Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vfiswanadhapalli Mutyalamma, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 14 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1514 OF 2010
Between:
Viswanadhapalli Mutyalama,
W/o Raghava Raju, aged 35 years,
R/o Kanagalavaripalem Village,
Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. .... Appellant/Accused.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent/complainant.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.03.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the order? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1514 OF 2010
% 14.03.2023
# Between:
Viswanadhapalli Mutyalama,
W/o Raghava Raju, aged 35 years,
R/o Kanagalavaripalem Village,
Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. .... Appellant/Accused.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ... Respondent/complainant.
! Counsel for the Petitioner :
Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, representing
Sri A. Rajendra Babu.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1977 LawSuit (Patna) 34
1984 LawSuit (Bombay) 153
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5068
(2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 408
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3101
(1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 79
(1964) 7 SCR 361=AIR 1964 SC 1563
This Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:-
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions Case No.1 of 2010, on the file of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur District at Tenali ("the learned Additional Sessions Judge" for short), challenging the judgment, dated 23.11.2010, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found the accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and acquitted her under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), but, found her guilty of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and convicted her under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. After questioning the accused about the quantum of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence in S.C.No.1 of 2010 as above, the unsuccessful accused filed the present Criminal Appeal, 4 challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The Sessions Case No.1 of 2010 arose out of a committal order passed in P.R.C.No.20 of 2009, on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, pertaining to Crime No.76 of 2009 of Repalle Police Station under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 of I.P.C.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed in the above said Crime Number by the Inspector of Police, Repalle, is as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Kanagalavaripalem Village, Karakatta. Accused is a woman and she is no other than the daughter-in-law of one Viswanadhapalli Appalaswamy, S/o Raghavaiah, aged 60 years (hereinafter will be referred to as "deceased"). L.W.1-Nadakuditi Rajyalaxmi is the neighbour to the house of the accused and deceased and distinct relative of the accused. L.W.6-Nadikuditi Sridevi and L.W.7-Nadikuditi Nagasudha are the injured. The deceased used to live by fishing and by coolie works. The kith and kin of the deceased used to stay by the side of his house in separate houses. All of them 5 erected their huts in Krishna Karakatta. The accused is no other than the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The injured girls L.W.6 and L.W.7 are no other than the brother's daughters of the accused.
(ii) The marriage of one Devika, who is the elder daughter of the accused, was fixed to be celebrated in Tirupati on 09.04.2009. The accused disliked the marriage profile of her would be son-in-law. On 08.04.2009 the husband of the accused and his other kith and kin went to Tirupati to celebrate the marriage of Devika by leaving the accused alone at the house.
She got furious about the fact that she was left in the house by the inmates when the marriage of her elder sister is going to be performed at Tirupati. She suspected that the deceased, L.W.6 and L.W.7, injured, are responsible in fixing the marriage profile of her daughter against her will and that they played main role in leaving her at home without allowing her to attend the marriage at Tirupati.
(iii) While so, on 09.04.2009 the accused along with L.W.8-Nadakuditi Nagendramma, the mother of the accused, slept on one cot inside the house of the accused. The deceased, who is father-in-law of the accused, slept on a separate cot in front of the house of the accused under the marriage pendyal. All of sudden, at 3-30 a.m., accused woke up, came out of the 6 house, picked up a big Axe and hacked over the throat and beard portions of the deceased when he slept on the cot five times with the said Axe and caused his instantaneous death. Suddenly, the mother of the accused (L.W.8) woke up from the sleep and to her dismay found that the accused is not found on the cot. Hence, she came out of the house and found that the accused was holding a big Axe in her hand with blood stains over her person and also found the deceased in a pool of blood on the cot. Then, she questioned about the act of the accused and the accused came up on her and tried to scratch her by caught hold of her throat and due to fear, the mother of the accused rescued from the clutches of the accused and ran into the village which is located on the other side of Penumudi canal behind the house of the accused. Later, the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased to a distance of about 58 feet towards Penumudi canal behind the house and thrown away the dead body of the deceased in the said canal. After that she went to the house of L.W.2-Nadakuditi Meenakshi, L.W.6 and L.W.7 which is situated at a distance of about 40 yards just by the side of her house on South. She forcibly entered into the house from behind and hacked L.W.6 and L.W.7 and attempted to kill them with the Axe while they were sleeping. She caused bleeding injuries over their head portions and hands. Due to 7 their cries, L.W.1-Nadakuditi Rajyalaxmi and L.W.3-Nagidi Laxmi rushed there and tried to rescue them. The accused also bite the right middle finger and below the left elbow of L.W.1 and later escaped with the weapon. The mother of the accused (L.W.8) shifted the injured to Government General Hospital, Guntur in 108 Ambulance.
(iv) L.W.1 turned up to the police station and presented a report to L.W.17-Sub Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station. L.W.17 registered it as a case in Crime No.76 of 2009 under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of I.P.C. on 10.04.2009 at 8-00 a.m. L.W.18-Inspector of Police, Repalle Circle, took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he inspected the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.10-Bhattiprole Venkatsubrahmanya Sarma and L.W.11-Nadakuditi Sekharbabu, the mediators, on 10.04.2009 at 10-00 a.m., and seized blood stained earth and controlled earth from the scene of offence under the cover of mahazar. He got the dead body of the deceased photographed by engaging a private Photographer i.e., L.W.9-Karumuri Satyam. He prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 12-00 noon to 2-00 p.m. in the presence of L.W.10 and L.W.11 and further L.W.12-Saikam Subba Rao. During inquest, he examined L.W.1 to L.W.5. He sent the dead 8 body for postmortem examination. He also recorded the statements of L.W.6 to L.W.9 after inquest. He arrested the accused on 20.04.2009 at 11-00 a.m., at Penumudi Krishna river bridge entrance in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.10, L.W.13 and basing on her confession, Axe was seized from foot bridge situated at Kanagalavaripalem village near the house of the accused under the cover of a separate mahazar attested by L.W.10 and L.W.13. Later, he forwarded the accused to the concerned Court for remand. He further forwarded the seized material objects to RFSL, Guntur and obtained report to the effect that the material objects contained human blood stains.
(v) L.W.14-the medical officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to lacerated injury on neck due to Axe and cardio respiratory failure and fresh water drowning. L.W.15-the medical officer took X-ray and Scan of L.W.6 and issued report stating that there are fractures on the body of L.W6. L.W.16- the medical officer treated L.W.6 and L.W.7 and issued wound certificates stating that injuries of L.W.6 are grievous and L.W.7 are simple in nature. After completion of the investigation, L.W.18 filed the charge sheet. The accused brutally murdered the deceased with an Axe and attempted to kill L.W.6 and L.W.7 in view of the family disputes, as such, she rendered herself for 9 punishment under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 of I.P.C. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, took cognizance of the case under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 324 of I.P.C. against the accused and after appearance of the accused, furnished copies of documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as the case appears to be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, by exercising the powers under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Division, Guntur, after numbering the same, made over to the Court of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tenali.
6) On appearance of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of I.P.C., for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7) In order to bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by 10 the prosecution, for which she denied the same and stated that she has defence witnesses and she did not commit any office. In furtherance of the defence, accused examined D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
8) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C., but found her guilty of the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced her as above.
9) Before going to frame the point for consideration, this Court would like to make it clear that as against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of I.P.C., there is no appeal filed by the prosecution.
10) In the light of the conviction imposed against the appellant before the Court below, now the simple question that falls for consideration is as to whether the accused on 09.04.2009 at early hours, attempted to kill L.W.6-Nadikuditi Sridevi and L.W.7-Nadikuditi Nagasudha with an Axe by attacking them on the vital parts of body and whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 11 POINT:-
11) Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that according to the case of the prosecution, father-in-
law of the accused by name Appalaswamy was hacked by the accused. The residences of the accused as well as the injured were separate. The deceased house was by the side of Karakatta. The prosecution alleged that P.W.5 and P.W.6 were the injured witnesses, who were attacked by the accused. Even according to the case of the prosecution, houses of P.W.5 and P.W.6 were located one house away from the house of the accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed murder of the deceased and after that she attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 at a different place. The Court below disbelieved the allegation of murder raised against the accused. But, the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously believed the case of the prosecution with regard to the injuries received by P.W.5 and P.W.6. P.W.1, the author of Ex.P.1, did not support the case of the prosecution. She did not testify that she received any injuries in the hands of accused. The prosecution did not prove the motive on the part of the accused in attacking P.W.5 and P.W.6. P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 alone supported the case of the prosecution. They are interested in the case of the 12 prosecution. The case of the prosecution with regard to the murder of the deceased and the alleged of attempt made on P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused were interlinked with each other. In the absence of establishing the case of the prosecution under Section 302 of I.P.C., the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. must fail. P.W.5 and P.W.6, according to the case of the prosecution, were no other than the daughters of brother of the accused. The reason set up by the prosecution to cause injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6 by the accused is nothing but flimsy. Simply because, the accused was alleged to have entertained a doubt that P.W.5 and P.W.6 supported the marriage of elder daughter of the accused, it cannot be held that the accused developed an intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6. The prosecution did not prove the motive and intention which are essential factors to prove the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. If really the accused had intention to kill P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would have completed the task. P.W.7, the mother of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. According to the evidence of P.W.11, the medical officer, the fracture on the person of P.W.5 could also be possible by fall. As regards the allegations that the accused committed murder of the deceased, there was no legally admissible evidence adduced by the prosecution. With regard to the allegations that the accused hacked P.W.5 and P.W.6, 13 prosecution based upon their case on interested testimony of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. None of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The investigation was stage managed by the police. The police used the self-same mediators with regard to the observation of the scene of offence, inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 10.04.2009. They used the self-same mediators even for the arrest of the accused on 20.04.2009. The recovery of M.O.1 in pursuance of the so-called disclosure statement made by the accused is highly suspicious in the light of the above. The accused took a plea that during period of the allegations raised against her, her mental condition was not proper. She let in evidence by examining D.W.1 and getting marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 without proper reason, the Court below disbelieved the defence theory. He would contend that the prosecution on its own failed to prove the case and even otherwise the accused was suffering with mental disorder at the time of offence. At any rate, the conviction imposed against the appellant is not sustainable under law and facts.
12) In support of the contentions he would rely upon the decisions in (1) Surju Marandi vs. State of Bihar 1 , (2) Nivrutti @ Limba Dhondiba Shinde vs. State of 1 1977 LawSuit (Patna) 34 14 Maharashtra2, (3) Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar 3 , (4) State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh 4 and Fireman Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)5.
13) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 is consistent with each other and corroborative with each other. The injuries received by P.W.5 and P.W.6 were on vital parts of the body. Unfortunately, as P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the prosecution could not prove the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused after attacking Appalaswamy, rushed to the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and violently attacked them. She also caused injuries to P.W.1. The evidence insofar as the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. is concerned, is cogent, trustworthy and believable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly disbelieved the defence theory. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant would not support his contentions in any way. With the above contentions, Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, sought for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal. 2 1984 LawSuit (Bombay) 153 3 AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5068 4 (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 408 5 AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3101 15
14) P.W.1 is no other than the defacto-complainant, who set the criminal law in motion. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 also received an injury in the hands of the accused when the accused bite her on her hands, but it is a fact that she did not support the case of the prosecution. Her evidence is that she knows the accused. Sreedevi and Nagasudha are elder sisters of Meenakshi. The deceased is the father-in-law of the accused. Her (P.W.1) husband is a Constable in A.P.S.P. She is living with her husband near Karakatta in Kangalavaripalem. House of the accused is on the right side of her house in between another house. Appalaswami died about one year ago. On the date of occurrence, her husband was not in the house. When she woke up, she came to know that Appalaswamy died. She did not see the dead body. She did not report the murder of Appalaswamy to police. The Additional Public Prosecutor impeached the testimony of P.W.1 by cross examining her after got her declared as hostile and during the course of cross examination, she denied that she gave report under Ex.P.1 and that she is deposing false. She deposed in cross examination that she studied up to 10th class. She did not see what was written in Ex.P.1. She is not in the habit of signing documents without reading. Because of tension of the death of Appalaswamy, she signed Ex.P.1 without 16 knowing the contents. It is true that the accused was in the house along with her in-laws. The other family members went to Tirupati to attend the marriage of Devika, daughter of the accused. She knows Nagini Lakshmi, who is aged 50 years and her neighbor. She denied that Nagini Lakshmi also slept in the house of her house as she was alone. She further denied the case of the prosecution and denied that she stated as in Ex.P.2.
15) According to P.W.13, the investigating officer, P.W.1 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. He further testified that P.W.1 came to the police station and gave her statement and Sub Inspector of Police recorded the same as a case in Crime No.76 of 2009. There is no dispute that P.W.1 for obvious reasons did not support the case of the prosecution. Apart from this, P.W.3 and P.W.7, the mother of the accused, also did not support the case of the prosecution. The basis for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to acquit the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. was that of the evidence of P.W.1 and as there was none to speak that the accused committed the murder of the deceased. The basis for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to convict the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. was that of the evidence of P.W.2, direct witness, with regard to the attack made on P.W.5 and P.W.6 and the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, the injured witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence. 17
16) Turning to the evidence of P.W.2, Meenakshi, her evidence is that she knows the deceased Appalaswamy. The accused killed Appalaswamy about one year ago during early hours at 3-00 to 3-30 a.m. House of the accused was by the side of her house. She, Sreedevi and Nagasudha were sleeping in their house. At about 3-00 or 3-30 a.m., accused entered in their house with an Axe and attacked Sreedevi on the forehead, above the eyebrows and eye and her hands. The little fingers of both hands are injured. Sreedevi lost her left eye. The accused caused injury with an Axe on the head of Nagasudha. Then, she (P.W.2) shouted for help. Then, P.W.1 and Nagidi Lakshmi came to their residence. The accused bite on the right hand fingers of P.W.1 and left elbow. Then, the accused ran away with the Axe. She (P.W.2) escaped from the hands of the accused. Then, they came out and Nagendramma, mother of the accused, informed to them that the accused killed Appalaswamy and dragged the body into the canal and then attacked them. The family members of the accused went to Tirupati for marriage of eldest daughter of the accused. The accused was in the house with her father-in-law and her mother. On the same day, P.W.1 gave report to police. She can identify the Axe used by the accused in the commission of offence. M.O.1 is Axe.
18
17) According to P.W.3, she did not know as to whether Appalawamy is alive or not. She did not know why the accused made appearance in the Court. As P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, prosecution got declared her as hostile and during the course of cross examination, she denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P.3. P.W.13 also testified that P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.3.
18) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, his evidence is that he came to know that the dead body of Appalaswamy was in the canal near the house. He went there and saw the dead body. On the advice of Appalaswamy, S/o Prasad, dead body was moved on to the ground from the canal. There were injuries caused by the accused in the person of Appalaswamy.
19) Turning to the evidence of P.W.5, the injured witness, she deposed that P.W.2 is her elder sister. Nagasudha is also her younger sister. Nagendramma is her paternal grandmother. The accused is her paternal aunt. Deceased is her grandfather by relation. The incident occurred during the intervening night of 09.04.2009 and 10.04.2009 around 3-30 a.m., on 10.04.2009. She, P.W.2 and Nagasudha slept in their house. Her parents went to Tirupati to attend the marriage of Devika, daughter of accused. Appalaswamy did not attend the marriage. All of sudden, at about 3-30 a.m., the accused 19 entered into their house forcibly with an Axe. She shouted that she would kill them. The accused gave her blows with an Axe on the right side of her forehead. One blow caused injury above the eyebrow and another injury was caused on the nose extending into right eye. She blocked third blow with her hands and sustained injury on both of her hands, near the left wrist, near left middle finger, left palm, across the area at the foot of the fingers on the right hand. She lost her right eye and flexibility of both the hands. The little fingers of both the hands are not flexible. The accused also hacked Nagasudha on her head. On hearing shouts for help, P.W.1 and P.W.3 came there. Then, P.W.1 caught hold of the accused. The accused bite P.W.1 on the left elbow and right middle finger. Then, the accused ran away with the Axe in her hand. Nagendramma came there. Then they came to know that Appalaswamy was hacked by the accused. Nagendramma taken them to the hospital in the Ambulance, from there, they were taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur. She was in the hospital for one week. She can identify the Axe. M.O.1 is the Axe with which the accused hacked them.
