HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2285 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.1,500/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. It is alleged that on the night of 05.10.2002 at about 11:30 PM, the deceased went into bathroom for bathing and that the accused who was living with her took a stone and hit on the back of head of the deceased due to which, she sustained bleeding head injury and that the accused took her to the nearby fields of Siva Sankaraiah and laid her in the field and hit her with the same stone on her face to death. The offence took place in the outskirts of Brahmanapattu village. Plea of the accused was one of total denial and not guilty. Though the lower Court tried the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC, ultimately after trial, found him guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that except the solitary circumstance of the accused and the deceased living together, there is no other evidence which drove the lower Court to find the accused guilty and that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and that the alleged extra judicial confessional statement of the accused recorded by the Sarpanch PW.2 as per Ex.P.3 was disbelieved by the lower Court. It is further contended that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to kill the deceased and that in the absence of proof of motive, the lower Court should not have accepted the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant’s counsel also placed reliance on Inderjit Singh v State of Punjab[1] of the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows: “It is well settled that in a case pending on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.” As indicated earlier, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no possibility of presence of direct witnesses to the occurrence since scene of the offence is located in the outskirts of Brahmanapattu village where there are no other houses. A look at Ex.P.10 rough sketch of the scene prepared by the Investigating Officer who is the Inspector of Police, Tirupati Rural Circle and his evidence reveals that house of the accused and the deceased is located by the side of Tirupati-Pudi Road. To the south of the said house, there is a road leading to Kayampeta Harijanawada. Around that house, there are only agricultural fields. Dead body of the deceased was found at a distance of about 75 yards towards north of house of the accused and at a distance of about 100 yards towards east of Tirupati-Pudi road. Blood stains are also found in improvised bath room erected with coconut leaves by the side of house of the accused. In view of location of house of the accused where the offence took place and in view of location of the dead body and also in view of time of offence being dead of night, there was no possibility of any eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Admittedly the accused was present in the house during that night. On the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was located in the fields behind house of the accused with injuries on face and head of the deceased. The dead body was lying without clothes, but with a wrapping of saree over it. PW.1 is nephew of the deceased. It is PW.1 who gave Ex.P.1 report to the police about the occurrence. PW.8 is another nephew of the deceased Radhamma. PW.9 is a villager of Brahmanapattu. PW.2 is Sarpanch of Brahmanapattu gram panchayat. Their evidence disclosed that the accused and the deceased were living together in the house in the outskirts of the village as man and wife. The accused is a native of Pathiputtur village and he has wife and children in that village. The deceased had her husband who died about one year prior to death of the deceased. Since husband of the deceased married second wife and was living with her, the deceased came away from him and began living with the accused in Brahmanapattu village. The deceased had no children and it is stated to be the reason for her husband marrying a second wife. It is only after the death of her husband, she removed her Mangalasutram about one year prior to her death. The accused is the paramour of the deceased. Evidence of the above witnesses discloses that the accused was selling cheap liquor at his house as Belt shop and the deceased was preparing eatables like Bondas and chicken at the house and was selling the same. About four months ago she stopped preparing eatables at the house and began going to Tiruchanur to the wine shop being run by PW.5’s family members. PW.5 is a resident of Brahmanapattu though he was working in Tirupati. After PW.5’s family members started wine shop at Tirupati-Tiruchanur the deceased began to go that shop for preparing eatables on daily wages of Rs.100/-. As the deceased stopped preparing eatables and selling the same at her house, sales of liquor in Belt shop of the accused at his house became decreased and his income became dwindled. Therefore, the accused was nourishing grudge against the deceased. PW.7 was working in wine shop of PW.5. It is evidence of PWs.5 and 7 that the deceased used to come to their shop for preparing eatables in the morning by bus and the deceased was leaving the shop during night by about 11:00 PM when PW.7 used to take the deceased to her house by two wheeler and leave her in the house. Distance between wine shop of PW.5 and Brahmanapattu village is around 2 to 3 KMs. It is evidence of PW.7 that on 05.10.2002 at about 11:00 PM he dropped the deceased at her house on his bicycle in a routine manner and that the deceased was present at her house and that as usual the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased on that night and that after leaving the deceased at her house, he went away. Presence of the