HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1522 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.100 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, is the appellant. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, vide judgment, dated 25.09.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: i) The deceased Sagina Chinnammi is the wife of the accused and they are having three children. Having suspicion over the character of the deceased, the accused was harassing her. He also sent her to her parents’ house at Balarevula Village about two years ago. Thereafter, he brought her back with a promise to look after her well. While so, on 9.2.2007 at about 3.00 p.m. suddenly, he approached the deceased, who was in varandah, and caused a cut injury over her neck and, thereby, she fell down and died on the spot. The daughter of the deceased Sagina Ganga Bhavani, aged about 7 years, was present there. On hearing her cries, P.W.8, Sagina Lovaraju and several others rushed to the scene and they were told by her that her father hacked and killed her mother. P.W.5 pulled out the knife from the hands of the accused and tied him to an electrical pole with the help of P.W.6 and others. The accused also confessed before P.W.10 and Badugu Ramarajyam, MPP, Koyyuru Mandal, that he killed his wife. The accused was later untied and P.W.10 informed P.W.1, V.R.O., Mampa Village, about the incident. She came to the scene and presented Ex.P.1 report to Mampa Police Station. P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered Crime No.1 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. ii) During the course of investigation, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, recorded the confessional statement of the accused and seized M.O.1 knife, which was lying by the side of the dead body, and sent the dead body for post mortem examination, prepared Ex.P.16 rough sketch of the scene, seized M.Os.2 to 7 blood stained earth, control earth, nikkar, shirt, saree and petty coat, sent the material objects to R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam, recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 to 6 and 10 and, after completion of investigation and on receipt of Ex.P.17 R.F.S.L. Report, he filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli, who took the case on file in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 and, on completion of enquiry, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam, who in turn, made over the case to the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, for disposal in accordance with law. iii) Upon appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed a charge under Section 302 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 apart from M.Os 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed this criminal appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused contends that the daughter of the deceased, who was present at the time of commission of the offence, has not been examined by the prosecution to substantiate that it is the accused, who committed the murder and non- examination of the eye witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution, that there is an inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint and there are no reasons assigned by the prosecution for the said delay, that the doctor P.W.9, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, specifically stated in cross examination that there is possibility of receiving injuries mentioned in the post mortem certificate, if any person falls on a sharp edged object and there is only one injury to the neck and, in view of the same, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that non-examination of the daughter of the deceased, who was present at the time of the offence and aged about 7 years, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and, Ex.P.17 R.F.S.L. report reveals that the blood stains on M.O.1 knife, M.Os.4 and 5 nikker and shirt and M.Os.6 and 7 saree and petty coat, are of human blood and are of “A” blood group and, hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 7. P.W.1, the V.R.O. of Mampa Panchayat, deposed that on the information of P.W.10 on 10.2.2007 at 7.00 a.m. that the accused cut the throat of his wife, she went to the house of the deceased and saw her dead body and on the next day at about 10.15 a.m. she went to Mampa P.S. and lodged Ex.P.1 report with them. 8. P.W.2 stated that the accused is his brother-in-law by courtesy and, about five months back, on Friday at 3.00 p.m., when he was in cashew nut tope situated by the side of Gangavaram, he heard cries from the village and rushed towards the place where from he heard the cries and found a big crowd at the house of the accused and the daughter of the accused told him that her father came from behind and cut the throat of her mother with a knife. The accused sat by the side of a wall in the varandah of his house holding a knife. Then he informed about the incident to P.W.10 as well as to Badugu Ramaraju. 