20) P.W.6, another injured, deposed that the incident occurred on 10.04.2009 in the early hours, at about 3-30 a.m. She and her sister slept in their house. Suddenly, the accused 20 entered into their house through the back door and shouted to kill them and caused injuries to them. The accused bore grudge because she suspected that they encouraged Devika for the marriage. She also bore grudge against Appalaswamy for supporting marriage of Devika. The accused hacked her sister above the right eyebrow, across nose and right eye and on her hands. P.W.5 lost her right eye. When she tried to save P.W.5, the accused hacked her on her head. On hearing shouts, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came there. P.W.1 caught hold of the accused, but the accused beat P.W.1 on the left elbow and right middle finger and escaped with Axe. Nagendramma took them to Government Hospital, Repalle. After that they were referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur. M.O.1 is the Axe used by the accused to hack them.
21) P.W.7, the mother of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she deposed that she came to know that the accused caused injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6. She denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P.4 (161 Cr.P.C. statement).
22) P.W.8 is the Photographer, who took photos at the house and according to him, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 are the photos 21 taken by him showing the dead body of a male person and Ex.P.8 is the C.D. containing the photographs.
23) P.W.9 is no other than the Village Revenue Officer, who supported the case of the prosecution. He is a mediator to the observation report, inquest report and the arrest of the accused and he supported the case of the prosecution. The substance of his evidence is that on 10.04.2009 at 10-00 a.m., he was present at the instance of police at the time of observation of the scene of offence and Ex.P.9 is the observation report. He was also present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P.10 is the inquest report. He was also present at the time of arrest of the accused on 20.04.2009 and accused disclosed the place where she hidden the Axe and in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the Axe was recovered. Ex.P.11 is the mediatornama.
24) The prosecution examined P.W.10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his evidence is that he noted the injuries on the person of the dead body and cause of death is due to Asphyxia due to lacerated injury on neck due to Axe and due to cardio respiratory failure and due to fresh water drowning. Ex.P.13 is the postmortem report.
25) The prosecution examined P.W.11, the medical officer, who took X-ray on 10.04.2009 on the person by name 22 Nagasudha and he also taken X-ray over the person by name N. Sreedevi. The C.T. Scan reveals the fracture in the nasal bones and frontal bone. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the C.T. Scans of Nagasudha and N. Sreedevi. The injuries sustained by Sreedevi are grievous. The fractures are possible when a heavy Axe is used.
26) P.W.12 is another medical officer, who examined P.W.5 and P.W.6 and issued wound certificates. According to her, she found four injuries on the person of P.W.5. They are (1) a laceration of 4x1 c.m. on the left side of forehead, (2) a laceration of 2x1 c.m. on right upper arm, (3) a laceration of 2x1 c.m. on right wrist and (4) a laceration of 2x1 c.m. over the left hand. She further found a laceration of 2x1 c.m. over left parital region and an abrasion of 1x1 c.m. on the left side of neck of P.W.6. Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 are the wound certificates. The injuries on two persons are possible with an Axe. The injury No.1 received by P.W.5 is grievous and rest are simple. The injuries received by P.W.6 are simple.
27) P.W.13 is the investigating officer and he spoken about the investigation.
28) For better appreciation, first it becomes necessary to look into the substance of the case of the prosecution according to Ex.P.1 report lodged by P.W.1, who was the defacto- 23 complainant and who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
29) As seen from Ex.P.1, it is the report lodged by P.W.1 on the date of offence i.e., 10.04.2009 at 8-00 A.M. It runs in substance that on the fateful day she was alone in her house. In connection with the marriage of elder daughter of the accused, her husband and other relatives went to Tirupati to attend the marriage. On 09.04.2009 she (P.W.1) along with her relative Nagidi Lakshmi slept in her house. At 3-30 a.m., she heard cries and then she and Lakshmi came out and found the cries at the house of Kanaka Rao. They rushed there. By then the accused by holding a big Axe, hacked on the heads of Nadakuditi Sreedevi and Naga Sudha and then she (P.W.1), Lakshmamma and one Nadakuditi Meenashamma intervened and then the accused bite her (P.W.1) middle finger of right hand and near left elbow and absconded with Axe. Then, they went to the house of the accused and found the pool of blood and then searched for Appalaswamy and found his dead body near the canal. The mother of the accused Nagendramma informed that the accused killed her father-in-law. This is the substance of the allegation in Ex.P.1.
