Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rajeti Durga Rao, Vizianagaram Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 17 August, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.864 of 2015
JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy) The appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") in Sessions Case No.53 of 2015 vide judgment, dated 12.08.2015, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the calendar and judgment, dated 12.08.2015, the present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") challenging the conviction and sentence.
2. The deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi is the stepmother of the accused/appellant, he used to harass her and beat her particularly, after the death of his father about two years prior to the incident. A few months before the offence, they started living separately in a rented house of L.W.3 - Arasada Hemalatha in the same locality. However, the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi married L.W.5 - Gottapu Narasimhulu in the interest of her future on 17.02.2013 in the presence of elders including L.W.10 - Telidevara Surya Nageswara Sharma and the marriage of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was disliked by the accused/appellant. While so, on 19.02.2013, at about 4:00 P.M., the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was chatting at the steps of the house of R.Simhachalamnaidu with L.W.3, L.W.7 - Nulu 2 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 Venkataramani and L.W.9 - Arasada Padma. After sometime, when L.W.3 was sending away her co-sister Padma, the accused suddenly came out of his house holding a wooden leg (mancham kodu) of a cot and dealt a heavy blow on the head of Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi on her back. The deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi raised cry as "Amma," fell on the steps and slipped on to the cement road. L.W.4 - Rejeti Sankara Rao, who is the brother of the accused, came out, took his step mother's head into his lap and poured some water into her mouth. L.W.4 chastised the accused/appellant, who threatened to kill him also if he speaks any more. Immediately, P.W.6 - Edubilli Kurminaidu, a neighbour, called 108 ambulance and the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was shifted to the Government Hospital, Bobbili, where, on examination, the doctors declared her as dead.
A report was lodged by P.W.7 - Telidevara Surya Nageswara Sharma, the Village Revenue Officer, with the police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2013 of Bobbili Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and investigated into.
On 20.02.2013, at about 07-30 hours, the Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the scene and collected blood stained cement flakes from the road under the cover of observation report.
On 19.02.2013, the accused came to Bobbili Police Station along with a bag containing the wooden leg of the cot with which he caused injuries and made a disclosure statement before the Inspector of Police in the presence of L.Ws.10 and 11 - Telidevara 3 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 Surya Nageswara Sharma and Arasada Muralidhara Rao. The accused was arrested at 19-45 hours and produced before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili for remand.
The post mortem report disclosed that there is fracture on the occipital region of the skull and L.W.12 - Dr. G.Sesibhushana Rao opined that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage.
The pant and shirt of the accused which he was wearing at the time of offence, the blood stained wooden cot leg were seized from the accused on 19.02.2013 under a mediators' report, the blood stained cotton shirt and lungi seized from P.W.3 on 20.02.2013 during his examination, blood stained cement road flakes seized on 20.02.2013 under the cover of observation report and the clothes on the person of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi were sent to RFSL along with a letter of advice and on receipt of the report of the RFSL and after completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.
The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, after following procedure under Sections 207 and 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Vizianagaram Division, as the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.
The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram has took up the case for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
4 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015
3. On production of accused/appellant from the jail before the trial Court, at the request of the accused, the District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram provided him Legal Aid Counsel to defend him. Upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, the trial Court framed sole charge against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 besides case property - M.Os.1 to 20.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
6. Upon hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.
7. Aggrieved by the calendar and judgment, the present appeal is filed on various grounds but during hearing, Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned Legal Aid Counsel, contended that the accused had no intention to cause the death of his stepmother and therefore, the offence would fall within Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and requested to modify the conviction and sentence.
5 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015
8. The prosecution case is based on direct evidence of P.W.5 and circumstantial evidence of P.W.8. The first witness - P.W.1 - Kella Nagamani is another circumstantial witness and testified that she is a neighbour, whose house is situated at a short distance intervened by four or five houses and the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was the stepmother of the accused/appellant, who died on 19.02.2013. One Nulu Venkataramani is residing in the house by the side of her house intervened by three houses and on the date of incident, at about 4:00 P.M., while she was going on road, found the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi lying on the road near the steps of the house of Nulu Venkataramani and several persons gathered there and due to fear, she went away.
9. Similarly, P.W.2 - Arasada Hemalatha testified in the same lines but she found the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi with an injury in the lap of Sankara Rao - P.W.3, who was weeping, and she also found head injury on the body of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi. She also found the accused/appellant while going holding a wooden cot leg. Then, she enquired Sankara Rao as to what had happened there. In the cross examination of P.W.2, she admitted that her husband was working as Home Guard but now, she is housewife and that she did not state before the police that at about 2 P.M., she was at her house. Therefore, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony, more particularly, about noticing the accused while proceeding on the road holding a wooden cot leg, which is a crime weapon.
10. Similarly, P.W.3 - Rejeti Sankara Rao, stepson of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi and brother of the accused/appellant, stated about the finding injury on the head of 6 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi. He admitted that he did not witness the incident but he was told by some persons that the accused was going with a stick from the scene of offence. At best, his evidence is useful to establish the injury found on the body of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi and not for establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant on the ground that he caused injury which led to the death of Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi. Though the evidence of P.W.2 is not directly pointing out the guilt of the accused, the evidence of P.W.5 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
11. P.W.5 - Nulu Venkataramani is the direct witness, according to her, on 19.02.2013, the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi died. On that day, at about 4:00 P.M., while she was sitting along with her neighbouring ladies in front of her house, the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was also sitting along with them. At that time, the accused/appellant came there with a cot leg and hit the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi on her head and on that, immediately, she fell down. Sankara Rao - P.W.3 poured water in her mouth and someone telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted injured Laxmi to hospital. Thus, P.W.5 is the direct witness, who witnessed the incident while sitting with the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi, and the possibility of witnessing the incident when they were chatting cannot be ruled out in all probabilities. In the cross examination, learned counsel for the defence elicited that she was sitting at the entrance of her house and the road is situated on the northern side of her house and she was looking towards northern side while she was talking to other women and the material elicited in the cross examination is of no assistance to 7 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 disprove witnessing of the incident directly. A bald suggestion was put to the witness that she did not state before the police that she was sitting at the threshold of her house i.e., at the entrance of the house and the suggestion was denied by the witness. However, she admitted that she did not raise cries on noticing the accused/appellant reaching by holding M.O.10 before he hit the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi . This admission is of no use to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and more particularly, to discredit the testimony of P.W.5. When the accused is a neighbour, who was coming on road holding a wooden cot leg, there is no necessity to raise cries for her, as holding such cot leg is not an unusual thing but she raised cries after he hit the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi. The evidence of P.W.5 is natural and probablises the case of the prosecution in all respects. P.W.5 is an independent witness and nothing was attributed to her to speak against the accused in the entire cross examination. Therefore, in the absence of any animosity or enmity between them, the question of speaking falsehood against this accused by P.W.5, who is an independent witness, does not arise in normal course. Therefore, P.W.5 is a wholly truthful witness and on the strength of such independent testimony of P.W.5, the Court can record conviction of the accused without insisting independent corroboration from any other witness, if, it inspires the confidence of the Court. P.W.5 is an independent witness and nothing is attributed to her to disbelieve or discredit her testimony and therefore, her testimony inspires confidence on the strength of her evidence and therefore, the learned District and Sessions Judge recorded conviction of the accused rightly.
8 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015
12. Apart from the above evidence, the evidence of P.W.8 would disclose that at about 4:00 P.M., on the date of incident, when he heard cries of a lady from outside the house, he immediately came out from the house and found the accused coming from the scene of offence when Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi was beaten by holding a cot leg in his hand and the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi fell down with an injury. When he tried to apprehend the accused, the accused threatened him to give a blow and due to fear, he stayed away. Even in the cross examination of P.W.8, nothing was elicited and all the witnesses more particularly, P.Ws.5 and 8 are independent witnesses and neighbouring residents of the scene of offence and known to each other. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 corroborated the testimony of P.W.5. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 support the prosecution case and apart from that, medical evidence of P.W.10 clearly establish that the fracture injury was caused to occipital bone of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi and it is clearly stated that the injury found on the body of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi, could be caused with a weapon like M.O.1. In the cross examination, except eliciting that the injury could be possible due to fall on a hard surface like steps, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. The consistent oral and medical evidence established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
13. During hearing, learned counsel mainly contended that the appellant had no intention to kill his stepmother - deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that he was not liking the second marriage of the deceased Rejeti Laxmi @ Parvathi, after the death of his father, as 9 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 she was the stepmother of the accused/appellant, and causing of injury with a heavy weapon like M.O.10 is sufficient to conclude that he came out from the house holding M.O.10 with an intention to kill her. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant is rejected as it is merit less.
14. On close perusal of the entire calendar and judgment and the evidence available on record, we find that the learned District and Sessions Judge recorded the finding based on direct evidence of P.W.5 whose evidence is corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 8 and the medical evidence of P.W.10. In the absence of any illegality in the calendar and judgment or perversity, interference of this Court is not warranted under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, we find no merit and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.
15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 12.08.2015, in Sessions Case No.53 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 17.8.2019 AMD 10 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl.A.No.864 of 2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.864 of 2015 Date : 17.8.2019 AMD