THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELGANGO Crl.A.No. 1548/2007 Dt.7-7-2011 Singanaboina Venkanna ..Appellant/accused ..Appellant/accused V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ..Respondent/Complainant ..Respondent/complainant The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1548/2007 JUDGMENT (per the Honourable Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) The sole accused in SC No.696/2006 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, was tried for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing the murder of Thooti Malla Reddy and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period one month, by judgment of that court dt. 30-10-2007. He filed this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence recorded against him. The substance of the charge framed against the accused is that on 25-8-2005 at about 21-30 hours at the cattle shed of Thooti Malla Reddy at Muthyalammabodu in Venkatapuram, h/o Sriramgiri village, caused the death of Thooti Malla Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by axing him and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, which led to the conviction of the appellant/sole accused, is as follows: P.W.1 is the wife, P.Ws.2 and 6 are the brothers, P.W.3 is the nephew, P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.5 is the wife of P.W.2. There was a rumour in the village that the deceased had illegal relationship with the wife of the accused ie., P.W.12. On the date of the incident, P.Ws.1 and 5 went to the house of P.W.9 at Rajula Kothepally village to attend a function. On the fateful day, at about 9 or 9-30 PM, P.Ws.2 and 3 came out of their house by switching on the light to clean their plates. At that time, they heard cries of the deceased from the hayrick yard, which is situated by the side of his cattle shed.On hearing the cries of the deceased, they, P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the hayrick yard and noticed P.W.12 running towards her house and the accused running armed with an axe towards open lands. They further noticed the deceased with injuries on his neck, chest and other parts of the body and struggling and after few minutes of his struggling, he succumbed to the injuries. Then P.Ws.2 and 3 informed the same to P.W.6. Thereafter, P.Ws.2,3 and 6 went to the house of the deceased, where the daughter of the deceased-P.W.4 was present. They informed the incident to her. Prior to the date of incident, P.W.1 and P.W.5, who is the wife of P.W.2, went to Rajulakothapally village to thehouse ofP.W.9 to attend his daughter’s function. Then P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.9 and informed him about the incident. P.W.2 brought P.W.1 and P.W.5 to their village. P.W.1, P.W.4 and other family members of the deceased came to the scene of offence at about 7 AM . They got the report Ex.P-1 scribed by P.W.7 and sent it through P.W.7 to the police station. On 26-8-2005 at about 8-30 AM on receiving Ex.P-1 from P.W.7, P.W.16-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nellikudur registered the same as a case in Cr.No.60/2005 under Section 302 IPC and issued First Information Report covered under Ex.P-10. Subsequent investigation was taken over by P.W.17, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thonur, who rushed to the scene of offence immediately and prepared an observation report. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.13 and another. Ex.P-5 is the inquest report. On 26-8-2005, on requisition, P.W.15, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mahabubabad, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-9 opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. On 6-9- 2005 P.W.17 arrested the accused and in pursuance of his confessional statement and at his instance, M.Os.1 to 4 were recovered in the presence of P.W.14 under a cover of panchanamas- Exs.P-7 and 8. He forward the material objects to RFSL. After completion of investigation and on receiving relevant reports, P.W.17 filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. Learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.31/2006 and committed the case to the Sessions Division of Warangal District as the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as SC No.696/2006 and made over to VI Additional Sessions Judge (III-FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a single charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 besides the case property M.Os.1 to 4. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the defence, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. The trial court accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the sole accused preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/sole accused strenuously contended that the behaviour and conduct of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are kith and kin of the deceased, is quite unnatural since they have not made any hue and cry when the accused killed the deceased, and they never informed the incident to any of the villagers nor lodged any complaint with the police on seeing the attack by the accused, and therefore, there is every possibility of them to implicate the accused after due deliberations with P.W.4 and P.W.1. She further contended that P.W.4 who is the daughter of the deceased did not properly respond when P.Ws.2 and 3 informed her of the death of her father and therefore it is unsafe to base a conviction on the interested testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3. He therefore prays to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court rightly scrutinized the evidence of eye witnesses ie., P.Ws.2 and 3 and rightly came to the conclusion that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased, but none else and, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and there are no grounds to set-aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and hence he prays to dismiss the appeal. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC are liable to be set-aside or modified? P.Ws.2 to 3 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased and P.W.3 is the son of P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that on the fateful day, after having dinner at about 9 or 9-30 PM, he and P.W.3 came out of the house by switch on the light to clean their plates. At that time, they heard the cries of the deceased from the side of his cattle shed near hayrick yard and his house is adjacent to the cattle shed of the deceased. On hearing the cries of the deceased, himself and his son rushed towards hayrick yard. At that time Renuka was coming in running towards her house and the accused was running by holding axe in his hand. They saw the deceased with injuries on his neck, chest and other parts of his body and after few minutes of his struggle he succumbed to the injuries. Immediately, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the house of P.W.6 and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.W.6 went to the house of the deceased, where his daughter P.W.4 was present. They informed her about the incident. Prior to the incident, P.W.1 and P.W.5-wife of P.W.2, went to Rajulakothapally village to the house of P.W.9 to attend his daughter’s function. Then, P.W.2 went to the house of Nallela Srinivasa Reddy-P.W.9 and informed him about the incident. P.W.2 