THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2007 Date: 14-10-2009 Between Kavuri Srinivasa Reddy … Appellant/Accused and 1. State, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 2. Inspector of Police, Chirala … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-sole accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 08-11-2006, in Sessions Case No.302 of 2005, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, FAC/Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC (under two counts) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for each charge and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that – (a) One Somisetty Geetha Maha Lakshmi and Somisetty Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased 1 and 2’, respectively) are the wife and husband and were running a small hotel and kirana shop at Kotha Kavurivaripalem village, Chirala Mandal for their livelihood. They were living along with their two children, who are P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused, who also belongs to the same village, was a regular customer to the hotel and in the absence of deceased No.2, he used to try to misbehave with deceased No.1, which was not liked by her. It was the further allegation that the accused on one day in the absence of deceased No.2, went to their house and tried to outrage her modesty by hugging her. As a consequence, a complaint was lodged and the same was taken into cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 354 of IPC and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.174 of 2004. (b) It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chirala, by judgment, dated 19-8-2005, convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences. (c) While so, the accused was making attempts by way of forcing the deceased to compromise the matter. In that process, he used to quite frequently insist the deceased, particularly deceased No.1. But, the same was not acceptable to the deceased. This was going on for a considerable period. Since the deceased were not yielding to his pressures, he had decided to kill them. (d) On the night of 20-7-2005 deceased 1 and 2 were sleeping in their verandah on a cot and P.Ws.1 and 2, their children, were sleeping on a mat by their side. During that night, the accused came to the house of the deceased and first attacked deceased No.1 by hacking her with a knife. After hearing her groaning, deceased No.2 woke up and tried to ward off the blows. In that process, he received an injury on the hands. Again, the accused inflicted injuries on deceased No.2. As a result, deceased No.2 got out of the cot and was trying to run away, but because of the wounds he suffered, he had fallen down and upon that, the accused had hacked him indiscriminately with a knife. While this hacking of deceased 1 and 2 was going on, the children of the deceased, who are no other than P.Ws.1 and 2, also woke up and raised cries. Because of this commotion, the dogs, which were roaming around, also started barking creating furthermore commotion. Hearing this, some of the neighbours, who are no other than P.Ws.6 to 10, gathered there and tried to catch hold of the accused and they chased him by making all kinds of efforts. It is also the averment that some of these witnesses also spoke to the effect that they threw a stick also beating the legs of the accused in order to stop him from proceeding further. Some how, the accused managed to escape while brandishing the knife and the knife was ultimately left somewhere and he got away. (e) P.Ws.3 and 4 are the father and brother of deceased No.1, respectively, and P.W.5 is the mother of deceased No.2. They came to know about this brutal attack on the deceased, came down to that village and participated in other proceedings. (f) The Police having got knowledge through a telephone call by way of some other persons, they came to the village and completed the other formalities like conducting inquest, preparing the sketch etc., and after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. Charges under Section 302 of IPC (under two counts) were framed against the accused, read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-47 and M.Os.1 to 16. On behalf of defence, none were examined but Ex.D-1 was marked. 6. The trial Court, after going into the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC (under two counts) and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentences, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court ought not have believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as they are child witnesses and they are prone in tutoring; that the trial Court ought to have considered that there were previous disputes between the appellant and the deceased and in view of the same, police to wash out their hands, falsely implicated the appellant in the case, without making proper enquiry in the case to find out the actual culprit of the offence; that the trial Court ought to have considered that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence with regard to the alleged injuries on the deceased; that the trial Court ought to have considered that there were so many contradictions and omissions with regard to the alleged place of incident and alleged injuries caused to the deceased and the trial Court without considering the said fact, erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and that to set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellant. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the order of conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellant and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Apart from the number of witnesses who were examined, the main witnesses are P.Ws.1, 2, 6 to 10, 13 and 14. P.Ws.1 and 2 are eyewitnesses and the children of the deceased. P.Ws.6 to 10 are the persons, who were present immediately after the commission of the offence by the accused and saw the accused running away with the knife and chased him in order to catch him hold of. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the doctors, who conducted post-mortem on deceased 1 and 2, respectively and gave opinions regarding the causes of deaths of the deceased. 11. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is -- Whether the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record while arriving at the conclusion that the accused alone was responsible for the deaths of the deceased ? 12. Point :- In this connection, we feel it necessary to appreciate the evidence on record insofar as the witnesses referred to above. The testimony of other witnesses is only formal in nature and the same does not alter our view in any manner and is not capable of changing the conclusion arrived at either by the trial Court or by this Court in any manner. Therefore, we are not referring to the evidence of other witnesses other than the material witnesses referred to above. 13. P.W.1, one of the sons of the deceased, stated that while he along with his brother was sleeping on a mat in front of the house in the verandah, their parents were sleeping on a cot by their side. At about 2 a.m., he heard the cries of his mother and barking of dogs. Suddenly, he and his brother woke up and saw the accused hacking their mother with a knife while she was on the cot. Then his father was pulling his mother to a side. The accused again hacked his father on his right shoulder with a knife. When his father tried to ward off the blow, his right middle finger and ring fingers were cut and fell on the ground. His father was running away from the verandah; however he fell down in front of the verandah by the side of a thatched hut. The accused chased his father and hacked him indiscriminately resulting his death. He also stated about the indiscriminate injuries caused to deceased No.1, who is his mother. He further deposed that he raised hue and cry. After hearing his cries and because of this commotion, the neighbours i.e., P.Ws.5 to 10 came there running. He further deposed that there was electric light in front of the verandah and he can identify the accused and when all the other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.6 to 10 assembled there, they saw the accused running away and they chased him. But their attempts were in vain. 14. P.W.2, another son of the deceased, who is also a child witness, also deposed to the same effect on all material aspects. 15. Of course, learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is variation in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is his contention that P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that after hacking of his mother she raised cries and after hearing those cries, they woke up. But the depositions were to the effect that they woke up and saw the accused hacking the deceased. In our view, this discrepancy is very insignificant and does not really affect the case of prosecution. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 10, it is obvious that all these individuals, who are not related to the family of the deceased in any manner, spoke to the effect that after hearing the commotion, cries, barking of dogs etc., sensing that something was happening they rushed to the house of the deceased and by that time, they saw the accused running away brandishing the knife and in order to stop him while chasing, one of these witnesses also threw a stick into the feet of the accused, but, however, the accused some how managed to escape. Therefore, he could not be caught hold of by them at that time and subsequently he was arrested. There is no dispute as regards the arrest of the accused. Therefore, we are not adverting to the said aspect, which is not very significant. 17. A cumulative effect of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 to 10 is that P.Ws.1 and 2 had seen indeed about the attack made by the accused on the deceased and they had every possibility to see the accused attacking their parents in the illumination of an electric bulb in front of the verandah. There is nothing unnatural in their narration of the facts. During the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing adverse could be elicited nor demolish their evidence. 18. So also the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 10 supports the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. Of course, they are not eyewitnesses but they were present immediately after the commission of the offence, almost as a sequel to the incident. All of them in one voice categorically stated that by the time they gathered at the house of the deceased, they saw the accused running away with a knife and they made their attempts to catch him. 19. As already pointed out, P.Ws.6 to 10 are all independent witnesses and they are neither hostile to the accused nor favourable to the family of the deceased in any manner. Their evidence is absolutely trustworthy and corroborative of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are eyewitnesses. 20. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 read with the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 10 arouses any amount of confidence in the mind of the Court that there was abundant truth in the version of the witnesses -- both the eyewitnesses as well as the circumstantial witnesses. There is no need to hesitate any further to arrive at the conclusion that the accused alone was responsible for the death of the deceased. 21. The medical evidence adduced by the doctors P.Ws.13 and 14 further supports the case of prosecution. The post-mortem certificates of deceased 1 and 2 under Exs.P-9 and P-10, respectively, show that the death of deceased No.1 was due to irreversible haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries and the death of deceased No.2 was due to irreversible haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries involving vital structures of the neck especially carotids and jugulars. Therefore, we do not have any doubt whatsoever about the view taken by the trial Court in recording the order of conviction against the accused. 22. For the foregoing, the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment under appeal. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 14th October, 2009. Ak