30) P.W.2 is no other than Meenashamma whose reference was there in Ex.P.1. The names of P.W.5 and P.W.6, 24 injured, were mentioned in Ex.P.1. The presence of P.W.3 who did not support the case of the prosecution along with P.W.1 was also mentioned in Ex.P.1. Further the hostility of P.W.3 was proved through the evidence of P.W.13, investigating officer, who testified that P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.P.3. As evident from Ex.P.20, rough sketch of the scene of offence, the house of Kanaka Rao i.e., house of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 is one house away from the house of the accused and they are nothing but huts. Even according to the contention of the appellant, the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 was located at one house away from the house of the deceased. As evident from Ex.P.20, rough sketch, No.3 is the house of Kanaka Rao. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was murdered at his house. It is altogether a different aspect that the Court below found not guilty of the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. So, evidently, according to the case of the prosecution, the scene of offence for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was in the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 which was one house away from the house of the deceased and the scene of offence for the alleged murder of the deceased was at the house of the deceased.
31) Now, I proceed to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. Before going to scrutinize their evidence, I 25 am of the view that admittedly they are the injured witnesses and interested witnesses. The evidence of the injured witnesses cannot be treated on far with the evidence of partitioned witnesses or inimical witnesses. The offence was said to be happened in the hut where P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were sleeping during the early hours that is in odd hours. At the time of offence, one cannot expect that independent witnesses should be present there. Virtually, the time at which the offence was said to be happened was odd time where the neighbors in the respective hoses were sleeping. Therefore, in the circumstances, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were the natural witnesses and their presence in the house of Kanaka Rao i.e., their father cannot be doubted. Keeping in view, their evidence is to be appreciated.
32) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, she deposed in cross examination that their house has two doors. One is towards the canal and another is towards bund. Their house is a thatched house with wooden doors. They slept bolting the doors from inside. The accused got through the door by breaking the bolt. She stated so before the police. She stated before the police that the accused forced into their house. Police examined her on the same day at 12-00 noon. She denied that the accused did not come to their house, did not cause any injury to her sisters and that she is deposing false. As evident from the 26 above cross examination part, it is not the case of the accused that the evidence of P.W.1 suffered with any omissions, discrepancies or contradictions. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.13, the investigating officer, that P.W.2 improved the evidence on any aspect.
33) Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, she during cross examination deposed that there are wooden doors on the back side and front side of their house. Both the doors were bolted. The back side door was broken. It was a wooden bolt and it was broken and fallen on the ground. She denied that she is deposing false because the accused did not allow them into their house to see Television. Coming to the cross examination of P.W.6, she deposed that there are wooden doors in front side and back side of their house. There is a wooden bolt arranged to close the doors. Wooden bolt was broken and the accused forced herself into their house. So, there is any amount of consistency in view of the answers spoken by P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 as to the manner in which the accused gained entry through the back door by breaking open the same into the hut of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. The defence of the accused before P.W.5 and P.W.6 is that they are deposing false because the accused did not allow them into their house to see Television. The part of said defence, in my considered view, is not at all 27 tenable. They have no need or necessity to depose false against the accused for the simple reason that the accused did not allow them to see Television. In fact, P.W.5 during cross examination testified that since last two years, they are not in talking terms with the accused and they are not going to the house of the accused to see the Television. P.W.6 during the cross examination deposed that they are not in talking terms with the family members of the accused for the last three years. Hence, the contention of the accused in this regard is not at all tenable.
34) A close perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 goes to show that they stick on to the case of the prosecution as projected in Ex.P.1. Though P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, but, the evidence let in by the prosecution is in tune with Ex.P.1. It is never the defence of the accused that the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 suffers with any improvements or contradictions. Under the circumstances, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6.
35) Turning to the contention of the appellant that the allegations under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the allegations under Section 307 of I.P.C. were interlinked with each other and in the absence of establishing the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. must also fail, this Court 28 is not persuaded to accept the contention. It is not as though the accused made attack on the deceased, P.W.5 and P.W.6 at one and same time and at one and same place and the said attack was witnessed by P.W.1. In fact, the case of the prosecution as per Ex.P.1 is that P.W.1 and P.W.3 rushed to the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and found the accused attacking them and after that only they came to know from P.W.7, the mother of the accused, that the accused also murdered her father-in- law. Therefore, the scene of offences are different and even the time of offences are also different. So, when the places of incident under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 307 of I.P.C. are totally different and when the time of incidents are also totally different, it cannot be held that the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. must fail when the prosecution is not able to establish the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merits in the said contention.
36) Turning to the contention of the appellant that the prosecution did not prove the motive for the offence, there is evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that the accused did not like the alliance fixed for her daughter Devika and she suspected that they (P.W.5 and P.W.6) also supported the alliance of Devika and that is the reason why she attacked on them. According to the evidence of P.W.6, the accused bore grudge because she 29 suspected that they (P.W.5 and P.W.6) encouraged Devika for the marriage and she also bore grudge against Appalaswamy for supporting the marriage of Devika. Even it is evident from the evidence of P.W.7, the mother of the accused, who did not support the case of the prosecution, that alliance fixed for Devika was not acceptable either to her or to the accused. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution cogently established the motive for the offence. Apart from this, it is settled legal position that in cases only where the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence, it is bound to prove the motive for the offence. When the prosecution case is based upon the direct evidence, there is no need to prove the motive for the offence. Viewing from any angle, the contention of the appellant that the prosecution did not prove the motive for the offence cannot be countenanced.
37) During the cross examination of P.W.5, the learned defence counsel elicited that the house of Ankineedu is situated in between their house and the house of the accused. House of Nadikuditi Venkateswarlu is situated by the side of their house. All the houses are situated at Karakatta on a slope. She deposed that there is a possible of slipping into the canal. Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, the medical officer, she deposed that the injuries of P.W.5 are possible by fall on blunt 30 object. In fact, there was no positive suggestion before P.W.5 that she sustained injuries by fall on a blunt object. In fact, P.W.12 categorically testified in the chief examination that the injuries on P.W.5 and P.W.6 are possible with an Axe. Hence, the theory of the defence that there was a possibility for P.W.5 and P.W.6 to receive injuries by fall deserves no merits.
38) Coming to the recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of the accused pursuant to her disclosure statement, prosecution examined P.W.9, the Village Revenue Officer. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that P.W.9 was the mediator to the observation report of the scene of offence, inquest that was held on the dead body of the deceased and further to the arrest mahazar and the mahazar for recovery of M.O.1. The contention of the appellant that P.W.9 was deliberately used as a mahazar witness to all episodes as above cannot be accepted for the reason that P.W.9 being a Village Revenue Officer was bound to assist the police whenever requested. Therefore, on that ground, his evidence cannot be disbelieved.
39) Now, I proceed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.9 with regard to the recovery of M.O.1. According to him, on 20.04.2009 at request of C.I. of Police, he accompanied him to arrest the accused as police got information that she is at Penumudi Bridge. They went to the bridge. On seeing them, the 31 accused tried to escape. Information was given by the accused relating to the Axe with which she killed Appalaswamy. It was stated to be kept by the accused under a Neem tree near Karakatta in Kanagalavaripalem. Ex.P.1 is the mediators report (admissible portion regarding the information). Thereafter, on being led by the accused, they went to Karakatta area at about 12-30 p.m., and the accused shown the place where the Axe was kept. It was seized by the C.I. of Police under the cover of mahazar. Ex.P.12 is the mediators report for the seizure. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that there is gap of 10 days between observation of the scene of offence and the arrest of the accused. He denied that he signed on all the reports in the police station.
40) Coming to the evidence of P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, who is the investigating officer, he deposed that on 10.04.2009 at 8-00 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police registered F.I.R. by receiving the report of P.W.1. The Sub Inspector of Police informed him about the incident. Then, he received F.I.R. and took up investigation. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and took photographs and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.20 is the rough sketch. He summoned panchayatdars and conducted inquest and he examined the blood relatives. He forwarded the dead body to the postmortem 32 examination. He examined P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 during the investigation. He made efforts to trace the accused, but she was absconding. On 20.04.2009 at 10-30 a.m., he received information about the accused, as such, he collected mediators Bhattiprolu Venkata Subrahmanyam and K. Ramachandra and arrested the accused at Penumudi bridge. Pursuant to her confession, they proceeded to Penumudi bridge, near Marrichettu and then the accused brought up the Axe which was used while committing the offence. Then he seized M.O.1 in the presence of mediators. He forwarded the material objects to R.F.S.L. M.O.2 is the controlled earth. M.O.3 is blood stained earth. M.O.4 is cotton white dhothi. M.O.5 is waist thread. Ex.P.21 is the R.F.S.L report. During cross examination of P.W.13, he deposed that he got down from the Jeep at the time of arrest of the accused. He denied that he is deposing false. The evidence of P.W.13 was not impeached by the defence counsel on the ground that he obtained the signatures of mediators on every paper without securing their presence at the time of observation of the scene of offence, inquest and arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.1. In fact, with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1 at the instance of the accused, the accused did not impeach his testimony in any way. The accused did not challenge the testimony of P.W.13 that 33 after the commission of the offence, she was found absconding. Therefore, the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to prove that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, M.O.1 which was also used in committing attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6 was recovered. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the same mediators were used for arrest of the accused deserves no merits in the absence of challenging the testimony of mediators as well as investigating officer.
41) Now, as evident from the testimony of P.W.12, the medical officer, she found that four injuries on the person of P.W.5 and two injuries on the person of P.W.6. The ocular testimony of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has no amount of corroboration from the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19, wound certificates. The overt acts spoken to by P.W.5 with regard to attack made by the accused on her head and her further evidence that when she warded off some of the blows by the accused, she received injuries on the hands has support from the evidence of P.W.12 and Ex.P.18. The overt acts spoken to by P.W.6 has also corroboration from the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Ex.P.19, wound certificate. According to the evidence of P.W.11, the Radiologist, who took C.T. Scans on P.W.5 and P.W.6, the injuries sustained by P.W.5 are grievous in nature. So, there are fractures on the person of 34 P.W.5 which can be ascribed to Axe. The testimony of injured has full corroboration from the medical evidence on record.
42) Now, I proceed to appreciate the contention of the appellant to prove the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., the intention to commit murder is the criteria and that the prosecution did not prove that the accused made attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an intention to kill them.
