HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.542 OF 2007 DATE: 08.11.2010 Between: Andugula Nagaraju …… Appellant/Accused-1 And: State of A.P rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.542 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:(per Honourable Sri Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu) The appellant is A-1. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam in Sessions Case No.127 of 2006 by Judgment dated 20.03.2007 of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C and was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 302 I.P.C and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 2) The deceased Yalla Rajamma is no other than mother-in-law of A-1, she being mother of P.W-1. Marriage between P.W-1 and A-1 was performed about 7 years prior to the offence which took place on 31.07.2005 at about 9.15 A.M. They have two children. There are allegations of A-1 harassing P.W-1 and torturing her mentally and physically not only at Rachapatnam village, where the parties resided and also at Hyderabad, to where they shifted their residence. Subsequently they again shifted their residence to their native place Rachapatnam village. In the lower Court, relations of A-1 who are A-2 to A-10 also faced trial in this case. According to the prosecution, the offence on 31.07.2005 took place in pursuance of conspiracy among A- 1 to A-10. The lower Court framed five charges against A-1 to A-10, out of which the lower Court found A-1 to A-10 not guilty of the charges under Sections 120-B(i), 302/109 and 498-A I.P.C and acquitted the accused of those charges. The lower Court found A-1 guilty of charges under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C only. In the lower Court, during trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 and M.Os 1 to 6. P.W-1 is the injured in the same incident along with the deceased. As pointed out earlier, she is wife of A-1 and daughter of the deceased. P.W-2 is an independent witness in the locality of the scene of offence. P.W-3 is son and P.W-4 is husband of the deceased. P.Ws-5 and 6 also are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W-5 is husband of P.W-6. P.W-6 is maternal aunt of P.W-1. P.W-8 was examined to speak about relationship between P.W-1 and A-1 prior to the incident. Other witnesses viz., P.W-7 and 9 to 13 are all official witnesses. The lower Court based its conclusion of guilt of A-1 on evidence of P.Ws-1, 2, 5 and 6. 3) Plea of A-1/appellant is one of total denial. He did not take up any other specific plea of defence. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that no motive was alleged for A-1 to kill the deceased and to attack P.W-1. When there is direct evidence of eye witnesses, motive does not assume much importance, in case eye witnesses are believed. In this case, apart from eye witnesses P.Ws 2, 5 and 6, there is also evidence of one of the injured viz., P.W-1. According to the prosecution, P.W-1 gave report to the police about A-1 harassing her and thereupon A-1 became enraged against P.W-1 and also the deceased who happened to support P.W-1 and it is the motive for A-1 to attack the deceased and P.W-1. It is further contended by the appellant’s counsel that the prosecution did not produce any evidence relating to the prior incidents of the alleged harassment and P.W-1 giving report to the police. Since A-1 was acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C, this contention of the appellant’s counsel may not be relevant. It is P.W-1’s evidence that the accused was harassing her out of suspicion towards her. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 31.07.2005 she went to Kaikaluru Town Police Station and informed about her requirement of divorce from A-1 since she was unable to bear harassment of A-1 any more. It is further stated by P.W-1 that the Sub Inspector of Police called A-1 who agreed for divorce in the police station. She says that the police also arranged counselling for both of them. 4) It is evidence of P.W-1 that on 31.07.2005 she and the deceased went towards canal side for washing clothes and that when she crossed house of A-1, A-1 came from their behind and hacked her mother with axe. She says that she was walking ahead of her mother and that her mother raised cries and that she looked behind and saw A-1 hacking her mother with axe on the back side below neck (mistakenly typed as knee in the deposition) of the deceased and that when she raised cries, A-1 came upon her and beat her with the same sharp edged axe on her hands and right side of abdomen and also on her right leg. It is P.W-1’s evidence that at that time, A-1 also announced that he would kill her father, her brothers and maternal uncles who were supporting her. The appellant’s counsel contended that evidence of P.W-1 is not corroborated by evidence of independent witnesses. Simply because A-1 and P.W-1 continued to live together till P.W-1 gave evidence in the lower Court, it cannot be a circumstance to disbelieve P.W-1’s evidence. It only shows that P.W-1 is a true wife as well as a true witness. Contents of Ex.P-1 report corroborate evidence of P.W-1. 5) As pointed out earlier, P.W-2 is an independent witness. It is her evidence that on 31.07.2005 at about 9.15 A.M when she was doing work in her house, she heard cries from the scene and ran there and found A-1 hacking P.W-1 with axe and that P.W-1 was pleading for being saved and that A-1 inflicted blows with axe on left hand, right hand, right side of abdomen and right leg of P.W-1 and that thereafter, A-1 ran away along with M.O-1 axe. She further says that she had seen the deceased Rajamma lying dead in a pool of blood with injuries on backside of her head near right ear and on her neck. In cross- examination, P.W-2 deposed that she heard cries when she was attending to household duties. She says that distance between her house and the place of incident is about 50 yards. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that location of P.W-2’s house was not shown in Ex.P-12 rough sketch of the scene prepared by P.W-13 who is Inspector of Police and investigating officer in this case. Simply because P.W-2’s house is not shown in Ex.P-12 rough sketch, it cannot be ruled out that P.W-2’s house is located at a distance of 50 yards from the scene. There is no further cross-examination of P.W-2 on this aspect of she living in a house at a distance of 50 yards from the scene. The said information was elicited by the defence counsel in P.W-2’s cross-examination. P.W-13 had shown only surroundings of the actual scene in Ex.P-12 and has not covered the distance of 50 yards i.e., 150 feet from the scene. According to P.W-2, she has taken P.W-1 from the scene to the Government Hospital, Kaikaluru. Ex.P-8 hospital intimation received by the police also reads that the injured P.W-1 was brought to the hospital by Eeda Varalakshmi who is P.W-2. Therefore, evidence of P.W-2 cannot be disbelieved. Even though the appellant’s counsel contended that P.W-2 is also a relation of P.W-1, the said relationship does not find place in any material record of trial. Evidence of P.W-2 corroborates that of P.W-1 with regard to injuries sustained by P.W-1 in the hands of A-1 with M.O-1 axe and also the deceased lying dead at that scene with two bleeding injuries. 6) P.Ws-5 and 6 who are relations of P.W-1 also spoke to they rushing to the scene on hearing cries of P.W-1 and noticing A-1 inflicting injuries on P.W-1 with axe. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the prosecution did not examine any witnesses in the vicinity of the scene even though in Ex.P-12 sketch the investigating officer had shown some huts near the scene. But, there is no material on record to show that any of the inmates from those houses were available in their houses and rushed to the scene after hearing cries of P.W-1 or the deceased. Simply because some 30 persons rushed to the scene after hearing the cries, it cannot be said all of them witnessed the offence. They might have gathered there after coming to know about happening of the incident. We do not find any reasons to suspect presence of P.Ws-2, 5 and 6 at the scene after they hearing cries of P.W-1. Their evidence corroborates evidence of P.W-1. 7) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is delay of 4½ hours in dispatching the registered F.I.R from the police station to the Magistrate, even though the Magistrate is available in the same place. This is not a faction case, where there is possibility of roping in as many opponents as possible by way of confabulations and consultations. P.W-1 is equally related to the deceased as well as A-1. 8) Evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 5 and 6 is also corroborated by medical evidence of P.W-12 with regard to injuries sustained by P.W-1 in the hands of A-1 and injuries sustained by the deceased in the hands of A-1 resulting in her death. Ex.P-10 wound certificate of P.W-1 and Ex.P-11 post-mortem examination certificate of the deceased issued by P.W-12 reveal that the injuries are possible with a weapon like axe. P.W-12 found two incised injuries on the deceased with sharp edges. Injury No.2 was oval shaped injury. The injuries on the back of neck and also back running towards spine indicate intention of the A-1 to do away the deceased. 9) It is evidence of P.W-13 that he arrested A-1 on 02.08.2005 and at his instance, M.O-1 axe was recovered from out of bushes in the backyard of A-1’s brother-in-law, when it was pointed out to A-1, under the cover of mediators’ report in which Exs.P-6 and P-7 portions were marked. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that as per Ex.P-2 F.S.L. report and evidence of P.W-7, no blood was detected on M.O-1 axe. When the axe was lying in open place behind bushes for three days after the offence, absence of blood stains on the axe cannot disprove that M.O-1 was not used by A-1 in the commission of offence. In any event, it was the axe pointed out by A-1 himself subsequent to his arrest. 10) Thus, on scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence recorded by the trial Court, we do not find any valid or legal reasons to come to a different conclusion from that of the trial Court with regard to guilt of A- 1/appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. 11) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 08.11.2010 ksh