THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1160 of 2007 JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment, dated 24.07.2007, passed in S.C.No.120 of 2006, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nellore, whereunder and whereby the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and was convicted therefor and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The accused married Rayapu China Audemma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) about 20 years prior to 2005, after the death of his first wife. The deceased and the accused got three children. The accused used to harass the deceased by suspecting her character. He used to pressurize her to sell away the cattle and to remain in the house itself. While so, on 01.04.2005, the deceased had taken her cattle to Shiridi Sai Real Estates Area under Gundlapalem Panchayat for grazing them. The accused, who was strongly suspecting the character of the deceased, decided to eliminate her and went to the said Shiridi Sai Real Estates, armed with a knife, caught hold of tuft of hair of the deceased, stabbed her repeatedly with the knife and caused severe stab injuries on her right chest, right arm-pit, right shoulder area, below right chest, left upper arm and on left side of back, as a result of which, the deceased collapsed in a pool of blood. In the meantime, the accused fled away from the scene. On seeing the ghastly incident, one Patrangi Nanamma-P.W.4, who was attending the farm work in the nearby fields raised alarm. One Mannem Seshamma-P.W.1, who was passing by also witnessed the incident and raised hue and cries. On hearing those cries, P.Ws.5 to 7 rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Then they shifted the injured in a tractor to DSR Government Hospital, Nellore, where the doctors examined the injured and declared her dead. On the basis of the report given by P.W.1 and on the death intimation received from the Government Hospital, Nellore, a case in Crime No.84 of 2005 was registered on the file of Nellore Rural Police Station, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, who took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared scene of offence observation report in the presence of mediators, seized blood stained earth and controlled earth, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Subsequently, on 03.04.2005 the Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of mediators under a cover of Mahazar and seized the knife used in the commission of the offence based on the confessional statement of the accused. The blood stained earth, controlled earth and the knife were sent to RFSL, Guntur for analysis. Dr.S.Renuka Devi, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The police after completion of the investigation and receipt of FSL report, filed charge sheet. 3. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 10. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C so as to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. P.W.1-Mannem Seshamma, who is the sister of the deceased, in her evidence stated that on 01.04.2005, the accused murdered the deceased by stabbing with a knife. She also deposed that the accused was harassing the deceased by coming to the house in drunken stage; that about two months prior to the offence, the deceased informed her that the accused has increased his harassment towards her by beating her in drunken stage and insisting her not to leave the house for any purpose; that the accused was demanding her to sell away the she-buffaloes; that the deceased used to graze her she-buffaloes at Shiridi Sai Plots, which are adjacent to Akuthota Harijana Wada; that on 01.04.2005 at about 2-00 p.m when she (PW.1) was taking water to the coolies working at the fields of her brother P.Subrahamanyam (PW.7), the deceased was grazing her cattle at Shiridi Sai Plots and at that time, the accused came there armed with a knife and stabbed the deceased on her chest and when the deceased resisted, the accused stabbed on her hands and on her back; that at that time herself (P.W.1) and one P.Nanamma (PW.4) who was grazing cattle by that side raised cries; that the accused left the deceased by saying “ ” and left the scene; that out of the fear of the accused, she herself and Nanamma could not resist the accused and that on hearing their cries, the persons including P.Subramanyam-P.W.7, Dasari Sundaraiah-PW.6 and Peneti Subba Rao–P.W.5, who were at the paddy harvesting machine at the fields of P.W.7 rushed to the scene of offence. Then they have taken the injured to the hospital in a tractor driven by PW.8-Paniki Seenaiah. There, the doctor after testing the pulse of the injured declared her dead. The Sub-Inspector of Police recorded her statement under Ex.P1. She further deposed that the accused has thrown the knife- M.O.1, which was used by him in stabbing the deceased, in the bushes in that Shiridi Sai Plots. 5. P.W.2-Rayapu Suresh, who is the son of the deceased and the accused, deposed that on 01.04.2005 his mother was stabbed to death by his father. He also deposed that his father was suspecting the fidelity of his mother by insisting her not to take the cattle for grazing and was also insisting for selling away the she-buffaloes of their family; that his father was not doing any work and used to collect Rs.20/- daily from his mother by beating her, for the purpose of consuming liquor and that on 01.04.2005 at 3.00 p.m. when himself and his brother Babu-P.W.3 were at V.R.C. Centre, Nellore, with their autos, one Chinna, a resident of Yellamvaridinne came and informed them that the accused stabbed the deceased and caused her death at Shiridi Sai Plots. Then he and his brother rushed to the Government Hospital, Nellore, and found the dead body of the deceased with sever bleeding injuries and on the next day, the police have conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. 