-in-chief. 14. He further deposed that he was sitting outside the police station when his father (PW2) submitted a written report with his signature. On this aspect, P.W.15 was declared hostile. During crossexamination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to discredit the aforesaid version deposed by P.W.15 in his examination-in-chief. 14. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that there is inconsistency in the version given by P.W.1 and the version given by P.Ws.2 and 15, as to who gave report to police. P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police supported version of P.W.1. A perusal of evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 as to where he drafted the report. He gave two different versions with regard to the same stating at one place that he drafted Ex.P1 in police station and at another place that he drafted Ex.P1 in the house of P.W.2. Therefore, there is any amount of ambiguity as to who set the criminal law into motion by lodging report to police. Having observed P.W.2 during course of his examination, the trial Court found that P.W.2 is well educated and giving answers in English, and there was no necessity for P.W.2 to go all the way to Boddapadu in the mid night and narrate facts to P.W.1, and rightly held that the report submitted by P.W.2 to police was suppressed and Ex.P1 lodged on 08.09.2005 appears to have been pressed into service to suit the prosecution case. The report dated 07.09.2005 given by P.W.2 has not seen the light of the day. 15. The other circumstance is that the accused discharging the debts to P.Ws.4 to 6 by pledging his mother’s gold ornaments with P.W.8. Though P.W.8 deposed that the accused pledged the gold ornaments M.Os.1 and 2 with him and took Rs.30,000/- from him on 24.8.2005 or 25.8.2005, P.Ws.4 to 6 did not support case of the prosecution that the accused repaid their respective debts on the date of death of the deceased i.e. on 24.08.2005. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the circumstance of the accused discharging debts to P.Ws.4 to 6 subsequent to death of the deceased. 16. This is a case basing on circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The deceased is none other than mother of the deceased and wife of P.W.2. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the circumstance of the accused discharging debts to P.Ws.4 to 6 subsequent to death of the deceased. 16. This is a case basing on circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The deceased is none other than mother of the deceased and wife of P.W.2. P.W.2 left the house on 24.08.2005 and came back on 27.08.2005 and found the deceased not available in the house. Admittedly, on the fateful day, the accused, his son and the deceased were only present in their house. Thereafter, the deceased could not be seen. Therefore, it is for the accused to explain about whereabouts of the deceased. In such a case, it is quite natural for P.Ws.2 and 15, who are none other than husband and son of the deceased, to question the accused. Since they are his close relatives, it is quite natural for the accused to confess his guilt before them. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession given by the accused before P.Ws.2 and 15 is acceptable. Dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the backyard of their own house pursuant to the extrajudicial confession of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 13 and 16, coupled with recitals in Ex.P3, substantiates the same. P.W.11 took photographs of the dead body under Exs.P15 and P16. 17. P.Ws.2 and 15 consistently deposed that the accused stated to them that there some was exchange of words in between the accused and the deceased with regard to money matter, during which the accused slapped the deceased, on which she fell down on electric stove and got electric shock, and died instantaneously, and that being afraid of the same, he buried the dead body in the backyard of their house. They withstood the test of cross-examination. Their evidence is cogent and convincing. There is no other evidence available on record to come to a different conclusion. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 15, coupled with the extrajudicial confession of the accused, it is established that the accused is the assailant of the deceased. Since there was a scuffle between the deceased and the accused prior to the incident, and in a fit of anger, the incident had occurred, resulting in death of the deceased. Afraid of the same, the accused buried the dead body of the deceased in the backyard of their house. Since there was a scuffle between the deceased and the accused prior to the incident, and in a fit of anger, the incident had occurred, resulting in death of the deceased. Afraid of the same, the accused buried the dead body of the deceased in the backyard of their house. The learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that it is an accidental death occurred due to rash and negligent act of the accused, but not homicidal death, and that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the deceased intentionally or knowingly by electrocution as alleged by it. However, the learned Sessions Judge rightly found the respondent/accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 201 IPC and sentenced him. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 04.07.2007 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam.