Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1167 (AP)

V. Muneppa v. State Of AP

2024-08-22

K SREENIVASA REDDY, K SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Sole accused in S.C.No.196 of 2015, on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the charge against the accused is as follows: On 11.10.2014 at 08.20 a.m., in the house of the deceased, the accused caused death of the deceased by beating the deceased with a pestle on her head and further the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 3. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows: (i) The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Gonugur Village. The accused is the husband of the deceased. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. PW.2 is the nephew of PW.1. PW.3 is the son of the deceased and accused. Marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused about 13 years ago. During their wedlock, they begot two children. After marriage, the accused and the deceased lived amicably till the death of parents of accused. Later, the accused started to harass the deceased. About a year back, accused demanded the deceased to give money to consume liquor. When she refused to give money, the accused picked up a pestle and beat the deceased on her head, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury on her head and succumbed to the injury. PWs.2 and 3 witnessed the occurrence. (ii) PW.9 was Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam police station, having received a report from PW.1, registered the same as a case in Crime No.136 of 2014, under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and issued express F.I.Rs. to all concerned officers. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. (iii) PW.10 was the Inspector of Police, Kuppam. PWs.2 and 3 witnessed the occurrence. (ii) PW.9 was Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuppam police station, having received a report from PW.1, registered the same as a case in Crime No.136 of 2014, under Sections 302, 498-A IPC and issued express F.I.Rs. to all concerned officers. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. (iii) PW.10 was the Inspector of Police, Kuppam. On receiving information, he visited the scene of offence at the resident of complainant, found the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.1, 2, 4 and others. During inquest, he examined the aforesaid witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex.P2 was the inquest report. PW.10 examined the scene of offence situated in the house of the deceased and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P7 was the rough sketch of the scene of offence. (iv) PW.8 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Kuppam, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found four (4) injuries on the deceased. Ex.P5 was the Post Mortem Certificate. According to Ex.P5, the deceased died of severe head injury due to assault about 12 hours prior to Post Mortem Examination. (v) PW.10-Inspector of police, took up further investigation and on receiving credible information about movements of the accused, he arrested the accused on 13.10.2014 at about 06.30 a.m. After completion of investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the prosecution. M.O.s 1 to 6 were marked. Plea of the accused is one of the total denial. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Smt.A.Gayatri Reddy, submitted that except PW.3, there are no other eye witnesses to the alleged incident. She submitted that PW.3 is a child witness and much credence cannot be given to the evidence of a child. She further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on a spur of the moment, in which, in no way the accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC. She submitted that in the absence of any intention to cause the death of the deceased, the same would come under the purview of Section 304 part-II IPC. 6. She submitted that in the absence of any intention to cause the death of the deceased, the same would come under the purview of Section 304 part-II IPC. 6. On the other hand, Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that there are no discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and though PW.3 being a child witness, his evidence is convincing and trustworthy and the same cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he is a child. Apart from the said witness, PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 were present at the scene of offence and saw the accused holding deadly weapon i.e., M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the judgment of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is consistent and relied upon the evidence of the witnesses and a well reasoned one and needs no interference. 7. Now, the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the charges leveled against him?” 8. PW.8-the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found four (4) external injuries i.e., 1) Small contusion over left fore head and lateral part of left eye. 2) Laceration of 5 X 2 cm over frontal area, bone deep in the midline. 3) Laceration of 5 X 2 cm over right parital area. 4) Laceration of 10 X 3 cm over right occipital area behind the right ear, bone deep. The Doctor opined that cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury. By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the death of the deceased is homicide. 