THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.608 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) The present appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The case of the prosecution reads as follows: The accused is desperate character. Deceased No.1 is the mother-in -law and deceased No.2 is the wife of the accused. L.W.1, who is the husband of deceased No.1, gave his daughter viz., Lakshmi ((deceased No.2) to the accused and performed their marriage about 5 years back. They were blessed with a female child, who is now aged about 4 years and after delivery, deceased No.2 complained her parents that she was being tortured by the accused and he suspected her character. So, she used to stay at her parents’ house and she did not return to her in-laws’ house apprehending danger in the hands of the accused. L.Ws. 9 to 11 acted as Panchayat elders and advised that Lakshmi (deceased No.2) should go to her in laws’ house and they also assured her parents that no ill-treatment would take place. But, the parents did not accept to send deceased No.2. The accused bore grudge against deceased No.2 and against his mother-in-law that she is responsible for not sending his wife. On the intervening night of 25/26.5.2004 at about 1.30 a.m., the accused came to the house of L.W.1 and hacked his mother-in-law Ammakanna on her right side of neck and also hacked his wife Lakshmi on the right side of jaw with a podu knife while they were sleeping on a cot in front of their house and caused their instantaneous death and then, he ran away along with blood stained podu knife. Meanwhile, P.W.2 came to house and witnessed P.W.1 chasing the accused. On the complaint given by P.W.1, L.W.13 registered the case in Crime No.65 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC. After registration of the same, L.W.14 took up the investigation, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and also recovered the weapon in the presence of mediators. L.W.12 conducted autopsy over dead bodies. The material objects were sent to FSL report. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-24 besides M.O.1. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. P.W.1 who is the eye witness to the occurrence deposed before the Court below regarding performance of marriage of deceased No.2 with the accused and subsequent ill-treatment of the accused and also regarding the manner in which the accused assaulted deceased Nos.1 and 2 and also lodging of the complaint before the concerned police. P.W.2 who is the son of P.W.1 deposed that he came to the place of incident and saw the accused running away and P.W.1 trying to catch hold of the accused. P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the person who took photographs. P.W.5, who is the Panchayat Secretary, deposed about drafting of observation report and other facts. P.W.5 deposed in his cross-examination that P.W.1 lodged a report to him stating that he suspects his son-in-law in connection with the murder. P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.7 and 8 turned hostile. P.W.9, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem deposed as to the injuries sustained by both the deceased and the manner in which the post mortem was conducted. P.W.10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered FIR on the basis of complaint. P.W.11 deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant- accused submitted that P.W.5 deposed that P.W.1 lodged the report to him even prior to arrival of police officials stating that he suspects his son-in-law in the commission of the offence, and therefore, it can be said that P.W.1 had not firmly stated that his son in law (accused) is responsible for commission of the offence and therefore, naming the accused in the complaint is nothing but an improvement and such a complaint cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused. Further, it is contended that in view of the evidence of P.W.5 that P.W.1 suspected his son-in-law in the commission of the offence, it can be said that he is not the eye witness to the incident and therefore, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of P.W.1 and the same can be eschewed from consideration. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.5 deliberately informed the Court that he received a complaint from P.W.1 and that, the fact remains that he reached the place only by 8.30 a.m. and the case has been registered at 8 A.M. , whereas it is the case of the appellant-accused that the case has been registered by 8.00 p.m.. In this regard, the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that P.w.1 was admittedly an illiterate and the V.A.O. might have obtained his thumb impression and recorded the statement which is subsequent to Ex.P1 and if really, Ex.P1 is a substituted one, it would have contained the name of P.w.2, are just and reasonable and therefore, there is nothing on record to doubt the bonafides of Ex.P1 recitals. Perused the entire evidence and also the documents adduced by the prosecution and also the judgment under appeal. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that if the evidence of P.W.5 is taken into consideration, P.W.1 cannot be termed as an eye witness to the occurrence and a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 together makes it clear that P.W.1 admitted that he gave a report to P.W.5-Panchayat Secretary. But, he has not stated that he informed P.W.5 suspecting the accused in the crime and that P.W.1 has not stated in detail anything on that aspect except stating that he informed P.W.5 about the offence and that the evidence of P.W.5 does not support the case of the prosecution. It is his further contention that unfortunately the prosecution failed to cross- examine him by declaring the witness as hostile. The fact that remains in the case on hand is that P.W.5 deposed before the Court what had stated before the police. On a closer scrutiny of evidence of P.W.5, it is obvious that he deliberately answered in the cross-examination and his evidence in cross- examination is not shaken in any way. P.W.5, who also signed the inquest report, categorically mentioned in the inquest report at column No.15 that the present appellant is the person, who committed the offence. P.w.5, being a Panchayat Secretary having respect to his duties signed in the document knowing fully well the contents of the inquest report. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out the contradictions as to the report given by P.W.1 to P.W.5. It is to be noticed that minor contradictions may occur due to the observations and the memory which may differ from person to person. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is in corroboration with the circumstances. Therefore, minor contradictions do not create any reasonable doubt as to truthfulness of the prosecution story. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and P.W.5, the material objects i.e., the bed sheet containing the blood stains and also the knife containing the blood, play a vital role. The FSL report received by the Investigating Agency clearly discloses that Bed Sheet and knife both contain human blood, which is one and the same i.e., “blood group of A” So, there is no reason to disbelieve the certificate issued by the FSL. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence and the FSL report, proves the complicity of the accused in the offence in question. The learned Sessions Judge has also considered all these aspects in a proper perspective and those observations do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with the judgment under appeal as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. _________________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy ____________________ Justice Raja Elango Date: 25th October, 2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.608 OF 2007 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) 25.10.2010