6. P.W.3-Rayapu Babu, who is also son of the deceased and the accused, deposed that on 01.04.2005 the accused murdered the deceased by stabbing with a knife; that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased everyday by coming to the house in drunken stage and suspecting her fidelity; that the accused was insisting the deceased to sell away the cattle of their family; that he used to collect Rs.20/- daily from the deceased by quarrelling with her and that while so, on 01.04.2005 at about 3.00 p.m. when himself and his brother- PW.2 were at V.R.C. Centre, Nellore, one Chinna of Yellamvaridinne came and informed them about the death of the deceased due to stabbing of the accused at 2-00 p.m. Then he and his brother-PW.2 rushed to the Government Hospital, Nellore, and found the dead body of the deceased. They also found seven stab injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He was present when inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 02.04.2005 between 9.00 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. 7 . P.W.4-Patrangi Nanamma, who is a resident of Akuthota Harijanawada, deposed that at about 20 years ago, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed; that she used to graze her family she-buffaloes at Shiridi Sai Plots situated at a distance of about two miles away from Akuthota Harijanawada; that the deceased also used to graze her two she-buffaloes in the Shiridi Sai Plots; that the deceased used to tell her that the accused was harassing her by coming to the house in drunken stage and used to collect Rs.20/- everyday from her and he was also suspecting her fidelity; that while so, on the date of the offence at about 2.00 p.m. when she was grazing her cattle in the said Shiridi Sai Plots, the deceased was also grazing her she-buffaloes in that plots and at that time the accused came behind the deceased, thrown her down by caught holding her tuft of hair and stabbed her with a knife on her chest and he also stabbed on her both palms, when she resisted the blows from him; that the accused also stabbed the deceased on her back with a knife and total seven or nine stab injuries were sustained by the deceased in the hands of the accused; that on hearing the cries of her and P.W.1 and P.Ws.5 to 8 rushed to the scene of offence and that on seeing them, the accused left the scene of offence by throwing the knife in the bushes at Shiridi Sai Plots. M.O.1 is the knife that was used by the accused. Then P.Ws.5 to 8 took the injured in a tractor driven by P.W.8 to Government Hospital, Nellore, where the doctors, after testing the injured, declared her dead. She was present at the time of Inquest over the dead body of the deceased that was held on the next day. 8 . P.W.5-Peneti Subba Rao, who is a resident of Akuthota Harijanawada deposed that on 01.04.2005, the deceased was stabbed to death by the accused; that on that day, he was attending for the coolie work at the paddy harvesting field of P.W.7 that at about 2.00 p.m. P.W.4 raised cries at Shiridi Sai Plots, which are situated 4 or 5 agricultural plots away from the field of P.W.7 as ……………………………………................................... On hearing the said cries, himself, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.8 rushed to that Shiridi Sai Plots and on seeing them, the accused has thrown the knife in his hands into the bushes in that plots and left the scene towards western side. Then they have taken the injured in a tractor to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore, where the doctor after testing the injured declared her dead. On the same day evening, P.Ws.2 and 3 informed him that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and due to that he stabbed and murdered her. He was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased on the next day of the offence. 9. P.W.6 Dasari Sundaraiah, who is also a resident of Akuthota Harijanawada, deposed that on the date of the offence, he was at the fields of P.W.7 for harvesting the paddy crop with paddy harvesting machine; that on that day at about 2.00 p.m they heard cries of P.W.4 from the Shiridi Sai Plots situated at a distance of about one furlong away from there. Then all of them rushed to the said place and by that time, the accused was running towards western side by throwing away something in his hands. At that time, the deceased was lying on the ground unconsciously. Then himself, P.W.5, and P.W.8 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nellore in a tractor, where the doctors after testing the deceased declared her dead. He also deposed that he heard that because of disputes, the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased that was held on the next day of the offence. 