IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1647 OF 2006 DATE:o5.03.2010 Between: Mittapally Rajeshwar @ Rachiah …… Appellant/Accused. And: The State of A.P., rep. PP …..Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1647 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu) This appeal is filed by the sole accused against judgement dated 16.06.2006 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sanga Reddy in Sessions Case No.61 of 2004 by which the lower court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused had two wives viz., Manjula and Manga who are both the deceased in this case. Manjula is first wife of the accused. Subsequently the accused developed contacts with Manga who was a married woman. Coming to know about the same, Manga was divorced by her husband. Thereafter the accused married Manga as his second wife. The accused and his two wives shifted their residence from Sadasivpet to Santhinagar of Sangareddy and put up their residence in P.W-1’s house. P.W-1’s house consists of three portions. P.W.1 with her family occupied middle portion of her house. The accused took two other portions separated by P.W.1’s portion on rent and put up each of his wives in each portion. Manga was having a male baby aged five months. Manjula also had children. They were in P.W-1’s house since four months prior to the offence. The accused was working in M.R.F factory. It is alleged that Manga and Manjula used to quarrel almost daily for some reason or the other and used to complain to the accused against each other and that it became headache for the accused and he felt the same to be stigma to his reputation in the society and that the accused left both of them and went on pilgrimage without informing both the wives and that when both the wives assured to live peacefully, the accused returned to his house in Santhinagar and that even thereafter quarrels between Manjula and Manga continued. It is further alleged that having fed up with attitude of Manjula and Manga, the accused decided to kill both of them and to solve his problem and that in pursuance thereof on 11.11.2003, the accused purchased rope from P.W-12’s shop, cut the same into two pieces and was waiting for an opportunity and that on 18.11.2003 the accused purchased two beer bottles and went to his house and that at about 11.45 a.m, the accused went into room of his second wife Manga, consumed beer, played audio cassette deck with full volume and called his second wife Manga into the room and giving the impression of indulging in romance and then all of a sudden, pounced upon her and strangulated her with the rope and pressed neck with hands resulting in her spot death and that the accused closed doors and went into room of his first wife Manjula, called her into the room on the pretext of having romance with her and strangulated her with rope resulting in her instantaneous death. The lower court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. He did not take up any specific plea of defence. During trial in the lower court, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 3. It has to be seen whether conviction and sentence passed by the lower court is sustainable on facts and in law. At the out set, it may be noted that there are no eye witnesses for both the murders of Manjula and Manga. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. It has to be seen whether chain of circumstances is complete or whether there is any missing link in that chain. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the prosecution did not establish motive for the accused to kill his two wives and that evidence shows that there was common mess for the accused and his two wives and it improbablises quarrels between the two wives. Even though several witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relies on evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.12 to prove its case. As stated earlier, P.W.1 is land lady of two portions in which the accused was residing along with his two wives. P.W-2 and P.W-3 are neighbours. P.W-4 is husband of P.W-1. P.W-5 and 6 are parents of Manga. P.Ws.7 and 8 are parents of Manjula. P.W.1 deposed that there were no disputes between the accused and the deceased Manjula and Manga. P.W.4 deposed that he does not know relationship between the accused and the deceased Manjula and Manga and that he does not know disputes between them. The prosecution did not allege disputes between the accused on one hand and his two wives on the other hand. According to the prosecution, there were disputes between Manjula and Manga inter se. P.W-2 also deposed that there are no disputes between the accused and his deceased wives Manga and Manjula and that relationship between them was cordial. When there were cries of babies from both the portions, P.W1 went inside of those two portions and noticed Manga and Manjula lying unconscious in their respective portions. P.W.1 thereafter went to P.Ws. 2 and 3 and brought them and ultimately came to the conclusion that Manga and Manjula died. P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. P.W.18 is the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Sangareddy police station who received Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 on 18.11.2003, registered case in Crime No.132 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P-15 F.I.R. P.W.19 is the then Inspector of Police, Sangareddy Circle who took up investigation in this case. P.W.17 who is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy who conducted inquest on dead bodies of both the deceased under cover of P.9 and P.10 inquest reports originally in the presence of Panchayatdars including P.W-13. P.W.17 deposed that Panch witnesses opined that in order to escape from harassment of his wives, the accused committed murders of his two wives. P.W.15 is Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Head Quarters Hospital, Sangareddy who conducted post-mortem examinations on both the dead bodies and issued Ex.P-11 and P-12 post-mortem reports opining that both the dead bodies were having ligature marks around their necks which are ante mortem in nature and that cause of death was combined effect of shock and asphyxia due to strangulation. He says that injuries on both the dead bodies are possible with M.Os.1 and 2 ropes. During observation of scene of the offences, P.W-19 seized each of M.Os. 1 and 2 from each portion of Manjula and Manga from the side of dead bodies under cover of P.7 and P.8 observation Panchanamas. M.Os 1 and 2 are the instruments with which strangulation of both the deceased was effected separately. From evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 who are parents of Manga, it is evident that Manga was originally married to one Ravi and that because of frequent visits of the accused, there was Panchayat and divorce between Manga and her first husband Ravi and that thereafter marriage of Manga with the accused was performed. P.W.5 says that they came to know about disputes between his first wife and the accused and they tried to pacify the matter about two years ago. In cross examination he deposed that relationship between Manga and the accused was cordial. On the other hand, P.W-6 deposed that after marriage of Manga, the accused beat Manjula on one occasion and they intervened and pacified the matter. P.W.7 deposed that after marriage with Manga, the accused used to harass Manjula physically and mentally frequently and that her daughter Manjula informed the same. She says that they advised the accused, Manjula and Manga to lead life happily without any disputes and that inspite of it, they used to quarrel with each other for petty issues. It may be noted at this stage that P.W-7 admits that Manga is also her relation. Thus, inspite of past relationship between Manjula’s famy and Manga’s family, there were quarrels among the accused, Manjula and Manga on petty issues. The accused became fed up with those frequent quarrels. P.W.8 also deposed that after the accused married Manga, he started harassing Manjula mentally and physically and used to beat her and that the same was informed by Manjula to them and that they requested the accused to adjust with two wives and lead happy life, but in vain and that they used to quarrel with each other for each petty issue among the accused Manjula and Manga. This is the motive for the accused, to do away lives of his both wives. P.Ws. 9 and 10 also corroborated version of P.Ws 8 and 9 by saying that the accused Manjula and Manga used to quarrel on petty issues and that there were continuous disputes among them for every issue. Except the accused, no other person can have any motive to kill both wives of the accused on the same day one after the other. It is not as if the murders were for gain. No valuables were complained to have been lost after the murders. P.W.1 is admittedly house owner in which there are three portions. P.W.1 is occupying middle portion whereas the two deceased persons are occupying other portions each separately. It is contended that the investigating officer did not prepare rough sketch of the scene of offences. Absence of rough sketch is in no way detrimental to the prosecution case because the portions are graphically described in Exs.P-7 and P-8 observation reports. P.W.1’s house bearing Door No.5- 8-106/5 is having three portions with doors facing towards north. P.W.1 is a tailor by profession. It is P.W.1’s evidence that on that day i.e., date of the offence, she noticed the accused proceedings towards road side in a hurry and that she heard hue and cries of babies continuously and so she went to Manga’s house portion in the first instance and thereafter to Manjula’s house portion by brining P.Ws.2 and 3. It shows that P.W.1 was in her house only when the accused was rushing towards road in hurried manner and when babies were crying loudly from both the portions. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that location of P.W.1’s shop is not established. P.W.1 did not state that she saw from her shop the accused proceeding towards road side in a hurry. P.W.1 never stated that she is having any shop much less at a separate place from her house. Therefore, assumptions that P.W.1 had a shop and that she did not give location of her shop are unreal. Except the accused, no other persons had the access to both the portions of his wives directly. Ex.P-7 observation report shows that P.W.1’s R.C.C building is also having a gate and that one of the portions is near the gate. Evidence of P.Ws 13 and 19 as well as P.7 and P.8 observation reports show that there was one rope each in each portion of the two deceased and they were seized by the investigating officer. Ex.P-7 shows that in one portion, there was M.O.2 rope of the length of four meters. Ex.P-8 shows that in another portion there was M.O.1 rope of the length of three meters. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that P.W.1 in cross examination deposed that she did not observe any thing at scene of the offences. Ex.P.17 contains eight photographs with negatives relating to both the scenes of offences. There are several articles inside the house and white colour rope near dead body is also found in some of the photos. At this stage, evidence of P.W.12 is relevant. P.W.12 is running Venkateswara Hardware Shop at Santhinagar of Sangareddy for the last ten years. He says that the accused came to his shop and purchased cotton white rope of seven meters and that the accused asked him for a knife for cutting the rope and that when he supplied knife to the accused, in his presence the accused cut the rope into two pieces and left his shop. He further says that subsequently he came to know that the accused committed murder of his wives with those ropes. He identified M.Os.1 and 2 as those ropes. Simply because P.W.12 did not produce bills or accounts relating to sale of seven meters of rope to the accused, his evidence cannot be disbelieved on that ground alone. There are absolutely no circumstances elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve P.W.12’s evidence. P.W.12 says that he did not give any receipt for purchase of rope by the accused. The alleged confession statement of the accused contained in Ex.P-16 Panchanama said to have been recorded by the police after his arrest in the presence of mediators including P.W.16 is neither relevant nor admissible in evidence. P.W.16 turned hostile to the prosecution. He only admitted his signature in Ex.P-16 Panchanama and nothing more. In Malleshappa v. State of Karnataka,[1] the Supreme Court recorded acquittal of the accused therein as the prosecution did not lead convincing evidence to show motive. In a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays important role. It is further observed therein that appellant’s failure to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is not a circumstance to hold appellant guilty of the charge. In the case on hand, we are not on explanation of the appellant for running away from his house portions hurriedly; but we are satisfied that it is a circumstance that running away from the scenes of offences by the accused when the children were crying loudly, is a circumstances which goes in favour of the prosecution case. State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran[2], is not relevant herein since the prosecution is not basing its case on last seen doctrine. From the above evidence let in by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved motive for the accused to commit murders of his two wives, presence of the accused at scenes of the offences around the time of offences and also the accused securing instruments/implements like M.Os. 1 and 2 ropes for commission of both the murders. Thus, the prosecution has proved all links in the chain of circumstances leading to the inevitable conclusion that it is the accused only who committed murders of his two wives one after the other with a view to get rid of both of them having fed up with their intere se quarrels on petty issues. The lower court came to right conclusion in favour of the prosecution and we do not find any legal or valid reasons to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________ V.V.S.RAO, J. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 05.03.2010 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1647 OF 2006 DATE:05.03.2010 Gk [1] 2008 (1) ALT Criminal 19 (SC) [2] 2007 (2) Supreme 579