* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO + CRL.A.NO.1211 OF 2007 % Date: 23-09-2009 Between: # Mosali @ Musali Venkatesu .. Appellants and $ The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad., … Respondent ! Counsel for appellant: Sri B.Parameshwara Rao ^ Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.1211 OF 2007 DATED: 23.09.2009 BETWEEN: Mosali @ Musali Venkatesu .. Appellant And The State of A.P. .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.1211 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per RKR,J) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 02.03.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru in S.C.No.355 of 2006. 2. The appellant-sole accused before the learned Sessions Judge was tried for charges under Sections 376 and 302 IPC on the allegation of committing rape on his daughter-in-law and killing her. He was ultimately found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with 511 and 302 IPC, convicted for the said offences and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and was further sentenced to under go imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, as follows: The deceased is the wife of PW.4 and their marriage was performed nine months prior to the incident. The appellant is the father of PW.4 and father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased is the daughter of PW.1, who is no other than the brother-in-law of the appellant. PW.4 is the youngest son of the appellant and he lost her mother at a tender age. Since then he was brought up by the appellant and was staying with the appellant all along. After the marriage with the deceased also PW.4 and the deceased were staying with the appellant in the appellant’s house. 5. The appellant, who was aged 60 years, developed an evil intention to have sexual intercourse with the deceased, who is his daughter-in-law and was compelling her to satisfy his lust. On several occasions he caught hold of the hand of the deceased and forced her to agree for sexual intercourse. The deceased informed PW.4 as well as her parents about the mis-behaviour of the appellant and it so happened that PW.4 admonished his father to mend his ways and to behave properly with daughter-in-law. But the appellant, who used to consume liquor, did not pay heed to the words of PW.4 and was behaving with the deceased in the similar fashion. The deceased, who became vexed with the attitude of the appellant, was insisting on PW.4 to set up a separate residence. 6. While so, on the date of incident i.e. on 24.03.2006 at about 5.00 PM, PW.4, who is a shepherd by profession returned to his house along with sheep and came to know from the deceased about the appellant picking up quarrel with the deceased, abusing her and demanding her to go away from his house. On that he went to the house of PW.6-Gangu Nagireddy and requested him to secure a separate residence. On that PW6 stated to him that he would talk to his father. Thereafter, PW.4 returned back to his house and found the doors of the house bolted from inside. He opened the doors by using force and found the body of the deceased hanging to the beam with the voni (upper cloth) tied to her neck. Thereupon, he raised cries and the neighbours came there. With their help, he brought down the body and laid it on the ground. He and the neighbours noticed blood stains on the ground, on the voni and also on the door frame of the door. Since PW.4 as well as the neighbours knew about the mis-behaviour of the appellant, all of them thought that the appellant must be the person who was responsible for the death of the deceased and they found the appellant absconding from the place of occurrence, which is his house. 7. On receiving the information PW.1 the father of the deceased, resident of Patchanagaram Village, his wife, relatives and some other persons rushed to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased. All the persons, who observed the dead body of the deceased as well as the house of the appellant noticed bloodstains on the body of the deceased, on the voni which was untied from the neck, on the floor as well as on the door frame of the house of the appellant. They noticed a grievous injury on the left parietal region of the deceased and also the traces of blood oozing from the nose. 8. Pw-9 – Vannavarapu Venkata Ranga Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Panchayat Secretary recorded the statement of PW.1, the father of the deceased and presented the same to PW.14 – P.P.Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police of Tadikalapudi along with his report, basing on which PW.14 registered a case in Crime No. 37 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was conducted by PW.15 – S.D.P.O., Jangareddigudem, Sub Division and a charge sheet has been laid by him after completing investigation. 9. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant before the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 15, marked Exs.P.1 to P.42 and MOs.1 to 6. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witnesses nor did he mark any documents on his behalf. 10. The material evidence basing on which the conviction was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is that of the evidence of PWs.10 and 11 the doctors, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased is homicidal, the evidence of PW.1, father of the deceased and PW.4 – husband of the deceased which revealed that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to torture insisting upon her to satisfy his lust, the deceased was last seen by PW.4 in the company of the appellant while he left to the house of PW.6, the evidence of PW.9 –Panchayat Secretary before whom the appellant made an extra judicial confession and the recovery of MO.5 - stick and MO.6 – dhoti of the appellant in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant to PW.15 – Investigating Officer before the mediators. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 12. The following points would arise for determination in this appeal: 1. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal? 2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish all the relevant circumstances in bringing home the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt? POINT No.1: 13. PWs.10 and 11 are the doctors, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Their evidence as well as the findings recorded by them in Ex.P.27 – postmortem certificate, dated 25.03.2006 are as follows: External injuries: 1) lacerated injury of 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular, mortise bone deep present on left parital area of the scalp. 2) abrasion over right big toe of ½ cm x ½ cm. Internal examination: Examination of scalp: Lacerated injury of scalp, as mentioned in external injury is bone deep on cut section, the injury extending into the temporalis muscle on left side and hemotoma formed. On removing the scalp tissues, there is a fracture of 2 cm x ½ cm over the left parietal bone extending into left temporal bone. There is also fracture in left temporal bone near the suture line. Meninges torn at the left parietal area with temporal area. On removing the menoges, large clot present of 5 cm x 4 cm seen occupying the parietal and temporal area of cerebral cortex. Cerebral cortex on cut section pale, on examination base of the bone of the skull – there is a large clot seen occupying the middle and anterior cranial fossa about 6 cm x 5 cm size. On removal of the clots, there is a fracture of cribi form plate in anterior cranial fosse and fracture of the temporal bone present on both sides. On examination of the neck: Tongue is in side the mouth, eyes not congested. No abnormality detected in the skin and muscles of the neck. Uterus and ovaries: of normal size on c/s empty and pale. Vagina: No matting of pubic hair, labia mazora and labia Minoa are normal, no injuries seen. 14. Further the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 indicates that there is a head injury to the deceased, blood stains found on the dead body of the deceased, more particularly traces of the blood oozing from the nostrils of the deceased, on the floor, on the voni and on the door frame. The said features have also been noticed by PW.13 – MRO and PW.9 – Panchayat Secretary at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. The medical evidence expressly ruled out the possibility of any evidence indicating the deceased committing suicide. Therefore, undoubtedly the death of the deceased is homicidal. POINT No.2: 15. PWs.1 and 4 have categorically stated in their depositions that the deceased was informing them about the appellant misbehaving with her and compelling her to satisfy his lust. The evidence of PW.4, who is the son of the appellant in particular reveals that after the deceased informed him about the mis-behaviour of the appellant on several occasions he admonished the appellant, but the appellant, who is a drunkard did not mend his behaviour. His evidence also further indicates that on the fateful day when he returned home with sheep the deceased informed her about the appellant quarrelling with her and demanding to go out of his house and thereupon he approaching PW.6 with a request to secure a separate residence for him and the deceased and after returning from the house of PW.6 noticing doors of the house bolted from inside, he opening the doors by using force witnessing the dead body of the deceased hanging to the beam of the house. PW.6 also corroborated the version of PW.4 to the extent that on the date of incident PW.4 coming to him and requesting him about securing a separate residence for PW.4 and his wife. 16 Another important piece of evidence is that of PW9 – Panchayat Secretary. According to him, on 26.03.2006 at about 2.30 P.M. while he was in the Panchayat Office the appellant approached him and confessed before him that when he tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter-in-law and when she resisted he caught hold of her tuft and dashed her to the door frame and thereafter beat her with a stick on her head and subsequently he found the deceased dead, he hanged her body to the beam with voni tied to her neck to make it appear that she committed suicide. His evidence further discloses that he reduced the statement of the appellant into writing (marked as Ex.P.24) read over the contents and explained them to the appellant and thereafter obtained left thumb mark on the said document. His evidence also further reveals that he took the appellant to the Police Station Tadikalapudi and handed over him to the Station House Officer along with Ex.P.24 statement of extra judicial confession. 17. PW.9 is Panchayat Secretary in a remote village. Normally, if anybody in the village faces any problem, they would inform the same to PW.9. Therefore, nothing unusual in the conduct of the appellant in approaching PW.9 and confessing his guilt before PW.9. Further PW.9 is in no way hostile to the appellant and nothing has been pointed out by the defence indicating any motive for PW.9 in falsely implicating the appellant. In the absence of enmity, we do not think that PW.9 would resort to implicate the appellant in a grave charge of this nature and give evidence before the Court that the appellant approached him and confessed the guilt before him unless, the appellant actually approached him and made a confession. Therefore, there are no circumstances to disbelieve the version of PW.9. Thus, coupled with the other evidence, the evidence of PW.9 is a strong piece of evidence against the appellant, because it relates to the appellant telling his own story to PW.9. 18. Another important piece of evidence forthcoming in this case is the evidence of PW.15, the Investigating Officer and PW.9, the Panchayat Secretary which is to the effect that on 26.03.2006 at 2.30 P.M. in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant he led them and the other mediator to his house and produced MO.5 – stick and MO6 – dhoti which were seized under cover of Ex.P.26. 19. Yet, another important piece of evidence is that Ex.P.28, FSL Report, dated 11.05.2006 indicating blood stains on MO5 – stick and MO6 dhoti and stains of spermatozoa on MO6 dhoti and absence of spermatozoa on MO.4 petticoat of the deceased. The FSL report Ex.P.28 specifically ruled out the deceased being subjected to sexual intercourse prior to her death. The learned trial Court on facts and circumstances rightly held that when the appellant was attempting to commit rape on the deceased while she was offering resistance, the appellant might have ejaculated the semen on his dhoti and thereafter being enraged the appellant dashed the head of the deceased to the door frame and thereafter beat her with MO5 stick and thereby that the appellant could only be convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and 302 IPC, but not for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 20. To sum up the prosecution in this case, by highly convincing and unimpeachable evidence could be able to prove that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to torture compelling her to satisfy his lust, he was last seen in the company of the deceased by PW.4 about one hour prior to the incident. The medical evidence disclosing that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The head injury caused to the deceased is possible with MO.5 stick and the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, that the appellant absconded soon after the incident and subsequently made extra judicial confession before PW.9, who is the panchayat Secretary and that MO.5 stick and MO6 dhoti were recovered by the investigating officer in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant and further that MO5 stick contained stains of blood and MO6 dhoti contained traces of semen. 21. All these circumstances, unerringly point out only towards guilt of the appellant, the vital circumstance being that PW.4, whose mother expired at his tender age and he being brought up by the appellant, who is his father would never resort to give false evidence against the appellant and therefore, we are thoroughly convinced that all the circumstances would lead to only conclusion that the appellant must be and in fact, he is the perpetrator of the crime, we did not find even a remote possibility of innocence in favour of the appellant and the chain of circumstances exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the appellant. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant are proper and they do not require any interference in this appeal. 22. In view of what all stated herein above, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant and dismiss the appeal. _________________ D.S.R.VARMA,J ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 23.09.2009 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm