THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.446 of 2007 Date: 18-11-2009 Between Ramisetti Govindarao @ Govindu … Appellant/Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. by S.H.O., Bhogapuram Circle P.S., Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent/Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.446 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-sole accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-02-2007 in Sessions Case No.82 of 2006 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the accused married P.W.1 about 10 years back and they were blessed with two daughters viz., Santhoshi and Lavanya, aged about 8 and 5 years, respectively. He was working as Watchman in Gum City near A.Ravivalasa Junction and because of his irregular behaviour, he was removed from service about two months prior to the offence. The accused was making attempts to secure a job. He was not able to feed the family members. Therefore, having been frustrated, he took his two children along with him and threw them into a tank and killed them and was absconding immediately. He was arrested only after five months. Basing on the report Ex.P-16 lodged by P.W.12, Village Secretary of Mukalingapuram village of Srikakulam district, P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2005 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Later, the Section of law was altered from 174 of Cr.P.C., to 302 of IPC in view of the report Ex.P-15 presented by P.W.11, uncle of P.W.1. After completion of all the formalities, P.W.18, Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram filed charge-sheet against the accused. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC framed against him before the trial Court. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and also M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced but Exs.D-1 to D-7 were marked. 6. Now, the point for consideration in this appeal is – whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused successfully ? 7. Point:- This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Since the only alleged eyewitness P.W.2, who, according to the prosecution, had seen the accused taking the children along with him, turned hostile and his evidence is of no use in any manner. 8. P.W.1, who is the wife of the accused, deposed that 10 to 15 days prior to the date of incident, the accused withdrew the amount in a bank at Vizianagaram, which was deposited in the name of the deceased, saying that he would give the said amount to the Panchayat Officer to secure a job. She further deposed that two months prior to the incident, the accused lost his job and since then he was trying to secure another job in the Panchayat Office, Bhogapuram. On the date of incident at about 6 p.m., the accused took the two children on the pretext he would show them to the Panchayat Officer for securing job. After she gave custody of the children to the accused, he took away them on his cycle. Till 8 p.m., she waited for her husband and children. Since they did not turn up, she informed the matter to P.W.6, her junior paternal uncle, who tried to console her. That whole night she was waiting for her husband and the children to come. When she was receiving variety of messages that the accused committed suicide etc., ultimately she was informed by the villagers that the dead bodies of her children were floating in Palaparthivari agricultural well. She immediately rushed to the spot and noticed the dead bodies of her children in the well. The V.A.O., gave a report to the Police and the dead bodies of her children were fished out. 9. It is further on record that the accused since then that is precisely from the time and date of taking the children along with him, was absconding. In other words, it is not as though she came back to home after some time and gave some explanation and then left the house. It is categorically stated by the wife of the accused that he took the children along with him to the Panchayat Officer in order to obtain a job by showing the children. But he did not send the children back to home nor did he come along with them or alone come to the house. Therefore, P.W.1 is the key person who found the children last seen in the company of the accused and the accused, as already pointed out, is no other than the husband of P.W.1. 10. P.W.2, who also was examined for the same purpose, did not support the case of prosecution along with couple of other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 and 8. But, nevertheless, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be brushed aside. She cannot have any possible grievance against her own husband. The conduct of the accused also is not explained properly. When the offence had taken place on 20-12-2005, the accused was arrested on 19- 4-2006. There was failure on the part of the accused to give any explanation for his abstinence for all these months after taking his children along with him. 11. It is further to be noticed that when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he explained that at the time of commission of the offence he was in Vijayawada. There was no proof to that effect or there any explanation from him as to why he was in Vijayawada as on the date of commission of the offence. In fact, the explanation should be in such a manner that he was not aware of the death of the deceased and ought to have further stated that he did not know as to when the deceased died and how they died. Instead of answering these relevant questions, he simply denied by saying that at the relevant point of time he was at Vijayawada, meaning thereby, that he knew the date of death of the deceased and he was offering a false explanation. This conduct is deplorable and strengthens again the case of prosecution and also further strengthens the circumstance, which is the demonstrable fact that the accused alone had an opportunity to have the association of the children just before they were done to death. There is no possibility or reason for any one to kill the children. When the mother of the children, who is again the wife of the accused, came forward and said that she offered the children to the accused when the accused wanted them to take to the panchayat office to obtain a job. We are unable to see any reason to disbelieve her evidence. When this piece of evidence is to be believed, the only possible inference that can be drawn is that the accused alone had the opportunity to kill the children and the other circumstances, with which he was surrounded, also support the case of prosecution further. 12. For the aforementioned, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment under appeal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 18th November, 2009. Ak