brought P.W.1 and his wife-P.W.5 to the village. After P.W.1 coming to the village in the early hours, they went to the scene of offence and later a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 through P.W.7 with the police. P.W.2 admitted that he did not inform to any body in the village about the incident except P.W.6. There are no disputes between the accused and the deceased. He also admitted that he did not go to the house of the accused to ensure the presence of accused and his wife Renuka-P.W.12. P.W.3 and 6 corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 about his informing them about the incident and P.W.2 going to Rajulakothapally village to the house of P.W.9 and bringing the mother of P.W.4 ie.,P.W.1, and the wife of P.W.2. P.W.6 deposed that the accused killed the deceased on account of illegal connection by the deceased with the wife of the accused. He also stated in his cross-examination that after arrival of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, they went to the scene of offence and villagers also present there at that time. P.W.7 who drafted the complaint covered under Ex.P-1 stated that P.W.1 informed him that she had a suspicion on the accused that he might have killed the deceased. He was declared hostile. P.W.14, who is one of the witnesses, to the confessional statement recorded by the police, stated that the police called him and one Merugu Dasharathnam to the house of Veeramma in Venkatapuram village at about 9 or 10 AM and when they enquired the accused, he admitted the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confessional statement recorded by the police, at the instance of the accused, full shirt-M.O.2, blue-collar lungi with checks-M.O.3 were recovered under a cover of panchanama Ex.P-7. The accused led them to the Nalla Vabi near Kunta and brought one axe from the water and produce the same and the police seized the axe-M.O.4 under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P-8. P.W.14 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries and internal injuries: 1. Head and neck were partially amputated and hanging with skin in front of the neck due to cut through of all the structures of the neck in the middle except 2 inches of the skin in front of the neck. 2. Laceration 1 ½ x ½ x ½ on the right lside of the nose. 3. Laceration 3 x2 x 1 right shoulder. 4. Laceration 3½ x ½ x ½ right shoulder. 5. Laceration 2 ½ x ½ x ½ right arm. 6. Laceration 3 x 1 x 1 midline back of the chest. 7. Laceration 5 x 2 ½ left side of the chest. 8. Both bones fracture of left forearm lower 1/3rd. 9. Traumatic amputation of left index finger. 10. Diffuse laceration first inter-digital space of the left hand. He issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-9 opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to cut through of the neck. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from him that injury Nos. 2 to 10 could be caused by any blunt weapon other than M.O.4. The deceased must have put struggle at the time of receiving injuries. The injury No.1 is possible by cut sharp weapon and it could be caused by a cut moving weapon. In those circumstances, the other laceration injuries will also occur, but in this case laceration injuries near injury No.1 absent. He also stated that the left index finger was totally amputated and the said finger is not present at the time of postmortem examination. In the report covered under Ex.P-1, it was clearly stated that the accused killed the deceased, and Ex.P-1 was scribed by P.W.7. Ex.P-1 was lodged immediately on arrival of P.W.1 to the village. P.W.1 in her cross-examination admitted that P.W.2 came to Rajulakothapally village at 4 or 4-30 AM on 26-8-2005, and they reached Venkatapuram at about 7 AM. After seeing the body of the deceased, she got scribed Ex.P-1 through P.W.7 and presented through him to the police at 8-30 AM. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there does not appear to be any possibility of falsely implicating the accused, particularly when there are no inimical relations between the accused family and the family of the deceased. The presence of the accused in Venkata Puram village on the date of the incident has been established by the prosecution by examining P.Ws.10 and 11. They stated that the accused was accompanied them while returning from Sriramgiri village to Venkatapuram village and on the way they consumed liquor and when they reached the outskirts of Venkatapuram village, the accused went towards his agricultural land and P.Ws.10 and11 went to their houses respectively. Further, when the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., he stated as follows: When the accused is in his house, the villagers came to his house proclaiming that the accused killed the deceased. Then, the accused and his wife went to his in-law’s house at Kollapur. S.I. of Police came to him and stating that the accused killed the deceased and brought the accused to Nellikudur Police Station. Thereafter, the police kept the accused in jail for 3, or 4 days. Pulla Reddy foisted a false case against the accused. P.W.12 who is the wife of the accused though declared hostile, in the cross-examination admitted that herself and the accused were staying in the Venkatapuram village since seven years prior to the incident and a small lane is intervened between her house and the house of P.W.2 and the cattle shed of the deceased is adjacent to the house of P.W.2 and there was a hayrick yard. The deceased used to visit her house as a friend and they used to move closely. She denied that the deceased developed intimacy with her and she had illicit relation ship with the deceased and due to that accused warned her to stop such things. The evidence of eye witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3, is quite natural, convincing and trustworthy. Their evidence clearly shows that immediately after the incident they went to the house of P.W.6 , who is the another brother of the deceased, and P.W.2 informed him that the accused killed the deceased and then they went to the house of the deceased, where his daughter P.W.4 was present and informed her that the accused killed the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to their coming to them and informing about the incident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further shows that P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.5-who is the wife of the P.W.2 went to Rajulakothapally village to the house of P.W.9 to attend his daughter’s function and as such P.W.2 went to Rajuilakothaplly village and informed P.W.9 about the incident and brought P.W.1 and P.W.5 to the village. On P.W.1 coming to the village, and after seeing the dead body, a complaint was lodged with the police. Mere non-informing to the villagers about the incident by P.Ws.2 and 3 do not create any doubt about the prosecution case. The trial court after taking into consideration the entire evidence, particularly, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with the medical evidence, rightly convicted the accused as aforementioned. In view of the analysis of the evidence made by the trial court, the inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has been able to establish the accusation made against the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J ----------------- RAJA ELANGO,J DT. 7-7-2011 Kmr