10. P.W.7-Peneti Subramanyam, who is a resident to Akuthota Harijanawada, deposed that the deceased was his younger sister; that the accused murdered the deceased by stabbing with a knife on 01.04.2005 at about 2.00 p.m. at Shiridi Sai Plots near Akuthota Harijanawada; that the accused was not doing any work and developed suspicion against the deceased with regard to her fidelity; that he used to beat the deceased everyday in a drunken stage and used to collect Rs.20/- daily from the deceased by harassing her; that on 01.04.2005 when he was at his fields by harvesting paddy with paddy harvesting machine along with coolies and tractor driver, at about 2.00 p.m. the deceased was grazing her she-buffaloes at Shiridi Sai plots; that at that time P.W.4 came by running to the donka adjacent to his lands and stated that the accused stabbed the deceased; that they rushed to the said Shiridi Sai Plots and by the time they reached those plots, the accused has thrown the knife in his hands into the bushes in that plots and left the scene; that they found the injured struggling with the injuries sustained by her and that they shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Nellore in a tractor driven by P.W.8 and the doctor, who tested the injured declared her dead. 11. P.W.8 Paniki Seenaiah, who is a resident to Akuthota Harijanawada has deposed that about two years ago, when he was working at the fields of P.W.7 as driver of a tractor for transporting the harvested paddy to the donka adjacent to the field of P.W.7, P.Ws.1 and 4 came running by crying as somebody stabbed; that the persons at the field of P.W.7 rushed to the Shiridi Sai Plots and found a lady with bleeding injuries on the ground and that on the directions of P.Ws.5 to 7, he brought the tractor to the donka and took the injured- Audemma to the Government Hospital, Nellore in that Tractor. Later he learnt that the injured died. 12. P.W.9-Yentrapalli Doraswamy and P.W.10-Shaik Abdul Kareem, who are the alleged mediators for the scene of offence observation conducted by the Investigating Officer have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. 13. P.W.11-Pantrangi Venkateswarlu, who is a resident of Akuthota Harijanawada of Nellore Mandal deposed that on 02.04.2005 he was present when inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased by the Police of Nellore Rural Police Station between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon at Mortuary Room of Government Head- Quarters Hospital, Nellore and at that time, the blood relatives of the deceased were also present. He found seven knife injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He and other Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the stab injuries sustained by her. He further deposed that he heard through somebody that the deceased was stabbed by the accused with a knife. He signed in the inquest report- Ex.P4. 14. P.W.12-Pantrangi Murali, who is a resident of Akuthota Harijanawada has deposed that on 03.04.2005 at about 5.00 a.m. he was called to the Nellore Rural Police Station and by that time one Chiranjeevi was also called to the said Police Station and both of them accepted to act as panchayatdars; that by the time they reached Racha Banda of Yellamvaridinne by 6.00 a.m., the accused was sitting there; that on seeing them, the accused tried to leave that place, but the police detained him; that when the Circle Inspector of Police interrogated the accused, he confessed that he murdered the deceased by stabbing with a knife and thrown the knife into the bushes at Shiridi Sai Plots and also stated that he will show it; that the Circle Inspector of Police arrested the accused and prepared Mahazarnama; that himself and Chiranjeevi singed Ex.P.5-admissible portion of Mahazarnama dated 03.04.2005; that based on the confession made by the accused, the Circle Inspector of Police seized M.O.1 under a cover of Seizure Mahazar and that Ex.P6 is the admissible portion of the Seizure Mahazar dated 3.4.2005 at 8.00 a.m. 15. P.W.13-Dr.S.Renuka Devi, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nellore, deposed that on 02.04.2005 she conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased and noted the external injuries found on the said dead body; that she issued Ex.P.7-Post Mortem Certificate opining that the time of death appears to be between 18 hours to 24 hours prior to the Post Mortem Examination and the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and due to multiple injuries and that the external injuries noted in Ex.P.7 can be possible by a sharp object like knife and they may cause death in the normal course. 16. P.W.14-Pantrangi Mallikarjuna Rao, is the photographer who took photographs at the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Nellore under Ex.P.8. 17. P.W.15 K.Vinay Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police Nellore Rural Police Station deposed that on 01.04.2005 at 18.00 hours, he received the death intimation from the Government Hospital, Nellore regarding the death of the deceased under Ex.P.9; that at the same time, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and gave a report under Ex.P1 and based on the said report, a case in Crime No.84 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C under Ex.P.10- F.I.R and that the Circle Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural has taken up the investigation in this case. 18. P.W.16-J.Murali Krishna, the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle has deposed that on 01.04.2005 at 19-00 hours on receiving Express First Information Report in Crime No.84 of 2005, he took up investigation, reached the scene of offence and posted a guard for the scene of offence; that on the next day i.e., 02.04.2005 at 6.30 a.m., he inspected the scene of offence along with Sub-Inspector of Police and mediators P.Ws.9 to 11, observed the scene of offence and seized M.O.2-light rose color Havai Chappals, M.O.3-one pair of white color chappals, M.O.4-opticals, M.O.5-grass containing blood stained earth, M.O.6-controlled earth under a cover of scene of offence observation report under Ex.P.11, and M.O.10-Cigar light and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.10, got the scene of offence photographed, reached