HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Between:
Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2010 Dated: 28..04..2014 Gundroju Prakasam .. Appellant/accused and State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by PP. High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The appellant is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., in causing the death of his wife – Gundroju Lakshmi, in the intervening night of 22/23-05-2008 at Madhura Nagar, S.Atchutapuram, Kakinada Rural. He was tried in S.C.No.159 of 2009 by the VII-Addl Sessions Judge, Kakinada. Through its Judgment, dated 07-01-2010, the trial Court found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Hence, the appeal.
2. The facts, in brief, are as under:-
The deceased and the accused were married about 25 years back and they are blessed with two daughters and son. The elder daughter, by name Chittithalli was married. The couple were living with their second daughter Kalyani – PW.1 and son Manikantha– PW.5. It is alleged that the accused was addicted to drinks and was not doing any work properly. The deceased and PW.1 were sustaining the family by working as domestic helps, in different houses. The accused was a carpenter by profession. For some days, he came down to Hyderabad. Thereafter, he returned to Kakinada and was insisting the deceased and the other family members to accompany him to Hyderabad.
On 16-05-2008 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused quarrelled with the deceased over the matter of preparation of food, abused her and beat her with a brick. The deceased sustained minor injury and she was treated by Bura Prasanna Kumar – PW.8.
The further allegation is that in the evening of 22-05-2008 at about 08.30 p.m., the deceased and PW.1 returned home and the accused started quarrelling with the deceased questioning her character. They had dinner and it being the summer, they all slept in front of their house. The deceased and PW.1 slept on one cot whereas the accused and PW.5 slept on other cot. In the mid- night, at about 12 O’ clock, the accused woke up the deceased and asked for water. The deceased asked the accused to get water from inside the house, by himself, stating that she is tired. Enraged by this attitude, the accused went inside the house, consumed water and returned with a berse (an instrument used by carpenters) and hit the deceased with it, on head. The deceased sustained serious injury and P.Ws.1 and 5 raised cries, and hearing the same, several neighbours gathered there. The accused is said to have run away from there. The injured was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and by about 0250 hours of 23-05-2008, she succumbed to the injuries.
On being informed by the Medical authorities, the S.I. of Police, Indrapalem P.S. – PW.13, visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1. Cr.No.72 of 2008 was registered, and F.I.R. was issued. Investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police - PW.12. Scene of offence panchanama was conducted, inquest was held, and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. For about eight months, the accused was absconding, and he was arrested on 18-01-2009 at Nakkapalli Addaroad Junction, Visakhapatnam. He is stated to have confessed of committing the crime and led the police, for the recovery of the weapon – M.O.1. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was taken on file.
Charge under Section 302 I.P.C., was put to the accused and on his denial, trial was taken up. P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.17 were filed, and M.Os.1 to 6 were taken on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the accused submits that except for the interested evidence of the family members of the deceased, there is no evidence for holding that the accused has committed the crime. He further submits that the trial Court has believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, though it suffers from serious discrepancies and infirmities.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the incident took place at a time when the accused and the deceased were sleeping with their two children i.e., P.Ws.1 and 5. She contends that the incident took place in the mid-night, and the natural witnesses can be, only the family members of the accused and the deceased, and the immediate neighbours who gathered there on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 5. According to her, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 is consistent, and even the neighbouring residents, who reached the scene, immediately after the attack and have seen the accused running away from there and the deceased lying in a pool of blood, have consistently spoken about the incident and there is absolutely nothing which makes the Court to disbelieve their testimony. She further submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and that it does not warrant any interference.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the sentence, or whether it needs to be set aside, modified or varied?
6. Point:- The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. The accused is alleged to have been addicted to drinks and was not doing work properly and maintaining the family. Per force the deceased and the teenaged daughter PW.1 had no option except to earn livelihood for themselves by working as domestic help in neighbouring houses. The son, PW.5 was studying VII class. The eldest daughter was already married. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused used to harass the wife demanding not only money from her but also services. It is stated that if there was any lapse on the part of the deceased in obeying the accused, he used to abuse and beat the deceased.
7. On 16-05-2008, the accused demanded the deceased to prepare food for him, and when PW.1 expressed her inability to prepare the food, immediately, the accused beat the deceased with a brick, which resulted in a simple injury and she was treated by the local medical practitioner PW.8. These aspects are spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 5 as well as PW.8. The neighbouring residents also corroborated PWs. 1 and 5, on this aspect.