43) Section 307 of I.P.C., which runs as follows:
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--
2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
44) A perusal of Section 307 of I.P.C. means that if anybody committed any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment... So, it is sufficient on the part of the prosecution to prove that the accused attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an 35 intention or knowledge that if she by that act caused death, she would be guilty of murder. Coming to the case on hand, two injuries on the vital part of the body i.e., on head received by P.W.5 are grievous in nature. First injury is 4x1 cm laceration on the left side of the forehead and she could ward off further attack, as such, she received injuries on the right upper arm, right wrist and left hand. According to the medical evidence, injury No.1 is grievous. The accused attacked P.W.6 also on her head. Hence, P.W.6 received laceration of 2x1 cm over the left of parital region and abrasion of 1x1 cm on the left side of the neck. Either the intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6 or with the knowledge that she made such attack is to be gathered from the attending circumstances also. The act of the accused in gaining entry to the hut from the back side door by breaking open the back side door of the hut is nothing but a violent act. So, after gaining entry, she attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 firstly targeting their heads. One of the injuries received by P.W.5 was grievous in nature. The time of offence also is the criteria. It is not as though the attack was made in a spur of moment without any premeditate plan. On the other hand, the attack was in odd hours when P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were sleeping. So, no other inference is possible except the inference that the accused made 36 a fierce attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6 with an intention to kill or with knowledge that if by that act she caused death of P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would be guilty of murder. The nature of the weapon was a big Axe which can be used to commit murder of any human being.
45) This Court has gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
46) Turning to the decision in Parsuram Pandey's case (3 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the essential ingredients of Section 307 of I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of Section 307 of I.P.C., what is material are the intention or the knowledge and not consequences of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. Intention which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precious direct evidence as a fact and it can be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relative consideration may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where the injuries were inflected, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place. Dealing with the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court looked into the factual background into that, that none of the witnesses have stated that fire-arm causing injuries was being used by any particular accused and that injured did not see the accused using fire-arm 37 and held that the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not made out.
47) Coming to the present case on hand, as this Court already pointed out that M.O.1 was a big Axe which can be used to commit the murder of any person. The accused violently gained entry into the house of P.W.5 and P.W.6 through back door in odd hours when P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were sleeping and she targeted the heads of P.W.5 and P.W.6. In my considered view, the parameters laid down in Parsuram Pandey's case (3 supra) goes against the appellant. Relying upon the above, I am of the considered view that the said decision is of no use to support the contention of the appellant.
48) Turning to Fireman Ghulam Mustafa's case (5 supra) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Section 307 of I.P.C. and appreciated the facts therein to the effect that the injuries caused to the witnesses therein were not on the vital parts of the body and ultimately held that the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was not made out. The factual background in the above said case is altogether in a different footing. Here the injuries on P.W.5 and P.W.6 were on the heads which were caused to them by the accused in a violent manner. Under the circumstances, even the case Fireman Ghulam Mustafa (5 supra) is of no use to the present case.
38
49) Another decision in Hakam Singh's case (4 supra) has nothing to do with the allegations under Section 307 of I.P.C. In fact, in the above said decision, the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, it is misquoted to the present situation.
50) The contention of the appellant that if really she had an intention to commit murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would have completed the task and she would have not spared them further is not tenable, because, Section 307 of I.P.C. specifically dealt with an attempt to commit murder with intention or with knowledge that by such an act if he/she caused death, he/she would guilty of murder. Simply because the accused failed in her attempt to complete the murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6, it cannot be held that she has no intention to commit murder. In fact, as evident from the defence of the accused before the Court below at one hand the contention of the accused is that she did not cause injuries to P.W.5 and P.W.6 and at another hand her contention is that she was mentally disturbed. Much has been argued during the course of hearing by relying upon two decisions by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the accused was suffering with certain mental disorder, as such, she cannot be convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C.
39
51) Now, I proceed to deal with the same. During the course of cross examination, P.W.2 stated that she knows that the accused was mentally ill. She did not know whether the accused was taken to the hospital in auto after putting chains to the accused. The accused was getting some treatment for mental illness. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, who is the injured witness, she deposed that the accused was shown to a Doctor, but, she was not having any mental illness. Two years ago she feigned mental illness. Turning to the testimony of P.W.6, she does not know whether the accused was having mental illness. According to her, the accused has no mental illness. She denied that accused is mentally ill, as such, they implicated her in the offence. In my considered view, the defence of the accused before the Court below is nothing but evasive. It is not the contention of the accused that at the time of attack on P.W.5 and P.W.6, she was labouring with a mental disorder, as such, she was not aware of what she was doing at that time and she was not aware of the consequences of such an act. On the other hand, the contention of the accused was that because she was mentally ill, she was falsely implicated in this case.
40
52) Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows:
84. Act of a person of unsound mind. --Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
53) A perusal of Section 84 of the I.P.C., shows that nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of committing an act on account of his unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. So, the crucial thing that is to be established by the accused is that at the time of offence alleged against her under Section 307 of I.P.C., she was labouring under a mental disorder and she was incapable of knowing what she was doing was either wring or contrary to law. To prove the same, the accused examined D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
54) The testimony of D.W.1 is that she is Assistant Professor in Psychiatry in Guntur Medical College. Her date of examination before the Court below was on 30.09.2010. Since last 1 ½ years, she is treating the accused, who was brought with Psychotic symptoms. Ex.D.1 is the Out-patient slip of the accused, dated 01.05.2009. On 01.05.2009 the accused did not approach her, but, her husband approached her. The accused 41 was brought to her from the prison along with escort Woman P.C. with complaint that the accused was not sleeping and she was screaming throughout the day. Then, she complained fearfulness. She could not give any past history of her family or about her. They treated her with low dose anti-psychotics. She was brought two weeks later, who showed improvement of her mental health. Her husband disclosed to her (D.W.1) in the past also the accused had similar kind of sickness episodically, but not continuously. He stated that the accused was given treatment for about four years earlier through a private Psychiatrist, but, he did not produce any record to that effect. Even after release from the prison also the accused was under
continuous medical follow up. The accused has been maintaining good health in the last 1 ½ years and she did not exhibit any psychiatric ill-health. Ex.D.2 is the bunch of medical record of the accused containing five sheets. During the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she deposed that upon chemical examination and by taking history of the patient either from the patient or from her family members and after observation of the behavior, they came to a conclusion about the mental health of the patient. The complaint of the accused is that she was feeling fearfulness and the fearful is not the chief character to judge a patient as psychic. The 42 accused did not exhibit violent psychic behaviour during her examination. She provided minor dose of medicine for her treatment. She has no documentary proof to show that the accused was treated for the first time by her.