D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4 and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Later on the same day at 18.00 hours, he seized saree, petty coat and blouse under M.Os.7 to 9 respectively from the dead body of the deceased. On 03.04.2005, on information, he proceeded along with panchayatdars to Yellamvaridinne and found the accused sitting on a pial. On seeing them, the accused tried to ran away from there. Then they surrounded him and he revealed his identity particulars. Then the accused confessed to have committed the offence in this case. Then the accused was arrested under a cover of Mahazar under Ex.P.5 and thereafter he lead them to Shiridi Sai real Estate Plots, where M.O.1 knife was seized under a cover of Mahazar under Ex.P.6. Later, the accused was sent to the court for remand. On 07.04.2005, he sent the Material Objects to R.F.S.L, Guntur for analysis through S.D.P.O Nellore. Subsequently, after receipt of R.F.S.L. report under Ex.P.13 and Post Mortem Certificate, he laid the charge sheet. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds challenging the order of conviction: (i) Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1 cannot be called as F.I.R and it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. in view of the fact that the said complaint was registered by the S.I of Police on the basis of reliable information, (ii) the motive attributed to the accused is very flimsy in nature and further more suspecting the fidelity of the wife after 20 years of marriage cannot be believable, (iii) due to the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, they cannot be treated as eyewitnesses, (iv) the material objects shown in the rough sketch like havai chappals, spectacles and other articles etc., would not connect either with the accused or with the deceased, and (v) the witnesses improved their versions from the statements recoded under Section 161 Cr.P.C before the Court below. 20. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, a perusal of the record would show that the Police Officer proceeded to the hospital on information regarding the death of a person, which is homicidal in nature, and therefore, the same cannot be called as information regarding an offence. If the Police Officer proceeded to a particular spot on the information reasonably believing it as to commission of a cognizable offence, then the said information can be called as first information. Admittedly, in the instant case, on receipt of information with regard to death of a person in the hospital, the Police Officer rushed to the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses, but the same cannot be called as statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. 21. As far as motive is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that after 20 years of the marital life, there cannot be any such suspicion and to prove the same there is no evidence. But this Court is of the view that motive depends upon the mentality and nature of each and every particular individual and there cannot be a universal application that a person will act in a particular manner in a particular situation. In the instant case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the sons of the deceased categorically deposed before the Court regarding the suspicion of the accused against the deceased. Further, eyewitnesses are available to substantiate the occurrence more particularly to connect the accused in the crime. Even assuming that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, the same cannot be a ground to throw the case of the prosecution. 22. Insofar as the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence are concerned, as per the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no scientific evidence to connect the material objects, with the accused or the deceased. It is true that the prosecution has not ventured before the trial Court as whether the said material objects were collected either from the deceased or the accused. In the absence of any such venture by the prosecution, there is no need to give any importance to the said aspect. Those material objects were marked before the Court to show that they were recovered in the place of occurrence. 23. As far as the improvements made by the witnesses during the course of evidence before the Court below are concerned, a perusal of the record would show that the discrepancies are flimsy in nature. Further, while cross-examining the witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellant ought to have put questions to contradict the witnesses regarding the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, but they failed to contradict the said evidence as per Section 162 Cr.P.C r/w Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’). It is well settled that when the witnesses are to be contradicted, questions should be put to the witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement. In the absence of any such elucidation during the course of cross examination, the said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant do not merit acceptance. 24. As far as the question of eyewitnesses is concerned, P.W.1, who set the law into motion, incorporated the names of the other persons, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and also the persons who reached the place of occurrence on information by P.Ws.1 and 4. The same was supported by the evidence of P.W.8, who categorically deposed before the Court that on information given by P.Ws.1 and 4, P.Ws.5 to 7 rushed to the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 4 are the