THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELGANGO Crl.A.No.1551/2007 Dt.7-7-2011 Galem Sreenu ..Appellant/accused ..Appellant/accused V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. .. Respondent/complainant ..Respondent/complainant The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1551/2007 JUDGMENT (per the Honourable Justice RAJA ELANGO) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment dt. 17-8- 2007 passed in S.C. No. 40/2004 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, whereby and whereunder the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Further, the accused was not found guilty for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC. The substance of the charges framed against the accused is that on 17-2-2003 at 11-30 AM in the verandah of his house in Pathuru village, committed the murder of his wife, namely, Gangamma (hereinafter referred to “the deceased”) by axing on her abdomen, and prior to the said murder, the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty for money and committed the offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 498-A IPC. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, which led to the conviction of the appellant/sole accused, is as follows: The deceased was given in marriage to the accused about 8 years back and was blessed with a male child. The accused was addicted to vices and used to harass the deceased for money to meet his vices. Gavini Anjamma-P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, used to give money on several occasions whenever the accused beat and drove away the deceased to her house. Bathula Laxmiah, Avula Papaiah and Kondeddula Govindu (P.Ws.6 to 8) mediated on some occasions and asked the accused not to harass or beat the deceased. But the accused continued his harassment towards the deceased. One day prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1 came to know about beating of the deceased and on the fateful day, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused. At that time, the deceased was with bleeding injuries and the accused had an axe in his hand, pushed on to the cot and hacked the deceased on her abdomen. On seeing the same, P.Ws.1 and P.W.2, brother of the deceased, raised hue and cry and went to the rescue of the deceased. Then the accused ran away by pushing P.Ws.1 and 2 aside. P.W.1 found her daughter dead and the axe was pierced into her abdomen. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 chased the accused but in vain. P.W.1 gave a report covered under Ex.P-1 to P.W.14. P.W.14 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.6/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and sent First Information Report covered under Ex.P-11 to all concerned. P.W.14 inspected the scene of offence and observed the scene. He prepared scene observation report covered under Ex.P-6. He also prepared rough sketch covered under Ex.P-12. He got the scene photographed with the help of P.W.9. Exs.P-2 to P-5 are the photographs with corresponding negatives. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars. He examined P.Ws.1 to 9, and L.Ws.5 and 6 and recorded their statements. After conduct of inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He seized blood stained clothes and axe. P.W.13 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-10 opining that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs. P.W.15, the then Circle Inspection of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, who took over investigation from P.W.14 arrested the accused and on his confession, he recovered M.O.6 from manure pit. After completion of investigation and on receiving relevant reports, P.W.15 filed the charge sheet before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet. Learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.26/2003 and committed the case to the Sessions Division of Guntur District as the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as SC No.40/2004 and made to the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet for disposal according to law. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed two charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-14 besides the case property M.Os.1 to 7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the defence, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. P.W.1 who sets the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P-1 with the police deposed before the court that the deceased is her daughter and her marriage with the accused was performed 11 years back. They were blessed with a son. Accused used to consume liquor daily and used to beat the deceased. He used to demand the deceased to bring money from her parents. Whenever the deceased asked, she used to give some money. Four years back, the deceased died at 11-30 AM. P.W.1 and her son Appaiah (P.W.2) were attempting to visit the deceased as the accused and the deceased quarreled on the previous night. By the time, they reached, the accused and the deceased are abusing each other and they saw the accused taking out an axe and hacking the deceased on her neck, chest and stomach. The head of the axe was stuck in between the stomach and the chest of the deceased and it had not come out. When they raised cries, Narasaiah-P.W.3, Venkateswarlu-P.W.4 tried to catch the accused but he fled away. The deceased died on the spot with heavy bleeding. P.W.2 who is the elder brother of the deceased corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all respects. P.W.3 who is the relative of P.W.1 deposed that on hearing the cries of P.W.2 “Maa Akkani Champuthunnadu (My sister is being killed), he ran towards the house of the accused and on seeing him, the accused ran away with a shirt with blood stains on his body. He further deposed that he, P.W.2, P.W.4 and Siva Prasad-L.W.5 chased the accused but they could not catch him. P.W.4 who is a resident of Nekarikal and who is an agriculturist and whose house is 30 yards away to the house of the accused in the opposite direction, and who is one of the panchayatdar in the panchayat held to settle the dispute between the accused and the deceased, deposed that the accused used to consume liquor and used to beat the deceased to bring money form her parents. P.W.5 deposed that he knows the accused who stays in their street and he used to stay with his wife near their house. He further deposed that the accused consumes liquor. P.W.6 who is the relative of the deceased and P.W.1 deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused 12 years back and they had a son. The accused used to consume liquor and used to beat the deceased. He further deposed that the accused used to beat the deceased after consuming liquor and used to demand her to bring money form her parents. P.W.7 deposed that he is a resident of Pathuru village and knows the accused who stays near his house. The accused used to consume liquor and used to beat the deceased demanding to bring money form her parents. He further deposed that a panchayat was held 2 or 3 times, in which the accused was admonished, but there was no change in the attitude of the accused. P.W.8 corroborated the evidence of P.W.7 in all respects. After evaluating the evidence made available on record, the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months acquitted him of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC, by judgment dt. 17-8-2007. Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused, he filed the present appeal. Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the appellant/State as well as Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. Perused the impugned judgment and the material made available on record. P.Ws.1 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. They are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Their presence at the scene of offence is clearly established in view of the answers elicited form the cross- examination of P.W.1. In the cross- examination, P.W.1 stated as follows: “The distance between my house and the house of Gangamma is about one furlong, separated by about 15 hours. I visit her house daily.P.W.3 was at his house by the time I went to Gangamma’s house.” The above answers clearly indicate that P.W.1 is in the habit of visiting the house of the accused. Further, on the previous day of the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Hence, the presence of P.W.1 at 11-30 AM is quite natural. She further stated that she saw the accused hacking the deceased, and he killed the deceased in her presence. She further stated that she went to the house of the accused along with P.W.2. P.W.2 also on the same lines deposed regarding the presence of P.W.1 and the presence of the accused and the manner in which the accused caused injuries to the deceased. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 disputing the presence of these witnesses at the scene of offence. P.W.3 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, but he heard cries about the deceased is being killed. On hearing the same, he went towards the house of the accused and when he, P.W.2, P.W.4 and Siva Prasad-L.W.5, chased the accused to catch hold of him, but they failed in their attempts. The evidence of P.W.3 has not been shattered or discredited by the defence. P.W.4 has also deposed on the same lines as P.W.3 elucidating that he, P.Ws.2 and 3 and others chased the accused but they could not able to catch him. P.W.5 is also one of the persons who chased the accused. These witnesses categorically stated that they saw the accused running away with blood stained shirt on his body and wearing lungi. P.W.6 saw the accused running towards the hill side on the date of occurrence. P.W.7 has also deposed on the same lines as P.Ws.4,5 and 6. The evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 has not been shattered in their cross- examination. P.W.8, who is one of the panchayatdars, deposed that panchayats were held for two or three times in connection with demand of money for consuming liquor by the accused, in which the accused was admonished. He further deposed that on the fateful day at about 11-30 AM, he heard cries as “Gangammanu Champadu” and then he went to the house of the deceased and found her dead with bleeding injuries on her neck, chest and ribs and an axe was sruck in between the chest and ribs. P.W.9 is the photographer who took photographs on the date of occurrence. P.W.10 is the person who witnessed the recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 under a cover of panchanama- Ex.P-6. He also a witness to the inquest conducted by the police. Ex.P-7 is the inquest report. P.W.11 is also the person who witnessed the recovery M.Os.1 to 4. He is also a witness to the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased by the police. P.W.12 is a witness to the confession made by the accused, which was recorded by the investigating officer. Ex.P-8 is the admissible portion of the confession statement. He also deposed that he accompanied the investigating officer at the time of recovery of M.O.5-blood stained shirt and M.O.6- dhothi. P.W.13, is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination for the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries: 1. Rigor mortis passed of all over the body. Mucous discharge present from the mouth and from the nose. External injuries: 1. A spiral shaped cut injury in lower part of the chest on right side edges clear the surroundings skin edematous 6 cm in length 2 cm in width in the middle and 4 cms in depth. On dissection underlying tissues were crushed and 7th rib on right side fractured anteriorly. 2. A spiral shaped cut injury on right upper abdomen, the axe is present in the injury part. The injury examined after removal of the axe. The injury is 10 x 4 cms in size in the middle, the underlying peritoneum was torn off from which the abdomen viscera protruded out. The edges are clear at the surrounding skin in edematous. On dissection it is found the underlying tissues are crushed. Internal examination: 1. Skull no fracture membranes intact. Brain soft and congested, hyoid bone intact; the 7th rib on right side was fractured. Lungs- soft and congested. Heart and great vessels empty soft and congested. Free blood present in the thoracic cavity. Stomach filled with semi digested food. Intestines filled with gas. Spleen and kidneys- soft and congested. Liver-cut injury on anterior aspect 7 cms in length, 2 cms in width the middle edges irregular. Bladder= empty. Spine-no fracture. Uterus-20 weeks size, a female dead foetus of 5 months age present in the uterus. He issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-10 opining that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result to the injury to the vital organs. P.W.14 is the Inspector of Police who deposed before the court regarding the registration of first information report on the basis of the complaint made by P.W.1 under Sec. 6/2003 and also recording the statements of P.Ws.1 to 9 and Siva Prasad and Venkateswarlu. He further deposed that he conducted inquest. He seized material objects. P.W.15 who is the investigation officer and who took over investigation from P.W.14 deposed that though he examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and others did not record their statements as they have stated before him what they stated before P.W.14. He sent material objects to RFSL, Guntur. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent in nature, highly probable and believable. The presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence is substantiated by the prosecution by adducing the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,3,4. On the confessional statement made by the accused, the police recovered some material objects. The material objects so seized were sent to the RFSL. As per RFSL report, blood group was tallied with the blood group available on the saree of the deceased and axe recovered at the place of occurrence. There is nothing to suggest that the prosecution falsely implicate the accused in the present case. The evidence of witnesses also inspires confidence of the Court. Considering the evidence made available on record, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J ----------------- RAJA ELANGO,J DT.7-7-2011 Kmr