HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.383 OF 2007 DATED: 27.11.2009 BETWEEN: Palakurti Satyanarayana @ Annavaram .. Appellant and State Rep.by its Public Prosecutor And another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.A.NO.383 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per RKR,J) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21.12.2006 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in S.C.No.391 of 2006. 2. The appellant-Palakurthi Satyanarayana @ Annavaram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC, and was found guilty for the said offences, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of charge against the appellant is that he on 28.01.20006 at about 8.00 PM at his house, situated in S.C.Colony, Kaikavolu Village of East Godavari District, intentionally caused the death of his wife Palakurthi Kannamma by squeezing her neck and thereafter, hacking her with a knife on her head and other parts of the body indiscriminately and thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and further voluntarily caused hurt to his daughter Amaladasu Nagamani with the knife which is a deadly weapon on her left shoulder when she intervened while he was hacking her mother and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, as follows: The appellant – Palakurthi Satyanarayana @ Annavaram is the resident of S.C. Colony, Kaikavolu Village of Pedapudi Mandal in East Godavari District and Palakurthi Kannamma, hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’ is his wife. PW.1 – Amaladas Nagamani is his daughter and PW.2 – Palakurthi Venkata Ramana is his son and PW.3 is his brother. 5. The family of the appellant professed Christianity and they were in the habit of singing songs and offering prayers of the Lord Jesus Christ after dinner and before going to sleep. As usual on 28.01.2006 at about 8.00 PM after having dinner PW.1 and her parents i.e. the appellant and the deceased sang songs of Lord Jesus Christ by sitting on a mat in their house. At that time PW.2 was sleeping on a chair and he woke up while the other members of his family were singing songs and he went to the nearby house in the colony to watch TV programmes. After singing songs, the appellant, the deceased and PW.1 were offering prayers to Lord Jesus Christ by kneeling down. After some time, on hearing some noise from her mother PW.1 opened her eyes and found the appellant squeezing the neck of her mother forcibly by pushing her down. Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife and hacked the deceased on the head, face and other parts of the body indiscriminately. When PW.1 interfered, the knife blow fell on her shoulder. Due to the injuries caused by the appellant, the deceased met with instantaneous death. Then, the appellant threw away the knife in the house itself and ran away. Thereafter, PW.1 raised cries loudly. PW.4 – Pithani Anantha Lakshmi, the opposite neighbour, on hearing the cries of PW.1, came out of her house, but she did not go inside the house of the appellant, she found PW.1 in unconscious state and noticed that the deceased was lying dead with injuries all over her body. PW.1 informed PW.4 that her father killed her mother when they were offering prayers. Some time thereafter, PW.3, the brother of the appellant also came there and PW.1 informed him about the incident. 6. Subsequently, PW.3 took PW.1 to the Police Station Pedapudi . PW.9, the Sub Inspector of Police sent PW.1 to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment. Subsequently, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and returned to the police station. Basing on the statement of PW.1, PW-9 registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2006 and issued FIR. PW.10, the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Circle investigated into the crime and on completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet. 7. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined PWs.1 to 10, marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and MOs 1 to 11. 8. The learned trial court resting on the direct evidence of PW.1 and also considering the other evidence which is circumstantial in nature, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo punsihment as stated above. 9. We have heard Smt. Nettam Ammaji, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. It has been contended by the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant that the conviction recorded by the prosecution is based on the evidence of PW.1, who is no other than the daughter of the appellant, no independent witnesses were examined and the prosecution did not prove the motive for the appellant to commit the offence and therefore,it is quite unsafe to base on the testimony of PW.1. 11. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that absolutely there is no necessity for PW.1 to give false evidence against his father, apart from the evidence of PW.1, there is other evidence indicating involvement of the appellant in committing the offence and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court need no interference in this appeal. 12. PW.1, is no other than the daughter of the appellant and the deceased. PW.2 is no other than their son. Unless there are compelling circumstances, it is highly difficult to believe that they would resort to give false evidence against their father. PW.1, though married to a person of Komaragiripatnam and she is a resident of the said village came down to Kaikavolu village to visit her parents and her brother and was present in her parents’ house on the date of incident, she categorically stated in her deposition that on 28.01.2006 after having dinner at about 8.00 PM she, her parents sat on a mat and were offering prayers to Lord Jesus Christ, after singing some religious songs, her brother PW.2 went to a nearby house in the colony to watch TV progrmmes. While they were offering prayers, her father got up and switched off the fan and again joined in the prayer. All of a sudden, her mother stopped praying, then she opened her eyes and saw that her father pressing the neck of her mother by sitting on her. She pushed her father away and shouted. Thereafter, her father took out a knife which is available in the house and hacked her mother on the face, head and chest, when she intervened, one knife blow fell on her left shoulder and due to the injuries caused by her father, her mother died on the spot. Thereafter, her father left the knife in the house itself and ran away. She raised cries loudly. One Pithani Lakshmi came and tied a towel to her left shoulder. Thereafter, her senior paternal uncle (PW3) came there. She informed them as to what happened. PW.3 took her to Pedapudi police station and she was referred to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada by the police and the police came to the hospital and recorded her statement. 