9. P.W.3, mother of the deceased, in her evidence stated that the accused was not looking after her daughter well and he used to beat her suspecting her fidelity and she also stated that she was informed that her daughter was killed and immediately she went to Gangavaram and saw the dead body. 10. P.W.4’s evidence also shows that the deceased and the accused were always quarrelling because of the accused suspecting her fidelity. On hearing the cries of the daughter of the accused, he went to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the varandah and the accused was also there sitting by the side of the deceased holding a knife in his hands and, on his raising cries, P.Ws.5 and 6 came to the scene of offence and caught hold of the accused and tied him to an electric pole. 11. According to P.W.5, on hearing the cries of the daughter of the deceased, he sent P.W.6 his elder brother and, on his return, P.W.6 told him that the accused killed his wife. Then, himself and P.W.6 went to the house of the accused and, by the time he went there, the accused was sitting by the side of a wall by holding a knife and he took out the knife and threw it away and himself and P.W.6 tied the accused to an electric pole. P.W.6 deposed on the same lines as that of P.W.5. 12. P.W.7 is the mediator for the observation of the scene of offence and also acted as a panchayatdar at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. 13. P.W.8 is son of the deceased. He also arrived at the scene of offence on hearing the cries of his sister and, when enquired, his sister told him that their father hacked their mother with a knife and he found his mother on the varandah and by then she died and his father was present there. 14. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “An incised wound size about 10 x 6 x 7 cms. on front of the neck 1 ½ cms above the thyroid notch. Tracia completely cut and oesophague cut. Carolid of both sides external and internal carotid arteries are cut. Vagus nerves both sides cut. Internal jugular vein both sides cut. Medial parts of both sterno clero mastoid muscles cut. “ He issued Ex.P.6 post mortem report opining that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage and all the above injuries would be caused with M.O.1 knife and, in the ordinary course of nature, the injuries are sufficient to cause death. 15. In his evidence P.W.10, husband of the Sarpanch, stated that when himself and one Badugu Ramarajyam were in the C.P.I. office at Rajendrapalem of Koyyuru, P.W.2 came and informed about the killing of the deceased by the accused. On that, they went to the house of the accused and found the accused being tied to an electric pole. Then, they went near the accused and got him untied and, on enquiry, the accused told them that his wife was going astray and so he killed her. 16. P.W.11 is the photographer. P.Ws.12 to 14 are the Investigating Officers. 17 By the evidence of above witnesses and mainly relying on Ex.P.17 F.S.L. report, the prosecution able to establish that the accused hacked the deceased with a knife and the incident was witnessed by his daughter Ganga Bhavani and later he was sitting by the side of a wall in the varandah, that on raising the cries of Ganga Bhavani, her brother P.W.8, who was playing near the scene, as well as P.Ws.5 and 6 rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and P.Ws.5 and 6 caught hold of the accused and tied him to an electric pole and later the accused along with the blood stained clothes wore by him was handed over to the villagers, who in turn, took him to the police station and subsequently the blood stained clothes wore by the accused and the deceased were sent to FSL for examination and Ex.P.17 FSL report discloses that the blood stains on M.O.1 knife and M.Os.4 to 7, nikkar, shirt, saree and petty coat, are of human blood and is of “A” blood group and the blood stains on M.Os.1, 4 and 5 matches with the blood stains on M.Os.6 and 7. 18. Further, the delay of about 19 hours in this case is quite but natural, because of the location of the scene of the offence in Gangavaram and the places, where the VRO resides and the police station are separated by a distance of 10 kms in agency area. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant that the delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the case of the prosecution, has no legs to stand. 19. Though the daughter of the deceased is not examined, the fact remains that P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 8 in one voice stated that they were informed by the daughter of the deceased that her father hacked the deceased with a knife and immediately thereafter they rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and their evidence itself is sufficient to convict the accused. 20. Further, no explanation is offered by the accused, when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., except that on suspicion, the case was registered against him, but he has not denied about his presence at the scene of offence and the villagers taking him to the police station and handing over him to the police along with blood stained clothes worn by him. Further, there is no evidence that it is a sudden quarrel and, out of the sudden provocation, he hacked the deceased, so as to bring the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 21. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 13th July, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1522 of 2007 (Delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) 13th July, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1522 of 2007 Dated:13.07.2011 BETWEEN: Sagina Chellaya … Appellant/ Accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: