Case: Orsu Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

could hear the voice and cries of children at a later point of time. If there was a fight and when the fight was going on, at least PW 16, who was aged 10 years would not have kept quiet. He would have raised hue and cry or run out of the house for help. 7. According to PW2, they cried and raised the alarm only sometime after their father left the room bolting the door from outside. It is to be noted that the process of strangulation and throwing the rope over the beam which is 9Â½ feet above the ground level, and then tying the rope around the beam is not a simple process. It would have taken considerable time. It is possible to believe that all this time, the children were confined to their bed, though there was ample time and possibility of moving out during the time the accused was committing the crime? Apart from the unnatural conduct and responses of PWs 2 & 16, we have a doubt whether the hanging of the victim to the beam as spoken to by PWs 2 & 16 was at all possible. The beam, according to the observation of the I.O. was 9Â½ ft. above the ground level. It is doubtful whether it was possible to throw the rope on the beam after fastening it around her neck and then hang her while standing on the floor. For all these reasons, the evidence of the two children who claimed to be the eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence. 8. The evidence of PWs 3, 4 & 6 is in the nature of corroborating evidence. They are supposed to have gone to the house of the accused after hearing the cries of the children. Before adverting to the evidence of PWs 3 & 4, it must be noted that they are the brother and mother of PW5 by name Mohan with whom the deceased had illicit contact, according to the defence version. PW5 was confronted with the statements made to the police (D4 & D5) that he was having illicit intimacy with the deceased and that on the crucial day and just before the occurrence he was spending time with Chilakamma after leaving the house on the false pretext of movie (2nd show). Of course, he denied having stated so to the police. This background should be kept in view while appreciating their evidence. PW4 comes forward with a version that around 9.30 p.m., on hearing the cries of PWs 2 & 16,she made queries from her house as to why they were weeping and they informed her that their mother was hanged by a rope by their father. Then she and her son PW3 went to the house of the accused and saw the deceased hanging from the beam. It is doubtful whether the words alleged to have been uttered by PWs 2 or 16 from an enclosed room be heard by PW4 though the noise and cries could have been heard in view of the fact that they were living in the adjacent portion of the house. If PW4s version was correct, immediately on meeting the children, she would have ascertained the details from the children or she would have revealed it to other immediately. In fact PW3 did not go to the extent of saying that they over-heard the children saying that the accused killed their mother by hanging her. He only stated that they knocked at the door whereupon the accused opened the door and the children on seeing the mother embraced her and thereafter they saw the deceased in hanging posture. Thus the evidence of PW4 in so far as she put certain incriminating words in the mouth of the children is unbelievable. PW6 is a neighbour, residing in the house in the opposite direction. She deposed almost on the same lines at PW3. One fact to be noticed is that this witness and her husband accompanied the deceased along with the accused and the children to the hospital. She did not state anything as to what the children revealed to her though she was in their company for a considerable time. 9. There is one more aspect which deserves to be noticed in the context of evidence of PWs 3, 4 & 6. All of them in one voice stated that the police examined them at about noon time on the next day and recorded their statements at Garla which means the investigation at Garla had started even by 5.3.1993 whereas it is made to appear that such investigation commenced only in the night of 6.3.1993, i.e. nearly 33 hours later, as spoken to by PW20. Thus the earliest statements of PWs 3, 4 & 6 seem to have been suppressed. This is another infirmity in the prosecution case. 10. We are constrained to go into the matter in detail for the reason that the judgment of the High Court is sketchy and slipshod. What all has been said by the High Court is that the evidence of PWs 2 & 16 inspires confidence and their testimony remained unshaken in cross examination. It is further observed that the evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by medical evidence without appreciating the fact that PW18 the doctor was unable to say from the ligature marks or other features, whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. There was no critical evaluation of the evidence of the two child witnesses and there was no consideration of material aspects bearing on the veracity of the version given by PWs 2 & 16. In these circumstances, we cannot put our seal of approval to the conclusions of the High Court though concurrent they are. True, the circumstances raise strong suspicion against the accused, but it is difficult to sustain the conviction, once the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses is discarded as unworthy of credence. This is a case in which benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]He reserved the opinion as to cause of death. On receipt of report from the Department of Forensic Medicine and the Forensic Science Laboratory, PW18 gave the opinion as per Ext. P11 that death was on account of asphyxia due to hanging. He deposed that the ligature marks were ante mortem in nature and that it was not possible to say whether ligature marks were attributable to suicide or homicide. He clarified that the injuries other than the ligature marks cannot beaccused then placed a rope around her neck, threw the rope over the beam and pulled the rope so as to cause her death. She was made to hang form the beam. When they cried and tried to intervene, the accused threatened to harm them showing a sickle towards them. Then, by bolting the door from outside, he slept in the first room. After some time, they raised hue and cry. Then PWs 3 & 4 came there and unbolted the door. Thereafter, their mother was taken to the hospital in a doli by their father accompanied by them and PWs 3 & 6. She was pronounced dead by the doctor. Then, the accused brought a hired jeep and took the dead body to the village Garla where their paternal grandparents were living. They also went in the jeep with the dead body. After sometime, their maternal grandparents and relatives came knowing about the death of their mother. PW2 would say that his father threatened them and asked them to tell others that his mother died on account of fits (perhaps meaning that she committed suicide in view of fits). PW2 further stated that his maternal grandparents enquired at about 7.00 or 8.00 p.m. on the next day (i.e. 5.3.1993) and at the point of time they revealed the real reason for the cause of death of their mother. However, PW16, the elder boy did not state so. The suggestion that they were tutored by the maternal grandparents wasfact, PW16 stated that after the police came and saw the dead body of his mother, his maternal grandparents and uncles asked him as to how his mother died. It shows that the version of PWs 2 & 16 was very much within the knowledge of their maternal grandparents and PW1 and there is no reason why they withheld the information to the police. PW21, who held the inquest, came forward with a curious version that he did not see the children when he went there and therefore he could not record their statements. But, such version of PW21 is demolished by the evidence of PWs 2 & 16 themselves which discloses in unmistakable terms that they were very much available at the place. The first thing that any Police Officer should have done was to enquire from the children who were in the know of things. No sensible police officer would refrain from examining the children at the earliest opportunity. Hence the statement of PW2 that they were examined at Wyra itself by the police must be correct. But, as per the police records, the examination of PWs 2 & 16 took place at Garla at the house of the accused (scene of offence) only in the night of 6th March, 1993 when PW19 reached there after getting the case file from Wyra at about 8 p.m.Multiple abrasions were found on the deceased which were notThat means, before strangulation, there should have been severe resistance by the deceased and in that process she would have received these injuries. But, nothing is mentioned about the fight by PWs 2 & 16. In fact, the deceased herself would have cried aloud and it could have been easily heard by PWs 3 & 4 who were living in the adjacent room. PWs 3 & 4s evidence reveals that they could hear the voice and cries of children at a later point of time. If there was a fight and when the fight was going on, at least PW 16, who was aged 10 years would not have kept quiet. He would have raised hue and cry or run out of the house foris doubtful whether the words alleged to have been uttered by PWs 2 or 16 from an enclosed room be heard by PW4 though the noise and cries could have been heard in view of the fact that they were living in the adjacent portion of the house. If PW4s version was correct, immediately on meeting the children, she would have ascertained the details from the children or she would have revealed it to other immediately. In fact PW3 did not go to the extent of saying that theythe children saying that the accused killed their mother by hanging her. He only stated that they knocked at the door whereupon the accused opened the door and the children on seeing the mother embraced her and thereafter they saw the deceased in hanging posture. Thus the evidence of PW4 in so far as she put certain incriminating words in the mouth of the children is unbelievable. PW6 is a neighbour, residing in the house in the opposite direction. She deposed almost on the same lines at PW3. One fact to be noticed is that this witness and her husband accompanied the deceased along with the accused and the children to the hospital. She did not state anything as to what the children revealed to her though she was in their company for a considerableis doubtful whether the words alleged to have been uttered by PWs 2 or 16 from an enclosed room be heard by PW4 though the noise and cries could have been heard in view of the fact that they were living in the adjacent portion of the house. If PW4s version was correct, immediately on meeting the children, she would have ascertained the details from the children or she would have revealed it to other immediately. In fact PW3 did not go to the extent of saying that theythe children saying that the accused killed their mother by hanging her. He only stated that they knocked at the door whereupon the accused opened the door and the children on seeing the mother embraced her and thereafter they saw the deceased in hanging posture. Thus the evidence of PW4 in so far as she put certain incriminating words in the mouth of the children is unbelievable. PW6 is a neighbour, residing in the house in the opposite direction. She deposed almost on the same lines at PW3. One fact to be noticed is that this witness and her husband accompanied the deceased along with the accused and the children to the hospital. She did not state anything as to what the children revealed to her though she was in their company for a considerable