HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2010 Between:
Chikkudu Bhikshapathi And The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
… Appellant/Accused … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble GC, J) This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.) by the sole appellant- accused against the judgment dated 15.10.2009 passed in S.C. No.184 of 2009 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet whereby and whereunder, the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The appellant-accused was further sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention as under trial prisoner shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution’s case are that the appellant-accused and the deceased are the husband and wife, respectively. They got married about 10 years prior to the incident and were blessed with two daughters. Appellant-accused was addicted to toddy and he used to quarrel with his wife for each and every trivial issue.
3. On 28.11.2008, at about 8 pm., one Chikkudu Laxmi, P.W.5, called the deceased to her house as her mother-in-law, Sattemma, had fallen ill. The deceased, after taking dinner, went to the house of P.W.5, with her two daughters for sleeping. Then, at about 1 am., during mid-night, appellant-accused went to his house and noticed the doors are locked. Suspecting the character of his wife, he went to the house of P.W.5 and called his wife and asked to serve food. Later, the deceased provided food in a plate and the accused had taken some food and started quarrelling with his wife as to why she slept in the house of P.W.5 and brutally murdered the deceased by beating on her forehead and head with a sharp edged granite stone in front of their house suspecting her fidelity.
4. On the same day night i.e. on 28/29.11.2008 at about 2 am., Chikkudu Yadagiri, P.W.2, telephoned to the elder brother of the deceased Sri Madaboina Narsaiah, P.W.1, and informed him that the deceased went to the house P.W.5, as her mother-in-law had fallen ill.
At about 1.30 am., the appellant-accused went to the house of P.W.5 in a drunken condition and woken-up his wife to serve food and quarrelled with his wife and beat her on her forehead and head with a sharp edged granite stone resulting instantaneous death of the deceased in a pool of blood in front of the house of the appellant-accused. On hearing the shouts in front of the house of the appellant-accused, P.W.2 woke-up and went to the house of one Bhumaiah, P.W.3, and wake him up and later both of them, P.W.2 and 3, went to the house of the appellant-accused and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. They also noticed rice bowl and house hold articles lying in a pell-mell condition. They also found the appellant-accused at the scene of offence and the appellant-accused admitted the offence to them (P.W.2 and 3) and thereafter the appellant-accused escaped from the scene of offence on seeing the arrival of the neighbours. P.W.2 informed the incident to P.W.1, brother of the deceased, over the telephone. Then P.W.1 and his mother Yadamma, P.W.4 and others went to the house of the appellant-accused and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood in front of the house of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Jagadevpur Police Station and lodged a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.10, who registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. After registering the case, he handed over a copy of FIR to his Circle Inspector, P.W.11, who visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, prepared the scene observation panchanama and got scene of offence photographed, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to the medical officer for post mortem examination. Dr.Balu, P.W.9, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found four (04) injuries on the head of the deceased and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to severe head injuries and bleeding. The accused was arrested on 04.12.2008 at 5 pm., and he was interrogated in Jagadevpur Police Station at 6 pm., in the presence of panch witnesses and then blood stained clothes of the appellant-accused (M.Os.8 and 9) were recovered from the possession of the appellant-accused under a cover of panchanama (Ex.P.15). After receiving FSL report (Ex.P.20) and post-mortem examination report (Ex.P.16) and after completion of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Gajwel laid charge sheet against the appellant-accused.
5. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel took cognizance of the case against the appellant-accused as PRC. No.16 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions as he satisfied himself that the offences is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
6. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy took the case on file as S.C. No.184 of 2009 and made over the case to the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet for disposal according to the law.
7. Upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, charges under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant-accused, read over and explained in Telugu, for which appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. To substantiate the case of the prosecution against the appellant- accused and to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and M.Os.1 to 9.
9. After the prosecution’s case is set at rest, the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting incriminating evidence adduced against him for which, he denied the allegations. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused.
10. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the Court below framed the following issue for its determination.
“Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”
11. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant- accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months and also found the appellant- accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) year.
12. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused preferred this appeal.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended that P.W.1, who lodged the complaint with the Police, is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the resident of Lingareddypally village. P.W.4 is the Mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is the relative of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Sarpanch of the Lingareddypally village. P.W.7 is the Photographer. P.W.8 is the panch witness. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is the S.I. of Police, who registered the FIR. P.W.11 is the Circle Inspector, who investigated into the case.
14. She further submitted that P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. P.Ws.1 and 4 are the brother and mother of the deceased, respectively. In the instant case, there is no direct eye witness of the incident. Appellant-accused and the deceased were got married about 15 years back, prior to the incident, and were living happily and blessed with two daughters. Except small stress and strains, there was no occasion for them to quarrel with each other and therefore, there is no reason for the appellant-accused to develop hatred against the deceased. The allegation made by the Prosecution with regard to threat given by the appellant-accused to the deceased for which, the death of the deceased is caused is not sustainable because no complaint was lodged either by the deceased or by the family members of the deceased about the threat. She further submitted that the Prosecution did not prove the presence of the appellant-accused at the scene of offence and in the absence of his presence at the scene of offence it cannot be believed that the he committed the murder of his wife.
15. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while narrating the prosecution’s case, as stated hereinabove, submitted that the incident took place in the house of the appellant-accused.
The relationship between the accused and the deceased was not cordial. Appellant-accused killed the deceased in drunken state of mind. Though, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 turned hostile they spoke about the facts. Though it was not specifically stated that the accused was present at the scene of offence it was also not stated that the appellant-accused was not at all there. Therefore, he submitted that it can be presumed that the accused presence was there. He drew the attention of this Court to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and submitted that the burden lies on the appellant-accused to prove that he was not present at the scene of offence. In support of the prosecution’s case, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance in the case reported in
[1]
JOSHINDER YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR and submitted that the burden shifts on the appellant-accused.
16. With regard to the aforesaid referral judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that circumstances under which the Supreme Court held are different which has no application to the present case. She also submitted that the charges levelled against the appellant- accused are that he committed offence and therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove his case and not for the appellant-accused.
17. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, on the aspect of referred judgment, we are not inclined to go into the details of that case.
18. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.
19. In the instant case, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 have been declared hostile.
It is on record that the appellant-accused used to threaten the deceased, before the incident. On the fateful night, the deceased went to the house of P.W.5 for giving company to her as her mother-in-law fell ill. At about 1 am., appellant-accused, in a drunken condition, went to his house and on noticing that the doors are locked, suspecting the character of the deceased, went to the house of P.W.5 and called his wife and children and took them to their house and asked to serve food. While taking food, he quarrelled with his wife and beat with sharp edged granite stone for which, the death of the deceased is caused.
20. Ex.P.5, scene of offence and seizure panchanama, shows that the food articles are found in disturbed manner. Therefore, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused. Post mortem report also says that death of the deceased is due to severe head injury and bleeding. From a close scrutiny of report of P.W.6, Panch witness for inquest, corroborate with the evidence of P.W.9, Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, circumstances goes to show that because of the hatred attitude developed by the appellant- accused against the deceased this incident occurred on the fateful day. It is pertinent to note here that the allegation of the prosecution was that husband used to beat the deceased otherwise having normal life.
21. Under the above circumstances, we do not feel that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant-accused and therefore, liable for punishment. However, at the same time, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant- accused under Section 498-A. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive of killing the deceased.
22. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the offence committed by the appellant-accused falls under Section 304 Part-II but not under Section 302.
23. In the result, conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant- accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A is set aside. Further, conviction and sentence imposed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 is modified to that of offence punishable under Section 304 part-II IPC for a period of seven (07) years rigorous imprisonment together with fine an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default, six (06) months simple imprisonment.
24. The period of remand underwent by the appellant–accused, during investigation, trial and after conviction, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
25. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Date: 03.09.2014 LSK
[1] (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 255