55) As seen from Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, they are only subsequent to the commission of the offence. So, what was the mental state of mind on the date of the offence i.e., the period of offence is not brought in evidence. Virtually, even according to the evidence of D.W.1, the mental sufferance complained by the accused or her family members was only fearfulness which is not the chief character to judge a patient as psychic. By relying upon the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, the accused failed to probablise a contention that she was labouring any mental disorder at the time of offence and that she was not aware of the consequences the act which was being done by her.
56) Turning to the decision in Sarju Marandi's case (1 supra), the Patna High Court dealing with the case on hand and looking into the defence of the accused that he was not sane at the time of offence took into consideration of the fact that the second appellant who was alleged to have committed the murder of the deceased was present in the house all through in the night from which the dead body of the deceased was 43 recovered. The Patna High Court took into consideration of fact that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of occurrence and even none of the family members dare to live with him.
The Patna High Court took into consideration of the fact that the accused who setup the plea of insanity did not attempt to run away after committing the alleged crime when he had sufficient time to run away, etc. The Patna High Court held that the accused was able to probabalise his defence theory and allowed the appeal.
57) Turning to Nivrsutti's case (2 supra), the Bombay High Court dealing with an appeal under Section 302 of I.P.C. filed by the appellant upheld the contention of the appellant that he was insane at the time of occurrence and after the incident. The conduct of the accused prior to the incident was not that of normal human being and he was not looking normal as usual and his eyes at that particular moment was red and he was uttering some words as if one Madhu was a devil and he would have killed. He was sitting in corner of the house and was weeping throughout. The circumstances existing at the time of occurrence are that the accused beat his two months old child with a stick and thereafter thrashed him thrice on pounding stone and he caused as many as 27 injuries to the child. The circumstances soon after the commission of offence are that he 44 did not try to run away. The Bombay High Court took into consideration those attending circumstances and upheld the defence of insanity.
58) Turning to the case on hand, the house of the accused is one furlong away from the house of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6. She gained entry into the back door through violent mode and attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 on vital parts of the body. There were no probabilities on the part of the accused that her behavior prior to the commission of offence was something abnormal. Her behavior at the time of offence was that she attacked P.W.5 and P.W.6 on vital parts of the body and after commission of offence, she absconded with Axe. P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 categorically testified in their evidence that after the attack, the accused absconded with the Axe. It is not as though after the attack, the accused remained at the scene with abnormal behavior. There is evidence of P.W.13, the investigating officer, that he found the accused absconding after the commission of offence. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.13 that the accused found absconding after the commissioner of offence is not challenged. Apart from this, she made disclosure statement as to where she concealed M.O.1 and in pursuance of her disclosure statement, the weapon under M.O.1 was recovered. If really the accused was suffering with 45 any mental disorder at the time of commission of offence on P.W.5 and P.W.6, she would not have thought of to conceal M.O.1 in a hidden place and further she would not thought of to abscond from the scene of offence. Therefore, the circumstances prior to the offence, at the time of offence and subsequent to the offence, negative the defence theory that the accused was suffering with a mental disorder.
59) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs. the State of Maharashtra6 dealing with the appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court in convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. and dealing with the plea of insanity disbelieved the case of the appellant that he was suffering with mental disorder at the time of offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court looked into the standard of proof by relying upon a decision in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar vs. the State of Gujarat 7 and held that the trial Court did not believe the defence theory that the accused was suffering with insanity and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4, the brother of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no evidence to show that at the time of 6 (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 79 7 (1964) 7 SCr 361=AIR 1964 SC 1563 46 commission of the act, the accused was not in sound state of mind. While negativing the contention of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or, the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broke open, would not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal."
60) Coming to the case on hand, as this Court already pointed out the behaviour of the accused prior to the commission of offence, at the time of commission of offence and subsequent to the commission of offence was not that of an abnormal behavior of a human being. On the other hand, the facts were that the accused was conscious of the act done by her, as such, she absconded from the scene of offence. She assisted the police in recovering M.O.1. Under the circumstances, it is very dangerous to uphold the contention of the appellant that she was suffering with any insanity. Having regard to the standard of proof with which the accused has to 47 probablise the defence of insanity and as she miserably failed to probablise such a theory, the contention of the appellant that she was labouring under a mental disorder at the time of offence cannot stand to any reason.
61) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the Court below has proved cogently beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. in attacking P.W.5 and P.W.6 and in my considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Viewing from any angle, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant, as such, appeal must fail.
62) In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as such, the judgment of the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur District at Tenali, dated 23.11.2010 in S.C.No.1 of 2010, shall stand confirmed.
63) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 21.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the 48 sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 14.03.2023.
PGR 49 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Note:-
Registry to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Court below on or before 21.03.2023.
CRL. APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2010 Date: 14.03.2023 PGR