THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 845 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L.Nageswara Rao) 1. A.1 in Sessions Case No.80 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, who was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, is the appellant herein. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that A.1 is son of A.2. One Dondapati Adilaxmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the wife of A.1. Their marriage was performed about 14 years prior to the incident and they were blessed with two sons. At the instigation of A.2, A.1 used to ill-treat and harass the deceased physically and mentally by not providing proper food and shelter to her. Inspite of intervention of elders, there was no change in the attitude of the accused. Being fed up with the ill- treatment and constant humiliation and nagging made by A.1 and the abetment made by A.2, the deceased lodged a criminal case against the accused, which is subject matter of C.C. No.166 of 1999, but the said case ended in acquittal, as the parties compromised the matter at the intervention of elders. Later, the deceased joined with the company of A.1 at Visakhapatnam and led conjugal life for six months. Thereafter, at the instigation of A.2, A.1 started harassing the deceased, and unable to bear the same, the deceased returned to village of her father Maredubaka, along with her two sons and used to stay there. The deceased also filed a maintenance case against A.1. On that, both the accused bore grudge against the deceased. A.1 used to visit Maredubaka village and threaten the deceased to do away with her life, while A.2 used to quarrel with P.W.1 and the deceased very often. A.2 provoked A.1 to do away life of the deceased. In pursuance of the same, on 15.2.2003 at about 6.00 PM, the deceased was returning to home from fields after attending agricultural works along with other labourers P.Ws. 2 to 4, and when she reached the ploughed vacant land of Ravuri Narasimhulu, A.1, with a preplanned intention, concealed his identity in the bushes, pounced upon her with a big knife being used for cutting of sugar cane, caught hold of her tuft, hacked and stabbed her with it, as a result of which she sustained several cut injuries and fell down in a pool of blood. P.Ws. 1 to 4 witnessed the incident and on seeing them, A.1 threatened P.W.1 at the point of knife and fled away along with the weapon. Immediately, P.W.1 and others took the injured on a double bullock cart to road point and therefrom in an auto, to Rajam police station, and later shifted her to Community Health Centre, Rajam, but within five minutes, she succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint lodged by P.W.1, police registered the case and during the course of investigation, police seized the incriminating material, observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators, got photographed it and the dead body, and later held in inquest on the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation and receipt of relevant documents, police laid the charge sheet. 3. The case was taken on file as P.R.C. No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the case was made over to the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, after numbering the case. 4. The trial Court framed the following charges against the accused. “Charge No.1: That on the 15th day of February, 2003 at about 6 p.m. at the ploughed vacant land of Ravuri Narasimhulu at Maredubaka village, you, A.1, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of your wife Adilaxmi and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Charge No.2: That some days prior to the date of offence and on the same day and at the same time and place mentioned in Charge No.1, you, A.2, abetted the commission of offence of murder of your daughter-in-law Adilakshmi by her husband and your son A.1 which was committed in consequence of your abetment, and that you A.2 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and within my cognizance.” When the charges were read over and explained to the respective accused in telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were got marked, on behalf of the prosecution, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 7. 6. After completion of the evidence on prosecution side, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. The accused did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. 7. After considering the material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 21.5.2007, found the appellant/A.1 guilty of the charge levelled against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above, while acquitting A.2 of the charge levelled against him.. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by A.1 through legal aid counsel Mr., T.S.Rayalu, as the appellant is said to be having no resources to defend him. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor. 9. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed murder of the deceased ?; (ii) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are legal and sustainable ? 10. POINTS: According to the case of the prosecution, A.1 is the husband of the deceased, and there were some family disputes between them and also a criminal case and maintenance case were filed preceding the incident besides a civil suit with regard to enjoyment of the property, and that the deceased and the accused migrated to Visakhapatnam and lived there for some time. It is the further case of prosecution that, on the date of the incident, when the deceased was returning from fields, in the evening time, in vacant land of Ravuri Narasimhulu at Maredubaka village, the appellant/A.1 had taken an opportunity and attacked her coming from, by the side of bushes. In support of the prosecution case, P.W.1, who is father of the deceased, was examined to prove the factum of disputes between the deceased and accused, and also filing of maintenance case and civil case. According to him, there was a dispute with regard to enjoyment of the property given to the deceased by him towards pasupu-kumkuma, and on the date of the incident, when he was approaching his daughter from a distance after hearing her cries, he found A.1 in opposite direction armed with knife in his hand and claimed that he killed the deceased and he would also kill him. According to him, on the date of the incident, some male coolies and female coolies went to labour work and the deceased was being followed by them. 11. P.W.2 is one of the persons who is said to have attended to the labour work along with the deceased in the agricultural fields on the fateful day. According to her, on that day, while herself, the deceased and P.Ws.3 and 4 were returning to their village in the evening, P.Ws.3 and 4 were proceeding ahead of them; then A.1 came from the banana tope with a knife and suddenly attacked the deceased and hacked her on left side by catching hold of her tuft; that, she raised cries, and P.Ws.3 and 4, who were ahead, heard her cries and came back, and mean while, A.1 fled away from the spot, and thereafter, P.W.1 came there along with others and he along with others shifted the deceased in an auto for treatment. 12. P.Ws.3 and 4 are other persons, who are said to have attended to the cooli work and were proceeding ahead of the deceased and P.W.2. Their evidence clearly establishes that on the date of the incident they attended to cooli work along with the deceased and at the time of the incident, all of them were coming together, and they were ahead of deceased and P.W.2. Their evidence clearly shows that the accused came from the bushes suddenly and attacked the deceased and caused the injuries. 13. P.W.5 is brother of the deceased. He also spoke about the differences between the accused and the deceased. According to him, A.2 instigated A.1 to attack the deceased. He claims to have come to know about the killing of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.6 is also about attending to the labour work on the date of the incident and he was loading the ground nut bags into bullock carts and a few minutes thereafter, they heard cries and observed A.1 coming with knife in his hand, and he shouted that he killed the deceased and he would also kill P.W.1. P.W.6 claims to have questioned the accused. According to him, they found the deceased with injuries and in a pool of blood, and that the deceased requested P.W.1 to see her children and all of them brought the deceased on double bullock cart to road junction and he also followed them; meanwhile, P.W.1 went to the village and brought children of the deceased to the road junction in an auto, and in the said auto, the deceased was taken to police station. P.W.6 identified M.O.2-knife that was in the hands of the accused, which was seen by them in the hands of A.1. 14. P.W.7 is the child witness, who is son of the accused and the deceased. According to him, on the fateful day, he came to know about the incident after he returned from school. He deposed about the differences between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident. 15. The evidence of P.W.8 is that he also attended to the labour work on the date of the incident, and after loading ground nut in the bullock cart, he followed P.Ws. 2 to 4 and the deceased behind them and they heard the cries and observed A.1 coming in opposite direction with knife. The evidence of P.W.9 is about bringing an auto to shift the deceased to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.10 is about effecting compromise between the accused and the deceased in the earlier case for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The evidence of P.W.11 is about his presence at the time of seizure of banian from P.W.1 and presence at the time of drafting mediators report Ex.P7. The evidence of P.W.12 is about taking photographs of the scene of occurrence. 16. The evidence of P.W.13-Panchayat Secretary is about his presence at the time of observation of scene of occurrence and seizure of properties at the scene. He was also present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.14 is that on 17.2.2003, the accused gave a voluntary confessional statement and in pursuance of the said confession, he led them to a culvert situated in between Maredubaka and Kottavalasa road junction and produced M.O.2-knife which was seized by police under seizure report. 17. The evidence of P.W.15-Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Rajam is about conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and finding the following ante-mortem injuries and issuing Ex.P13-post mortem report. 1) An incised injury of 4” x 2” horizontal across the 4th and 5th cervical vertibra; 2) An incised injury of 3”x 1” x bone deed below and behind the left ear. 3) Four incised injuries of 1 ½ x 1” bone deep on the lateral aspect of left upper arm. 4) Three incised injuries of 1 ½ x ½” x bone deep on the left fore arm. 5) A lacerated injury of irregular in nature on the posterior aspect of left elbow. 6) An incised injury ½”x ¼” on right little finger. 7) A stab injury of 5” x 3”x 7” in left side back of chest. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.15 and 17-police officials is about registration of crime and investigation done by them in this case. 19. On the basis of the above evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version as true and convincing, and relying upon the statements of witnesses, who are eye-witnesses to the incident and witnesses who saw the accused after the attack, convicted and sentenced A.1. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the deceased is said to have been taken in an auto and on a double bullock cart by some of the witnesses and saree of P.W.3 is said to have been soiled with blood, but police have not seized the said cloth, and therefore, her presence at the relevant point of time of the incident, cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that police have to seize only incriminating evidence against the accused, but not incriminating material against witness. Further more, all the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 are independent by themselves and belong to different communities and they are neither interested in P.W.1 nor has any animosity against the appellant/A.1. The fact that it was an agricultural season and they have gone to the field for attending to the cooli work, is not seriously disputed in cross-examination of these witnesses. Added to that, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that there is any amount of estrangement between the accused and the deceased. The immediate provocation appears to be interference of the enjoyment of the property by the accused and filing of suit on behalf of the minor children and the deceased, and all these circumstances seemed to have culminated in the act of the accused in attacking the deceased. On an analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 6 are truthful and natural witnesses, and their evidence is not with any embezzlements or improvements to destroy the case of the prosecution case. The incident has been spoken to by them corroborating with each other, and minor contradictions even in case of truthful witnesses, is natural and they are not going to destroy the version of the prosecution. 21. Added to the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, another circumstance is that the accused had given a voluntary confessional statement in the presence of P.W.14, who is an independent witness, and in pursuance of the same, M.O.2-knife, was seized. M.O.2 contained blood of the same group as that of the deceased which was found on other items of the property belonging to the deceased, as per Ex.P16-Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A.1 and we do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 22. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/A.1 in the judgment dated 21.05.2007 in the Sessions Case No.80 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. ------------------------- (K.C.BHANU, J.) ------------------------------------------ (N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.) 22.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 845 OF 2007 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) 22.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 845 OF 2007 Date: 22.12.2010 Between: Dondapati Gnaneswara Rao …Appellant/A.1 And The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent