HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.147 of 2008 DATED: 22.11.2011 BETWEEN: Koyyala Sarangam . Appellant And State of A.P. Rep. by PP Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.147 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per RKR,J) This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27.11.2007 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in S.C.No.450 of 2005. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant/accused is that on 26.03.2007 at 10.30 PM he intentionally caused the death of his wife Koyyala Radha by stabbing her with sickle after quarreling and thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: The appellant-Koyyala Sarangam is the husband of Koyyala Radha, the deceased in this case. Their marriage was performed about 14 years prior to the incident. PW.2 is her daughter, who was aged 8 years on the date of incident. The appellant became addicted to drinking and due to the said reason, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased, some panchayats were also held, whereat the elders advised both of them to live amicably. While so, on 24.03.007, the appellant along with Koyyala Radha, the deceased and his daughter-PW.2 proceeded from their village Bhanojipet, to Annaram Sharif Darga and stayed in the said Darga. They stayed there for three days and during their stay they were sleeping in the premises of Darga itself. On 26.03.2007 at about 22.30 hours while all the three were sleeping in the premises of Darga along with the other devotees, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and there was altercation between them. The other devotees admonished them and thereafter they went into sleep. It is said that the appellant with an intention to do away with the life of his wife, got up, and while she was in deep sleep, stabbed with the sickle on her head, back side of the neck, abdomen and chest region indiscriminately, due to which the deceased raised cries. On hearing her cries, PW.2, the daughter, who was sleeping by their side got up and witnessed the appellant stabbing the deceased and raised cries. In the meanwhile, PW.3, Security Guard of Annaram Shareef Darga, Shaik Basha Miya and some other devotees came there and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased. PW.3 tried to catch hold of the deceased, but he escaped with the sickle. Subsequently, when the security guard and the other devotees tried to shift the deceased to the hospital, they found her already dead. 4. Thereafter, on a report lodged by PW.1, Darga Contractor in Parwathagiri Police Station on 27.03.2007 at bout 7.30 hours, a case in Crime No. 53 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered by PW.14. PW.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghanpur (West) Police Station took up investigation. PW.16 took over investigation from him, completed the investigation and thereafter filed charge sheet against the appellant. 5. In the course of the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant, examined PWs.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 and exhibited MOs.1 to 6. 6. We have heard Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. The learned trial Court after taking into the consideration, the evidence of the witnesses, who spoke about the frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased, the testimony of PWs.2 and 3, eyewitnesses and the evidence of Pw.12-mediator and PW.15-Sub- Inspector of Police relating to the recovery of MO1 – sickle in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. 8. Now the point for determination before us is as to whether the learned trial Court is justified in recording conviction against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC basing on the above said evidence before it? 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire case rests on the evidence of PW.2, who is child witness and that of PW.3-security guard whose witnessing the incident of stabbing is doubtful and therefore, she seeks to set aside the conviction recorded against the appellant. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is enough and reliable evidence available on record and the learned trial Court rightly relied on the evidence on record which is sufficient to impose conviction and that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court needs no interference. 11. We have thoroughly examined the entire evidence on record. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. After thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence of PW.2 by conducting preliminary examination, the learned trial judge was satisfied about her competence to be a witness and certified that she is capable of giving rationale answers to the questions put by the Court. Further, being a daughter, it is most unlikely that she would falsely implicate her father in a charge of murder of her mother. She had categorically stated before the trial Court about the disputes between her father and mother and her witnessing her father stabbing her mother on the night of the incident. 12. PW.3, security guard also stated that on hearing cries, he and the other pilgrims went to the place of offence that took place at Darga. He and other witnesses noticed the appellant stabbing the deceased with sickle and that when he tried to catch hold of him, the appellant fled away. The presence of PW.3 at the place of occurrence being a security guard is quite normal and his witnessing the offence cannot be doubted. As many as 8 stab injuries were found on the body of the deceased by PW.13-doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. Since the incident lasted for a considerable length of time, there was every possibility for PW.3 after hearing the cries to proceed to the place of occurrence and witnessing the incident. Therefore, we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3, security guard, who is an independent witness. This apart, there is evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 about the frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased which led to convene the panchayats before the elders. From this, it can be said that the appellant was not in good terms with the deceased and there is every possibility for him to develop grouse against the deceased. This apart, there is evidence of PW.12, mediator and PW.15 investigating officer testifying about the recovery of MO.1-sickle in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. 13. Therefore, there is highly convincing and trustworthy evidence to show that the appellant committed the murder of his wife and the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference in this appeal. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 22-11-2011 kvrm/ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.147 of 2008 DATE: 22.11.2011