13. PW.2, the son of the appellant stated in his evidence before the trial Court that while his parents and sister started singing religious songs by sitting on the mat, he went to the house of N.Syanarayana to watch TV programmes. Half an hour thereafter, he was told that his mother was killed by her father. Then he rushed to his house and saw the dead body of his mother, and that his sister was weeping with a bleeding injury on her shoulder. His mother was found dead, in the meanwhile his senior paternal uncle (PW.3) also came there. This witness had specifically stated in his deposition that his father used to sell chicken and for that purpose, he kept the knife in the house. Both PWs.1 and 2 identified MO1 – knife in the Court below. 14. PW.4 whose house is situated opposite to the house of the appellant stated that on one Saturday during night time when she was at her house, she heard the cries of PW.1, went out side the house and called PW.1 to come to her house. PW.1 came and lost her consciousness, she supplied water to PW.1 and some time thereafter, after regaining consciousness, PW.1 told her that her father killed her mother while they were offering prayers. The evidence of PW.4 also further discloses that she noticed an injury on the left shoulder of PW.1 and also that PW.3, who is the brother of the appellant, came there and took PW.1 to the hospital. 15. Whereas, PW.3, the brother of the appellant stated in his deposition that on the date of incident after, he was informed by some body that the appellant killed his wife, he took the cycle and went to the house of the appellant, where he saw the dead body of the deceased. He also further deposed that he saw PW.1 in the house of PW.4 with cut injury on her shoulder. 16. PW.8, the Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada at relevant time conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on the requisition of the police. He deposed before the trial Court that he found as many as 9 external chop wounds and also 9 internal injuries corresponding to the external injuries, which are ante mortem in nature. In his opinion, the death occurred due to the sharp edged, moderate to heavy weight cutting weapon and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple chop wounds associated with craino cerebral injury (head injury). He issued Ex.P.7 post mortem certificate incorporating his findings. He also stated in his deposition that all the injuries noticed by him are possible with MO1 – knife. 17. PW.6, the Panchayat Secretary of Kaikavolu Village at relevant time and PW.10 the Inspector of Police, who is the investigating officer in this case have categorically stated in their depositions that while observing the scene of offence, they noticed Mos. 1 to 5 and 8 in the house of the appellant which are stained with blood and further stated that on 30.01.2006 after apprehending the appellant and recording his confession, PW.10 seized the blood stained clothes i.e. MO. 10 – shirt and MO.11 –nicker which the appellant wore, under a cover of mediator’s report in the presence of PW.6 and another mediator. 18. The evidence of PW.10 further discloses that at the time of arresting the appellant, he found an injury on the left finger of the appellant, subsequently he sent the appellant with a requisition to one Dr.G.Rambabu, C.M.O, GGH, Kakinada, who issued Ex.P.10 – wound certificate. 19. The recovery of blood stained articles from the house of the appellant clearly indicates that the incident took place in the house and further the seizure of bloodstained clothes from the person of the appellant reveals his involvement in the commission of the offence. Since, soon after the incident, PW.1 was noticed by PW.3, PW.4 and also her brother PW.2 with a bleeding injury on the left shoulder, her presence at the house of the appellant at the time of actual occurrence of incident, cannot be doubted. Further, she was immediately taken by PW.3 to the police station. Thus, the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, which is circumstantial in nature, lends assurance to the direct testimony of PW.1. PWs.1 and 2 being no other than the children of the appellant and the deceased, cannot be expected to give false evidence against their father to the effect that he committed the murder of their mother. Furthermore, PW.1 being an injured eyewitness and no other than the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, her evidence cannot be slightly brushed aside unless there are any circumstances indicating that there were some strong reasons for her to give false evidence against her father. But, no such circumstances exist in the instant case. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no motive has been suggested by the prosecution, which might have prompted the appellant to commit the offence and therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 cannot be believed. This is a case, which is based on direct as well as circumstantial evidence and when once the evidence of PW.1, the direct witness is considered to be highly credible and truthful, the motive aspect fades into insignificance and also it becomes wholly irrelevant in proving the guilt of the appellant. 20. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court require no interference in this appeal. Consequently, they are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. _________________ D.S.R.VARMA,J ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated:27.11.2009 kvrm