HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2007 Dated:21-06-2011 BETWEEN: Bonda Jaganmohanarao …Appellant AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Sole accused-appellant was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C.No.173 of 2006 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. By judgment dated 23.8.2007 he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 22.5.2003 at 9.00 p.m. he hacked his wife-Bonda Chittamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with an axe at Aradakota colony within the limits of Pedabayalu Police Station and caused her death. 3. The story of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial is as under: The marriage of the deceased with the accused took place about 10 years back and the accused is addicted to alcohol and did not go to coolie work. While so, on 22.5.2003 in the evening, the deceased gave Rs.50/- to the accused and asked him to bring provisions for cooking food. The accused went with the money and returned at 9.00 p.m. in a drunken stage without bringing any provisions. Then the deceased questioned him and in the process an altercation took place between them. Thereupon the accused grew wild against the deceased and picked up an axe from the house and tried to hack her. When the deceased fled away from the house, he chased her and murdered her by hacking with the axe in the front yard of the house of P.W.2. On the next day, at 8.00 a.m., P.W.1, brother of the deceased presented Ex.P.1 report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedabayalu Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC and issued F.I.R. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, got drafted an observation report and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Later, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge sheet against the accused. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and when explained and read over the charge in Telugu, the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 besides M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and the contradictions of P.Ws.2 and 3 in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.D.1 and D.2. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence found that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are eyewitnesses to the incident is trustworthy and disbelieved the evidence of D.W.1 and found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. 6. The accused was provided with legal aid by the Legal Services Authority in preferring the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- accused contended that P.Ws.2 to 4 were projected as eyewitnesses to the incident, but actually, they did not witness the incident since at the time of incident, they participated in the marriage held at Aradakota. P.W.5 admitted that the Sarpanch told him on 23.5.2003 at 7.00 a.m. that he gave a report to the police on 22.5.2003 itself, but the said report has been suppressed by the prosecution and the present report-Ex.P.1 was pressed into service, which was prepared after due deliberations. Even according to P.Ws.2 and 3, dispute arose between the accused and deceased at 6.00 p.m. as the deceased scolded the accused for his spending the amount of Rs.50/- instead of bringing the provisions for preparing food. Whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident took place at 9.00 p.m. on the same day and that there is delay of 10 hours in lodging the report-Ex.P.1 with the police. In view of the same, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor sought to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. Both the counsel have taken us through the entire evidence adduced and the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P.1 report. He deposed that he was not present at the time of hacking the deceased by the accused, that he came to know the said fact through P.W.2 and on receipt of information, he lodged Ex.P.1 report. He deposed that the deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor regularly by spending the income earned by the deceased and he used to quarrel with the deceased every day. By the time he went to the house of the deceased, P.Ws.2 to 4 were already present there. Though he was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. He denied the suggestion that the deceased is not the wife of the accused and no marriage took place, but he added that both of them eloped and were living together. P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the incident deposed that on 22.5.2003 at 9.00 p.m. the incident occurred and that she does not know the reasons for killing the deceased by the accused. The deceased in the process to save her life came to her house by running and the accused chased and hacked the deceased in front of her house. She saw the incident from a distance of 5 to 6 feet. In the cross-examination, she stated that electricity supply was there in the village and the streetlights were burning. At the time of the incident, all the male persons of their colony were at the marriage function and that after taking lunch, herself, Narayanamma-P.W.3 and Jogalamma-P.W.4 returned to their respective houses at 5.00 p.m. She stated that she had not stated to the police as mentioned in Ex.D.1. P.W.3, a neighbour of the deceased deposed that she witnessed the hacking of the deceased by the accused and she also stated that after hacking the deceased, the accused threw the axe at the scene of offence. P.W.4 also deposed in similar lines. She further stated that she intimated to the brother of the deceased about the incident. She had not seen the axe but the accused had thrown the axe at the scene of offence and ran away from that place. Though all the above three witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2 to 4 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing contra was elicited to discredit their testimony. P.W.5, who is an independent witness and inquest panchayatdar deposed that Ex.P.4 is the seizure report in relation to the axe which contains his signature. In the cross-examination, he stated that the sarpanch told him on 23.5.2003 at 7.00 p.m. that he had already gave a report to the police on 22.5.2003. Police seized the axe and sticks-M.Os.1 to 3 in his presence on 25.5.2003. As the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and issued Ex.P.6- post mortem report went to abroad, P.W.7 was examined, who identified the signature of the said doctor. P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed that on 23.5.20-03 at 8.00 a.m. on receipt of Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1, he registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2003, that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, that he arrested the accused on 25.5.2003, and that in pursuance of confessional statement of accused, he recovered the axe and sticks-M.Os.1 to 3 under a cover of panchanama. 10. From the evidence as extracted above, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are direct eyewitnesses to the incident, is consistent and cogent with regard to the accused hacking the deceased with axe. No suggestion was put to them that the incident has taken place at 6.00 p.m. as stated in Exs.D.1 and D.2. But P.W.8 denied the suggestion that the accused told him that one Manikyam at about 6.00 p.m. chased him to hack and at that time, the deceased intervened and in that process she received injuries in the hands of Manikyam. P.W.8 also denied the suggestion that he received a report from the Sarpanch on the date of incident itself in the night and the same was kept aside and Ex.P.1 was prepared with the help of P.Ws.1 to 4 on the next day. The evidence of direct eyewitnesses-P.Ws.2 to 4 is cogent and consistent as to the hacking of the deceased by the accused. They are neighbours and independent witnesses. The medical evidence under Ex.P.6 also corroborates the ocular testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 about the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused. D.W.2, who admitted that he has scribed Ex.P.1 was examined to give a go by to the statement recorded by him under Ex.P.1, but in the cross-examination, he admitted that he has no knowledge about the incident and the police have not examined him. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the accused and was rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. After going through the entire evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, we are not persuaded to take a different view that the one reached by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the learned Sessions Judge. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J JUNE 21, 2011 Tsr.