8. The incident, which resulted in the death of the deceased, took place in the intervening night of 22/23-05-2008. At about 8.30 p.m. on 22-05-2008, the accused and the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 5 were in the house, and had dinner. It being the peak summer, they all slept in front of the house on different cots. While the deceased and PW.1 the daughter slept on one cot, the accused and the son PW.5 slept on the adjacent cot. In the mid-night at about 12 O’ clock, the accused demanded his wife to fetch water, and when she expressed disinclination in view of her tiredness, the accused abused that she is feeling tired because she is sleeping with others. The accused went inside the house grumbling, took water, took out his instrument of livelihood namely the berse, which is used by a carpenter, came near the deceased and gave a deadly blow on her head. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PWs.1 and 5, who were sleeping on the adjacent cots. Both these witnesses have consistently deposed about the sequences of events. Both of them were elaborately cross-examined and nothing concrete was elicited from them to disbelieve their version. Neither any omission nor a contradiction was elicited from them. No motive was suggested to them for deposing against their father. The only suggestion made to them was that they are deposing at the instance of their eldest sister Chittithalli, who contracted inter- caste marriage, for which the accused was scolding her. This is too far fetched and irrelevant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 5 clearly establishes that the accused gave the fatal blow on the head of the deceased with M.O.1. The Medical Officer PW.11 and the post- mortem report Ex.P.10 corroborates the version of P.Ws.1 and 5. The Medical Officer found two bone deep split lacerations on the parietal region of scalp.
9. The rest of the witnesses are the persons who reached the scene of offence within minutes of the attack. PW.2 is a resident of the village, whose house is opposite to the house of the accused and the deceased. PW.3 is the owner of the house, in a portion of which the accused and the deceased were residing. PW.3 stated that the accused is residing in the northern portion of the house as a tenant, whereas she is living in another portion. Significantly, PW.3 is the own sister of the accused. PW.4 is the son of PW.3 and the nephew of the accused. These three witnesses have consistently deposed that on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 5, they rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the deceased lying with blood injury on head and the accused running away from there holding M.O.1. All these witnesses, who were also closely related to the accused, have been subjected to extensive cross- examination, but nothing significant was elicited from them. The evidence of these witnesses fully corroborates the version of P.Ws.1 and 5.
10. PW.6 is an unrelated witness and the resident in the neighbourhood. It is deposed by him that having heard the cries of P.Ws.1 and 5, himself and others went to the house of the accused and had seen the injured lying with head injury. He summoned the ambulance and shifted the injured to Government Hospital, where she died in less than three hours.
On the same lines is the evidence of PW.7, who is also an independent resident in the neighbourhood.
The consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is so cogent and inspiring that it admits of no doubt, whatsoever, that it is the accused who dealt the fatal blow on the head of the deceased, which resulted in almost her instantaneous death. The trial Court found the accused guilty by relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7.
11. The other evidence on record comprises of the official witnesses. PW.8 is the medical practitioner, who treated the deceased on the previous occasion viz., on 16-05-2008. PW.9 is the panch witness. PW.10 is the photographer, who took the photos of the scene and also the dead body at the mortuary. PW.11 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body. PW.12 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation. It is in the evidence of PW.12 that nearly eight months after the incident, the accused was apprehended at Visakhapatnam. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who on being intimated by the hospital, reached there and recorded the statement of PW.1. He also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses.
12. Admittedly, the accused is the husband of the deceased. His conduct immediately after the unfortunate incident suggests his culpability. If really, it is not he who committed the crime, there was no reason, whatsoever, for him to abscond for nearly eight months. Not only as the husband of the deceased, but also as father of the P.Ws.1 and 5, who were tender aged children, he owed responsibility. If really, he was innocent, he would not have conducted himself in the manner in which he did. Significantly, it is not even suggested to any of the witnesses that the accused was in or around the village during the period when he was shown to be absconding.
13. The next aspect of the matter is as to what is the nature of offence that is committed by the accused. It may be recalled that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife and the accused was addicted to consuming liquor and quarrelling with his wife. In the night of the incident, when the wife refused to fetch water to him, the accused dealt one blow on the head of the deceased, which proved to be fatal. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, we feel that the offence that is committed by the accused falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. Subject to this modification, the Judgment of the Court below is liable to be confirmed. The point is accordingly answered.
14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction ordered against the appellant-accused in S.C.No.159 of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada is modified to be the one under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. The sentence handed out to the appellant-accused is reduced to be the one of Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months.
L.Narasimha Reddy,J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Date: 28..04..2014
smr
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2010
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal)
Dated: 28..04..2014
Smr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.Appeal No. 428 of 2010
%28-04-2014
# Gundroju Prakasam … Appellant-Accused
Vs.
$ State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
...Respondent
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri E.Peddanna
^ Counsel for respondent : Public Prosecutor
? CASES REFERRED : ….