THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2007 Date: 21-10-2009 Between B.Venkata Reddy … Appellant/Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-sole accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 03-4-2006, in Sessions Case No.704 of 2004, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur in convicting the appellant-sole accused for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 449 of IPC. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that – (a) One Gutti Hanumanthamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) had been living with her children separately after she was deserted by her husband. The accused, who had an eye on the deceased to have illegal intimacy, was waiting for an opportunity to have the association of the deceased, but he was not able to get an opportunity and that apart, he was being despised by the deceased. (b) While so, on the date of incident i.e., on 28-3-2004 at about 11.30 a.m., when the deceased was feeding her children, who are cited as P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused came to their house and asked for some water. When the deceased offered water, he gained a forcible entry into the house, pushing P.Ws.1 and 2 out of the house and bolted inside. Later on, he attacked the deceased brutally and resulting in her death. It appears, the injuries have been caused by a sharp weapon like a sickle. After the deceased died instantaneously, the accused came out of the house and went away on the motorcycle of P.W.4, by lift. He could not be identified by P.Ws.1 and 2. Hearing the cries and the commotion at the house of the deceased, P.W.3, who is no other than the brother of the deceased, rushed there and he was informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused had killed the deceased and went away. (c) Basing on the statement of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.10 of 2004 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the accused, the investigation was taken up and after completing all the formalities, the charge-sheet was filed and the accused was tried and eventually, after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court recorded the order of conviction against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC. Hence the appeal. 4. Charges under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC were framed against the accused, read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.Os.1 to 13. On behalf of the defence, none were examined but Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked. 6. The trial Court, after going into the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to punishment, as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentences, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of interested witnesses, that the trial Court erred in mentioning that P.W.4 turned hostile and it ought to have mentioned what he had stated, which would be useful for acquittal of the accused, that the trial Court gravely erred in relying on the evidence of the doctor without scientific basis, that the trial Court failed to see that there is no comparison of finger prints, blood on the material objects and on the body of the deceased, that the trial Court failed to see that even as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused was not equipped with the material objects with which the murder alleged to have committed and lastly to set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against the accused. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the order of conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellant and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is -- Whether the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record while arriving at the conclusion that the accused alone was responsible for the death of the deceased ? 11. Point :- This is a case of circumstantial evidence. But, virtually, it can be termed as a case that can be based on the ocular evidence. 12. In this regard, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the son, daughter and brother of the deceased -- P.Ws.1, 2 and 3; mediator – P.W.5; the doctor -- P.W.6 and the Investigating Officer -- P.W.7. 13. P.W.1 deposed that while he along with his sister (P.W.2) was being fed by the deceased, the accused came to their house and asked their mother some water and when the deceased fetched water with a container, suddenly he pushed her into the house and bolted inside, virtually throwing away P.Ws.1 and 2 out and killed the deceased. It is the further deposition of P.W.1 that he saw a sickle in the waist of the accused, but he did not notice anything in his hands while entering into the house. He further stated that after killing the deceased, the accused came out of the house with the sickle smeared with blood and with his hands blood and went away. 14. Same is the evidence of P.W.2 in all fours. 15. P.W.3 stated that he has been living a little away from the house of the deceased. Hearing the commotion from the house of the deceased, he rushed to their house and saw P.Ws.1 and 2 crying and that it was informed by P.Ws.1 and 2 that it was the accused, who killed the deceased and went away. 16. The other important evidence is that of P.W.5, who is a mediator for the confession made by the accused after his arrest. The admissible portion of the confessional statement made by the accused before the mediator touches upon the recovery of the weapon used in the killing of the deceased. It is his deposition that at the instance of the accused, they went to the place where the weapon was kept and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused himself. 17. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) does support on all material aspects of the evidence of the crucial witnesses, which was referred to above. 18. The doctor (P.W.6), who conducted post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased, has noticed the following external injuries: (1) Cut injury 3½ x ½ cm x bone depth on right frontal region margins are contused; (2) Cut injury 2½ x ½ cm x bone depth cutting through bone on left temporal region; (3) Cut injury 3 x ½ cm x bone depth on center of frontal bone; (4) Cut injury on back of head 4 x 2 cm x bone depth cutting through occipital bone; (5) Cut injury 2½ x ½ x 1 cm in front of left ear; (6) Cut injury 9 x 5 cms cutting through left joint and bones on back of left elbow; (7) Cut injury on left palm in between middle and index finger 4 x 2 cms x separating index and little finger; (8) Cut injury on dorsum of right hand 5 x 3 x 2 cms below middle, right finger and little finger; (9) Cut injury 4 x 2 x 3 cms on back of right wrist joint cutting through sian and miscles; (10) Cut injury across abdomen below costal margins 25 x 11 cms x extending to abdomen cutting through stomach and intestines are outside wound; (11) Cut injury 5 x 3 cms x entering through abdomen on right side above number 10 injury; and (12) Cut injury on back of left shoulder 7 x 4 x 3 cms cutting through muscles. He opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organ and all the injuries were found to have been inflicted with a sharp edged weapon like sickle (M.O.13). This again matches with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 19. There is no other evidence either in the cross- examination of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 or any other evidence on record to disprove the veracity of the testimony of the above witnesses. 20. We have carefully perused the judgment rendered by the trial Court and we do not find any irrationality or misappropriation of the evidence on record in order to interfere with the judgment and the resultant order of conviction and sentences recorded by it in the impugned judgment accordingly is confirmed. 21. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 21st October, 2009. Ak