9. PW.3-a child witness, who is aged about Ten (10) years and he was studying 4th class. Certain questions were posed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor to the child witness. Thereafter, ascertaining that child has answered satisfactorily, the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor proceeded further to record evidence of PW.3-child witness. PW.3 is none other than son of the deceased and the accused. He categorically deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 08.00 a.m., PW.3, the deceased and the accused were present in the house. Thereafter, ascertaining that child has answered satisfactorily, the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor proceeded further to record evidence of PW.3-child witness. PW.3 is none other than son of the deceased and the accused. He categorically deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 08.00 a.m., PW.3, the deceased and the accused were present in the house. By the time PW.3 was taking breakfast, as provided by the deceased, the accused came there and asked the deceased to provide breakfast. Accordingly, the deceased served breakfast to the accused. Later, the accused demanded the deceased to give money for drinking alcohol. But, the deceased did not give money to the accused. As the deceased did not give money to the accused, the accused picked up a pestle and beat her on the head of the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down on the floor and sustained bleeding injury on her head. Later, PW.3 went outside running and informed to PW.1, LW.9 and others, who were conspicuously present outside. Then, immediately, they rushed inside the house. On perusal of the aforesaid evidence of PW.3, there is nothing to discredit the testimony of the child witness. Even in the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to tilt the case of the prosecution. In view of the said reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.3-child is consistent and there is no need to discredit the evidence of PW.3. Apart from the same, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is corroborating with the evidence of PW.3. 10. As per the evidence of PW.1, who is mother of the deceased, about one year back, the accused picked up a pestle and beat the deceased on her head, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury on her head and collapsed. According to her, herself, PW.2 and others witnessed the occurrence. In the cross-examination, she stated that she did not witness the incident as she was outside the house. PW.2, who is the nephew of the PW.1, stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased since the accused was beating the deceased as he was addicted to vices and used to grab money from the deceased. In connection with the same, the accused and the deceased were taken and mediation had taken place with the deceased. PW.2, who is the nephew of the PW.1, stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased since the accused was beating the deceased as he was addicted to vices and used to grab money from the deceased. In connection with the same, the accused and the deceased were taken and mediation had taken place with the deceased. In the panchayat, elders pacified the accused and the accused agreed that he would not repeat the harassment and promised that he would not take liquor. Later, the accused started living in the house of PW.1 along with the deceased and children. After some time, accused started harassing the deceased and grabbing money from the deceased for consuming alcohol. On the date of incident, the accused demanded the deceased to give money for drinking liquor, and in connection with that, an altercation took place and the accused beat the deceased on the head with M.O.1 and caused bleeding injuries. PWs.2 and 1 and others rushed inside the house and witnessed that the accused still beating the deceased with M.O.1. In cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the aforesaid witnesses. He further struck to the version, deposed in chief-examination. When a specific question was posed to the witness, he categorically stated that PW.3 who is son of the accused, came out of the house and informed PW.2 and others about the incident. Then, they entered into the house of the accused and witnessed the accused still beating the deceased with M.O.1. 11. On perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it goes to show that the said witness is a trust worthy and nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of the said witnesses. He corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 on all aspects that when they entered into the house, the accused was still beating the deceased with a pestle and he ran away from the said place. 12. PWs.4 and 5 are the circumstantial witnesses. Though they have not witnessed the alleged incident, according to their evidence, on coming to know that the accused beat the deceased, they rushed to the spot and found the deceased with bleeding injury on the head and found the accused escaping from the scene by carrying the pestle. PWs.4 and 5 categorically stated to the extent that they have seen the accused running away with a pestle from the scene of offence. 13. PWs.4 and 5 categorically stated to the extent that they have seen the accused running away with a pestle from the scene of offence. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the incident is said to have taken place at spur of the moment, does not stand for the reason that, not only this altercation, disputes were going on, for the past so many days. In connection with the same, mediation has been held with the panchayatdars. The elders/panchayadars pacified the accused not to repeat the same and in fact the accused assured that he would not consume liquor. It is pertinent to mention here that because of the harassment of the accused, the deceased left the matrimonial house and started living with her mother-PW.1. The said disputes were going on, for longer period and it cannot be said that the incident had taken place in the spur of the moment. As and when the deceased refuses to give money, the accused was beating the deceased for want of money. In the course of same, on the date of incident, he took the pestle and caused death of the deceased. 14. This Court has gone through the evidence of all the witnesses as well the judgment passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor and came to a conclusion that the judgment passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is a well reasoned judgment and passed by appreciating the facts in a proper manner and needs no interference. 15. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming sentence and conviction imposed against the accused vide judgment, dated 20.06.2016 in S.C.No.196 of 2015, passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.