HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 OF 2007. DATED 10TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Dondu Pandu Rangaiah Mandodi ….Appellant/Accused No.1 and State, rep. By Public Prosecutor and anr. … Respondent/Complainant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 OF 2007. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant/Accused No.1 was tried for the oﬀence punishable under Section 302 IPC under the ﬁrst charge, and, further A.1 to A.3 were tried under the second charge for the oﬀence punishable under Section 498.A. r/w 34 IPC, in S.C.No. 320 of 2003, whereunder and whereby the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated 3.01.2006 found the appellant guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay ﬁne of Rs.1000/-, in default to suﬀer six months imprisonment, and, further found the A1 to A.3 not guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 498.A. IPC and accordingly they were acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant, as stated supra, the present Criminal Appeal is ﬁled under Section 374 (2) r/w Section 383 of Cr.P.C. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its behalf, in brief, is as follows: Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the sons of A.2. The marriage between A.1 and the deceased Rekha was performed nine months prior to the incident as per Hindu rites and custom. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased Rekha agreed to pay cash of Rs.30,000/- and gold of 7 ½ sovereigns to the accused as dowry. However, due to shortage of money, they paid Rs.20,000/- and 7 ½ sovereigns of gold and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- after some time. In the ﬁrst two months of her stay in the matrimonial house, the accused harassed the deceased for the balance of dowry. After two months A-1 and the deceased went to Mumbai for livelihood. On 5.11.2002 the father of A.1 died. On receiving the information, they returned to Tirumalakuppam village on 12.11.2002 and joined the company of A.2 and A.3. Then A.1 to A.3 used to harass the deceased and prevent her from visiting her parents house unless dowry due amount is paid. After arrival from Tirupathi, on 25.11.2002 at about 6.30 Pm a quarrel between A.1 and the deceased in connection with some family aﬀairs arose and when the deceased intended to go to her parents house, A.1 objected her. However, the deceased left the matrimonial house around 7.00 PM to go to her parents house without hearing the words of her husband-A.1. Then A.1 grew wild and took bill hook with an intention to kill her and ran towards her while she was leaving the compound and dealt one severe blow with the bill hook on her left parietal region and caused bleeding injury. Then the deceased fell on the ground and sustained injury on her right cheek. The grand father of the deceased on seeing the occurrence from nearby temple rushed to the spot by raising cries. Meanwhile some of the villagers gathered there. On seeing them A.1 went inside the house and closed the door. At that time, A.2 and A.3 were also present in the house. When one M.Harikrishna tried to bolt the door from outside in order to detain them in the house, A.1 sprinkled chilly powder on the persons gathered outside the door from ventilators. Meanwhile, with the assistance of the villagers, the grand-father of the deceased lifted the deceased to the Hospital, but on the way to hospital, she succumbed to injuries. Hence, the body of the deceased was brought back to the house of the accused and kept the same in front of their house. A.1 to A.3 escaped from the house and absconded. On a complaint given by the grand father of the deceased, the police registered a case in crime No.123 of 2002 for the oﬀence punishable under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased on 26.11.2002 and later sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Later, the C.I. of Police, Puttur arrested the accused. A.1 confessed the oﬀence and on his confession of crime, weapon was recovered. The investigation reveals that all the accused harassed the deceased for balance dowry and A.1 killed his wife. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, framed two charges against the accused to the eﬀect that, on 25.11.2002 at about 6.30 PM near the compound wall of the house of Accused No.1 at Eguva Thirumala kuppam village, he (A.1) killed one Rekha who is his wife by dealting a severe blow with a bill hook on her left parietal region and thus he (A.1) committed an oﬀence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, and, secondly to the eﬀect that A.1 being the husband of the deceased Rekha and A.2 and A.3 being the mother and brother of A.1 respectively harassed, ill-treated and subjected Rekha to cruelty on the demand of more dowry from her mother and ultimately A.1 killed her and thus all of them have committed the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 besides M.Os.1 to 6 as material objects. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution, for which, the accused denied the same. After completion of 313 examination, accused were given an opportunity to examine witnesses on defence side. On defence side, D.W.1 was examined and Exs. D.1 and D.2 were marked. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found A.1 guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. However, the learned Sessions Judge found A1. to A.3 not guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 498.A IPC and accordingly acquitted them. Now the points that arise for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against him and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct and proper. P.W.12-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer & Mandal Executive Magistrate, Puttur, conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatdars and the report was marked as Ex.P.2. The panchayatdars opined that the deceased Rekha died due to the bleeding injuries caused by hacking with matchu knife on her head in the quarrel with regard to dowry affair. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem examination and P.W.10-doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 26.11.2002 and found the following injuries: “Rigor mortis absent in neck and upper limbs. Present in lower limbs. A female body lying on its back with its arms and legs extended empty and free. Eyes closed. Mouth closed, frothy blood coming out through nostrils. Scalp hair black 20 cm length. External Injuries: 1. A lacerated injury on the left parietal region of head measuring 3” x ½ “ x bone deep. 2. A continusion on right cheek measuring 4 “ x 3” seize. Reddish brown in colour. Internal Examination: 1. Head and neck: 1. a lacerated injury on the left parietal region of head measuring 3” x ½ “ x bone deep. 2. Scalp layers teared along the external injury. 3. Skull bones: Fracture over the left parietal bone is ½ “ x ½ “ size. 4. Meanings normal. 5. Subdural haematoma present on both sies of cerebral haemispheres. 6. Neck structures: normal. 7. Chest: chest wall, ribs normal. Both lungs pale on cut section. Heart Chambers empty and pale on cut section. 8. Abdomen: Stomach contains partly digested food. Liver spleen, both kidneys pale on cut section. Both small and large intestines normal. Uterus normal in size. 9. Spine and spinal cord: Normal” P.W.10-doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have been died due to shock and haemorrhage because of injury to vital organ i.e. brain. Ex.P.8 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. Now, it has to be seen that whether the accused is the assailant of the deceased or not and whether the prosecution could be able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is provided legal assistant to defend his case. Mr. S.Nagender, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 who is no other than the grand father of the deceased- Rekha is not corroborated with and supported by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and he is only planted as an eye witness by the prosecution; that P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not stated about their witnessing the incident and shifting of the deceased to the hospital along with P.W.2 who is the mother of the deceased and sister-in-law of P.W.1, to substantiate the case of the prosecution; that none of the neighbours speak to substantiate the case of the prosecution; and, that in Ex.P.1 it is stated that the accused came back of the deceased and beat with Machu katti where as the same has not been stated by the P.W.1 in the evidence. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict the accused based on the uncorroborated sole evidence of P.W.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.Ws. 1 to 4 are natural witnesses to the incident and their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4; that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and that as per the evidence of P.W.1 which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, the accused hacked the deceased with butcher’s knife, which is also known as bill hook (matchu katti), and when the deceased was shifting to hospital in the bus, she died on the way and, their evidence is corroborated with the medical evidence at Ex.P.8, which shows that the deceased died due to the lacerated injury caused to vital organ of the deceased by the machu kathi. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused does not call for any interference. P.W.1 who is none other than the grand-father of the deceased set the criminal law into operation. He deposed that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed in the year 2002 and at that time it was agreed to give Rs.30,000/- and 7 ½ sovereigns of gold as dowry to the accused for his marriage with the deceased. However, he paid only Rs.20,000/- cash, but paid 7 ½ sovereigns of gold as agreed. The accused is also the resident of the same village. For three months both the accused and deceased lived in the village and thereafter diﬀerences arose between them and thereby they shifted their family to Bombay. As the father of the accused died, he gone to Bombay and brought the accused to his village to perform the obsequies of his father and after performing the same, the accused picked-up quarrel with him regarding the balance of dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-. Both the accused and the deceased left the house by taking Rs.1,000/- from the mother of the accused and return to the village after three days at 6.00 PM. On knowing their arrival, when he was going towards their house and when he reached nearby temple located near their house, he heard a quarrel from the house of the accused. On hearing the same, he stopped then and there. The deceased was starring at him. Meanwhile, the accused hacked the deceased with a bill hook (Machu katti). On receiving the violent blow, the deceased fell on the ground by raising a loud voice. He also raised cries and proceeded towards the accused to prevent further blow. Then A.2-- the mother of A.1 and A.3—brother of A.1 came there. On hearing hues and cries, the neighbours gathered there. Then himself and one Hari (L.W.5) when attempted to bolt the house doors from out side, the inmates i.e. A.1 to A.3 sprinkled chilli powder against them. Thereafter, himself, one Venkatesulu (L.W.8), Venkatamuni, Gopala Mandadi (L.W.9), Subramanyam (L.W.7) lifted the injured to the road junction and got into the bus to go to Puttur hospital. There was profused bleeding from the ears and from the wound of the deceased. When they proceeded one furlong, one of the passengers by name Rama Naidu (L.W.10) on verifying the pulse of the injured, declared the deceased dead. Then they got down the bus, shifted the dead body to the house of the accused. Thereafter he gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the police. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on the day of occurrence, she was in her parents house in Eguva Tirumala Kuppam, which is four houses after the house of the accused. She deposed that as there was galata at the house of the accused, herself and neighbours went to his house and found the deceased with head injury on the ﬂoor and witnessed the A.1 armed with knife and A.2 and A.3 followed the A.1 inside the house. Immediately they took the injured to the road junction to take her to Puttur in a bus and when they travelled in the bus to some extent, one Rama Naidu (L.W.10) veriﬁed the pulse of the injured and declared her dead. Then they brought the dead body of the deceased back to the house of the accused. P.W.3 who is the resident of the same village and whose house is situate after the six houses of the house of the deceased, deposed that when he was infront of his house at about 7.30 PM, he heard some galata in the house of the accused and on hearing the same, he rushed there and found P.W.1 and one Hari (L.W.5) and noticed the injured Rekha lying at the threshold of the house of the accused. He further deposed that himself, Gopal Mandadi (L.W.9), Subramanyam (L.W.7), Venkatesu (L.W.8) and some others took the injured Rekha to the bus to go to Puttur and on the way L.W.10 declared her head. Then they brought the deceased to the house of the accused. P.W.4 deposed that on the day of the alleged incident, while he got into the bus, he heard the cries of the inmates of the bus and seen the injured on the ﬂoor of the bus. On verifying the pulse of the injured, he found her dead and he informed the same to P.W.1 and others. P.W. 5 is the inquest mediator. P.Ws. 6 to 9 were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.10 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body and issued Ex.P.8 post-mortem certiﬁcate. He deposed that the deceased appears to have been died due to the lacerated injury cased to her on the left parietal region of the head by the matchu katti. No suggestion was put to the doctor that the lacerated injury will not be possible with the matchu katti. P.W.11 is the SI of police, who registered the case and issued Ex.P.9, FIR. P.W.12 who was working as the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Puttur, at the relevant point of time, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.13 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation in the crime. On behalf of the accused, one witness was examined as D.W.1, who deposed that he is the resident of Edugtla village and about 2 ½ years ago, A.1 to A.3 came to his village and he witnessed them at 7.30 PM on the day of the alleged incident and on the next day morning, he learnt that the deceased died and A.1 to A.3 left the village. From his evidence, It could be known that D.W.1 is only a planted witness to support the plea of alibi that A.1 to A.3 are not in the village at the relevant point of time. A careful reading of D.W.1 reveals that his evidence is in no way helpful to the accused. From the above evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that when P.W.1 was going towards his grand daughter’s matrimonial house and when he reached the nearby temple located near their house, he heard a quarrel from the house of the accused and on hearing the same, he stopped then and there. He also stated that at that time, the deceased was starring at him. Meanwhile, the accused hacked the deceased with matchu katti and on receiving the violent blow, she fell down with a loud voice. Immediately he proceeded towards the house of the accused to prevent further blow. Then A1 to A.3 gone into the house on seeing neighbours coming to the scene of occurrence. If really some unknown persons beat the deceased or the deceased has not sustained injuries at the hands of the accused, then certainly the accused would have informed the villagers about the incident. Contrary, they gone inside the house on seeing the gathering of the neighbours and when the P.W.1 and L.W.5 bolted the door from outside, A.1 sprinkled chilli power against them. Further, P.W.1 assertively stated that he witnessed A.1 hacking the deceased with matchu katti. There was no enemity between the accused and P.W.1. If really the accused is not the assailant of the deceased, certainly, P.W.1 would not have implicated the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. When the accused is no other than the husband of grand-daughter of P.W.1 and son-in-law of P.W.2, the question of implicating him falsely does not arise, merely because they want to see their daughter to live happily with the husband/accused. After going through the evidence of P.W.1, we are of the opinion that P.W.1 is a witness of truth and his presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural and reasonable. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is supported and corroborated with the averments of the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the neighbours of the accused and there is no enemity between them and the accused. They also deposed about the deceased found laying with bleeding injury at the threshold of the house of the accused and that she was shifted to the hospital and that she was declared dead on the way to the hospital. The evidence of P.Ws. 5,10, 11, 12 and 13 is supporting with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on all material aspects. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.10 that the deceased died due to lacerated injury caused with the matchu katti. No suggestion has been put to P.W.10- doctor that such injury will not be possible with the matchu katti. Ex.P.15 is the report of the Assistant Director of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, who detected that item No.7, is a bill hook with dark brown stains of human origin. The said ﬁnding is helpful to the case of prosecution to the eﬀect that the assailant used the same to kill the human being, who is nothing but the deceased. In view of the foregoing discussion, and after perusing the entire evidence on record and the judgment under challenge, we do not ﬁnd any perverse or incorrect finding. The learned trial Judge appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in right perspective and came to the conclusion that A.1 killed the deceased with matchu katti (bill hook). There are no reasons for us to deviate from the said ﬁnding. We have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused A.1 beyond all reasonable doubts. We see no ground to interfere with the same. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY ----------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Dated 10th August, 2010. Msnr.