accused at his house on that night is not in dispute. After coming to know about the death of deceased when PW.1 rushed to house of the accused, PW.1 says that he questioned the accused about the deceased and that the accused stated to him that the deceased returned at about 11:00 PM last night from Tiruchanur and on her request he provided water in bathroom and slept in the house and he does not know how the deceased died. PW.1 says that he went into bathroom and observed blood stains and also one stone in the bath room. PW.3 who is Panchayat Secretary and who is one of the mediators in Ex.P.4 scene of offence observation panchanama says that the police seized control earth and blood stained earth from bathroom of the accused. When the deceased sustained bleeding injury on her head, one cannot believe the accused that he was sleeping in the house after arranging water to the deceased for bathing in the bathroom. It is for the accused to explain as to what happed during that night resulting in death of the deceased. PW.8 also deposed that on 06.10.2002 at about 09:00 AM when he was present in his house, his elder brother came to him and called him to go to house of the deceased as she died and that he and his elder brother went to Brahmanapattu and the accused was outside his house and that when they questioned the accused about the deceased, he informed about the deceased lying dead in the fields and that when they went to fields and saw the dead body and returned to the accused and asked as to how she died, the accused stated that on the previous night the deceased returned and he provided water to the deceased and subsequently he observed blood stained marks in the bathroom. He says that the accused did not give proper reply for death of the deceased and that therefore they suspected that the accused killed the deceased. With that suspicion only PW.1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. In Ex.P-1 PW.1 stated that after reaching house of the accused when he asked accused about the deceased, the accused informed him about the deceased lying dead in the fields and that immediately he went to the fields, observed the dead body and came back to house of the accused and asked the accused as to how she died and that the accused replied that he does not know anything, but the deceased returned to the house at 11:00 PM in the last night and expressed her intention to take bath and he arranged water in bathroom and went to sleep and he did not know what happened. PW.1 further stated in Ex.P1 that when he proceeded to the bathroom he observed blood stains in a corner and that he asked accused about the blood stains and the accused replied he did not know. PW.1 expressed his suspicion on the accused for the death of the deceased. He further stated that the accused beat on head of the deceased and face and took her to the fields. Even after inquest, the panchayatdars opined in coloumn No.XV of Ex.P2 report that after the deceased went into bathroom to take bath, the accused beat the deceased on her head and face with big stone and took her to the fields of Siva Sankaraiah behind his house where she fell down. The panchayatdars also noted that blood stains were found in bathroom. It was further opined in Ex.P2 that as the deceased was not listening to the accused and not doing business at the house itself and doing business at Venkata Sai Wine Shop, Tiruchanur, the accused developed hatred and when the deceased went into bathroom to take bath the accused killed the deceased causing bleeding injury and threw dead body of the deceased in the fields of Siva Sankaraiah. No doubt, the lower Court disbelieved the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to PW.2 as per Ex.P3 statement. It appears that evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P3 is the result window-dressing exercise by the Investigating Officer. That exercise cannot falsify the entire prosecution case. The present case on hand is uncomparable with Inderjit Singh (1 supra) of the Supreme Court. In Inderjit Singh (1 supra), except the accused taking the deceased with him and the deceased found dead thereafter, there was no other evidence. It was a case where there was no motive for the accused against the deceased who was his friend. Whereas in the case on hand, the prosecution has established grudge for the accused against the deceased to the effect that accused nourished grudge against her as without hearing the accused, the deceased started her eatables business in Venkata Sai Wine Shop at Tiruchanur instead of at her own house where the accused was doing cheap liquor business as a belt shop, due to which sales of liquor by the accused became dwindled. Apart from that, evidence of PW.7 revealed that when he left the deceased at her house at 11:00 PM the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased in that night. PW.7 termed the said quarrel as a routine one. But the said quarrel led to gruesome death of the deceased. Having regard to the above circumstances established by the prosecution, the lower Court in my opinion came to the right conclusion in favour of the prosecution. The circumstances established by the prosecution found a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and the circumstances are consistent only with guilt of the accused. Therefore, I find no grounds in this appeal to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 28, 2011 PNV/MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2285 OF 2004 December 28, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 28.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2285 OF 2004 Between: C. Sankaraiah ..... APPELLANT AND State ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: [1] AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1674