HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1662 OF 2007 Dated:20-07-2011 BETWEEN: Pappu Thirupathi Reddy …Appellant AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1662 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant-sole accused was put on trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by judgment dated 12.09.2007 in S.C.No.140 of 2007 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 25.4.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. at Malial Village he committed murder by intentionally axing his mother-Pappu Buchamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). 3. The story of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial is as under: The deceased was resident of Gunturpalli village and she is none other than the mother of the accused. P.W.3 is the wife of the accused. About four years prior to the date of occurrence, deceased sold away 4 acres of land against the will of the accused and therefore, the accused bore grudge against her and left the village and was residing with his wife-P.W.3 at the house of his parents-in-law at Mallial village. Again the deceased sold away another piece of 2 ½ guntas court yard due to which, the accused developed grudge over his mother as she did not give the sale consideration to him. Due to the dispute with the accused, deceased left her house and was residing with her daughter at Kondaparthy village. The accused suspected that the deceased was giving the entire money to her daughter and therefore, he decided to eliminate her and hatched a plan. He went to the house of his sister on 24.4.2006 and on 25.4.2006 in the early morning at about 4.00 a.m. he brought the deceased to Mallial village stating that his daughter was suffering with severe fever. After coming to the house, accused took up a quarrel with the deceased and when the deceased refused to hear the words of the accused, he beat on her neck and head with an axe at about 10.00 a.m. and caused her death on the spot. On seeing the murder, his wife-P.W.3 was scared and left the house along with her son. Thereafter accused approached P.Ws.1 and 2 and informed them about the murder. On that P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the house of accused and found the deceased in a pool of blood and that they took the accused to the police station where P.W.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P.1 with the police. Basing upon the complaint, a case was registered and police visited the scene of offence, conducted inquest panchanama and forwarded the dead body for conducting autopsy. P.W.11-doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 25.4.2006 and issued Ex.P.13-post-mortem certificate opining that because of the injury to the jugular vessels the death was instantaneous and she would have died due to shock and haemorrhage caused due to the multiple injuries. After completion of investigation, P.W.12- Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused, read over the same and explained it to the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 besides M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced but contradiction of P.W.5 in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.D.1. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence particularly basing upon the evidence of direct eyewitness-P.W.3 convicted and sentenced the appellant- accused as aforementioned. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended that P.W.4 admitted in the cross-examination that at 7.30 a.m., the wife of appellant-P.W.3 camet to the house of P.W.4 for the purpose of taking the keys on the pretext that the deceased arrived to the house and therefore, the appellant, who went outside to water the fields was falsely implicated at the instance of his father-in- law. When the accused went to lodge a complaint with P.W.9-Sub-Inspector, his complaint was not received but on arrival of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with his father-in-law, a case was foisted against him and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the reasoning adopted by the lower Court in convicting the appellant-accused by taking us through the entire evidence and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 8. P.W.1, Village Sarpanch and P.W.2, a resident of the same village are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. As per their evidence, on 225.4.2006 at about 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. while P.Ws.1 and 2 were discussing the problems of the village, accused came there and informed them that he killed his mother with an axe at his house and locked the house as there were land disputes in between them. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the accused went to the house of accused and found the deceased with bleeding injuries. Then both of them took the accused to the police station and P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the police. P.W.1 further stated that while himself and P.W.2 went to the house of accused and opened the door, the wife of the accused came there along with her mother-P.W.4. P.W.2 also corroborated the said evidence. The wife of the accused-P.W.3 deposed that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased with regard to the land, that as the land was sold for discharging the debts, herself and the accused came to Mallial village, where her parents were residing. Herself and accused resided in a rented house at Mallial. Her father purchased 3 acres of land and gave it to them and that the accused was cultivating the said land. On 24.2.2006 the accused went to his native village and on the next day he brought his mother- deceased to their village at about 7.00 a.m. Thereafter the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other. At about 9.30 a.m. or 10.00 a.m. while herself and the deceased were removing the stag of the mirch, the accused brought an axe from the house and axed the deceased on her neck. Due to fear, she ran away from that place along with her son and she went to her parents’ house and informed the same to her mother-P.W.4. Sometime thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 came along with the accused and got opened the door of the house and by that time herself and P.W.4 also came there. P.Ws.1 and 2 took the accused to the police station. P.W.4 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.3. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 to discredit her testimony. No reason was assigned by the accused as to why she spoke against him leaving the real assailants. P.W.9 also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and he recovered M.O.1-axe on the confession made by the accused. 9. P.W.11-doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries: “1. crush injury over the left side of the neck. 5 ½ x 3 ½ x 3 ½ deep jugular vessel involve. 2. crush injury above and below the left clavicle on medial one third. Fracture of left clavicle medial one third 3 ½ x 2 ½ x 2 ½ inch deep. 3. Superficial injuries over the left eye, left side of the fore head. 4. Injuries on the back and on the left scalp 2 ½ x 1 ½ x ½ inch.” He stated that the above injuries are possible with a sharp weapon like M.O.1-axe. He issued Ex.P.13-post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage caused due to multiple injuries. Thus from the medical evidence it is established that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 10. From the above evidence the prosecution could establish that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased with regard to sale of agricultural land, that he was suspecting that she would not give the sale proceeds to him and therefore, he brought the deceased to his house and committed the heinous crime by axing his own mother. The learned Sessions Judge after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective rightly concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence recorded by the lower Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J JULY 20, 2011 Tsr.