HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106 OF 2007 DATE:13.07.2010 Between: Chinthala Siva @ Siva Kumar …… Appellant. And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. Sole accused in S.C.No.99 of 2005 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle is the appellant. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. During trial in the lower court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.Os.1 to 7; and Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of the accused. The lower court found him guilty of the offences under Sections 304 and Section 201 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 304 IPC and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 2. The deceased Lakshmi Devi was having illegal intimacy with the accused. It is alleged that on 21.01.2001 at about 9.00 a.m the accused went to Ghattu high school and found the deceased along with P.W.5 and three male persons and that when the accused asked the deceased to accompany him to Devarajupalli, the deceased demanded for quarter bottle liquor and that when the deceased was provided with the same, the deceased consumed it and resisted to go along with the accused and that thereupon the accused beat the deceased who fell down and that the accused closed mouth of the deceased with stone by putting his hand and caught hold of neck of the deceased with another hand and that in that process the deceased died. It is further alleged that the accused dragged dead body of the deceased from there and secreted the same. P.W.4 who is father of the deceased spoke to illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased. 3. P.W.2 is village servant of Ghattu village. P.W.1 is Village Administrative Officer of the same village. After coming to know about dead body in the tank, he went there, got the dead body taken out from water and went to B.Kothakota Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. P.W.13 who is then Sub Inspector of Police registered Ex.P- 1 as case in Crime No.7 of 2001 of B.Kothakota Police Station and issued Ex.P-6 F.I.R. 4. Only one eye witness examined as P.W.5 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.3 who is stated to be husband of the deceased, also turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.6 is resident of Puttapalyam, hamlet of Gattu village. It is his evidence that four years back at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m he went to his paddy field for watering and he observed a man beating the deceased near Gattu high school. He says that he heard that person’s name as Shiva. But, P.W.6 could not identify the accused correctly in court. He says that he was having a torch light with him at that time and he observed the deceased with the help of torch light and that when he focused torch light the person who was beating the deceased questioned him as to why he was there and asked him to go away. He says that he has no previous acquaintance with the accused. In cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor he deposed that at about 10.00 p.m he observed a person dragging another person and went there with the help of torch light and that he observed the deceased and Chintala Shiva and that when he questioned Shiva, he chastised him and asked him to go away. He admits that he stated the same to the police when he was examined. He categorically says that name of the accused is Shiva. In cross- examination by the defence counsel he deposed that he did not inform either the police or P.W.1 on the same day about he seeing one person dragging the deceased. P.W.7 is a resident of Patravaripalle cross which is another hamlet of Gattu. Though he is Dhobi by caste, he is rearing pigs. He says that about four years ago at about 9.00 or 9.30 p.m he was driving pigs towards his house and saw the accused carrying the deceased on his shoulder towards Nayani tank and that on the next day morning he was informed about death of the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not inform anybody in the village about he witnessing the accused carrying the deceased on his shoulder towards Nayani tank and that he was examined by the police on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. Evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 discloses about the accused beating the deceased that night and about the accused taking body of the deceased towards the tank in which body of the deceased was found on the next day. P.W.7 could not have been examined by the police at about 10.00 a.m on the next day because dead body of the deceased was noticed around 3.00 p.m on the next day. P.W.7 says that by that time dead body of the deceased was removed from the tank. It shows that P.W.7 was examined by the police on the next day of inquest. 5. P.W.12 is the then Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Rural Circle. He conducted inquest on dead body of the deceased under the cover of Ex.P-2 inquest report in the presence of Panchayatdars including P.W.1 and P.W.9 on 23.01.2001. The Panchayatdars opined in Ex.P-2 inquest report that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with the accused and begot a child through him and that the deceased left the accused and developed illegal intimacy with Mallikharjuna and delivered one daughter through Mallikharjuna and that the deceased again left Mallikharjuna and started illegal intimacy with the accused and that now and then the accused was beating the deceased due to her misbehaviour and that the accused and Mallikharjuna developed hatred towards the deceased and wanted to get rid of her and killed her and threw dead body into the tank. Thus, at the stage of inquest, the accused as well as Mallikharjuna were the suspects. P.W.2 deposed that when he and P.W.1 went to Village ‘Chavidi’ after removing dead body from the tank, the accused and Mallikharjuna came there and fell on feet of P.W.1 stating that they killed the deceased, and that all of them went to B. Kothakota police station and handed over the accused in the police station. He did not state as to what happened to Mallikharjuna thereafter. It is not as if both the accuse and Mallikharjuna had any common grouse against the deceased. The accused can have grouse against the deceased as she left his company and joined Mallikharjuna. Even Mallikharjuna may have grudge against the deceased as she left his company and joined the accused for the second time. Both of them cannot have grudge with any common reason. Therefore, there is absolutely no possibility of both the accused and Mallikharjuna joining together to kill the deceased. 6. There is extra judicial confession of the accused to P.W.1. P.W.1 who is Village Administrative Officer deposed that on 08.02.2001 when he was in Village Chavidi along with two village servants including P.W.2 and another, the accused came to him and fell on his feet and that he recorded statement of the accused in writing and handed over him in the police station. The entire prosecution case is based on Ex.P-3 report of P.W.1 given to the police on 08.02.2001 incorporating extra judicial confessional statement of the accused. Simply because P.W.1 did not obtain signature or thumb impression of the accused in Ex.P-3, it cannot be brushed aside. It contains signature of P.W.1. Along with Ex.P-3, the accused was handed over to P.W.12. P.W.14 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased and who gave Ex.P-13 post-mortem certificate and Ex.P-12 final opinion certificate. The doctor opined that as the body was highly decomposed, final opinion could not be given. The doctor found soft tissues of neck congested. Hyoid bone is intact. Evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 coupled with extra judicial confession statement recorded by P.W.1 as per Ex.P- 3 cumulatively proved that it was the accused who killed the deceased and who threw dead body of the deceased in Nayani tank. On reading of the prosecution evidence and judgment of the court below, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who killed the deceased. The lower court rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 IPC. This Court is of the opinion that acts of the accused towards the deceased would attract first part of Section 304 IPC. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:13.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106 OF 2007 Date:13.07.2010 Gk.