Case: Orsu Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

2. The accused, who belonged to Wyra village in Khammam District of Andhra Pradesh, moved to Garia village with his family for eking out his livelihood by digging the wells. They were living on rent in a portion of the house belonging to PW4s husband who was a teacher. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to consume liquor and beat up his wife now and then suspecting her fidelity. On the crucial day i.e. 4th March, 1993, it is alleged that the accused returned home by about 9.00 p.m. after consuming toddy and abused the deceased casting aspersions on her character. When she protested, he dragged her to the middle room of the house where the two children (PWs 2 and 16) were lying on the bed and tied a rope around her neck and placed the rope on the beam about 9 feet above the floor level and hanged her till death. As the children started crying, he commanded them to keep quiet showing a sickle against them. Thereafter, he bolted the door from outside and remained in another room. After sometime, the children raised hue and cry to alert the neighbour. It is alleged that PWs 3 and 4 living in the adjacent portion, after hearing the cries of PWs 2 and 16 that their mother was hanged to death, rushed to the other portion of the house. The accused opened the door and when they went inside they found the Chilakamma was hanging to the beam with a rope tied to her neck. Thereafter, the accused cut the rope and brought the body of Chilakamma outside and she was carried to the Government hospital at Garla by the accused and others. The two sons also accompanied. The Doctor at the hospital declared that she was dead. The accused took the dead body in a jeep to Wyra where the parents of the accused were residing. The accused gave impression to others that she died (committed suicide) on account of fits. The accused sent a message through PW8 to the parents of the deceased in the morning hours of 5.3.1993 that the deceased was hospitalized.brother of the deceased Chilakamma, with his parents and others went to Wyra. Having seen the dead body and the injuries thereon, the father of PW1 lodged a report in the police station at Wyra at about 3.00 p.m. on 5.3.1993 in which he stated that he was suspecting hisaccused for causing the death of his daughter. The FIR was prepared and the crime was registered by PW21 (Head Constable) who went to the spot and held the inquest over the dead body between 3.30 and 5.30 p.m. In the inquest report, it was noted that the ligature marks were found around the throat of the deceased. During the inquest, PW21 examined the father of the deceased the informant, his wife and PW1. He sent the dead body to the Government hospital at Madira for postmortem. As the place of occurrence was within the limits of Garla police station, he transferred the case file to Garla police station with a covering letter (Ext. P17) which according to PW19 was received at about 8.00 p.m. on 5.3.1993. Thereafter, PW19 theof Garla police station,the case and took up the investigation. He claimed to have recorded the statements of PWs 2 and 16 on the same day. He examined the father of the deceased and the two children PWs 2 & 16 at Garla on 6.3.1993 at the house of the accused. From the stage onwards, the investigation was taken up by PW20 the Inspector of Police, Garla Bayyaram. PW20 visited the scene of offence on 7.3.1993 and prepared a rough sketch of the scene. He claims to have reexamined PWs 2 & 16 apart from the informant, his wife and son (PW1), PWs 3 to 6 and three others on 6.3.1993 itself. On the next day, he examined PW8 and others. On 15.3.1993, he filed a requisition before the J.F.C.M., Kothagudem to record the statements of the two sons of the deceased. Accordingly, they were recorded. The accused was arrested on 26.3.1993. At his instance, the two pieces of ropes (M.Os. 3 & 4) placed in a heap of husk within the house were recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. On receipt of lab reports, he filed a

Court's reasoning:
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