Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bhushanaboina Yadaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(3)ALT298
JUDGMENT Y. Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 210 of 1988 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda who was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for killing B. Andalu and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- i/d one month R.I. and also convicted for the offence under Section-302 I.P.C. for killing B. Santhosamma and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- i/d R.I. for one month. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The gravamen of the charge is that on 5-2-1988 in between 10-00 a.m. to 6-00 p.m. at the house of elder sister of the accused at Chada village caused the death of his wife by name Bhushangaboyina Andalu @ Ramakka aged about 22 years and his daughter by name Santhoshamma aged about 3 years by throttling their neck.
3. The facts of the case as deposed by P.W -1 to 5 are that the accused is the brother of P.W-2 and deceased No. 1 is the wife and deceased No. 2 is the daughter of the accused. The accused came to the house of P.W-2 along with his deceased wife and deceased daughter and stayed in her house. On the date of the incident P.W.-2 prepared the food and took meals to her husband and sons to their field. She asked the accused and Andalu to take food and be in the house. P.W-2 went to their chelka at about 10a.m. on 5-2-1988. She returned home at about 6 p.m. in the evening. When she returned home the doors of her house were closed from inside. She called the accused for ten minutes. The accused opened the doors. She went inside and saw the dead bodies of Andalu and Santhosamma i.e., deceased land 2 on the floor. She enquired the accused as to what had happened. Then the accused told her that he killed his wife and daughter as his wife refused to convert into Christianity along with him. After some tin c P.W-1 who was working as Village servant came to the house of P.W-2 after hearing the galata in the village at about 6 p.m. P.W-2 informed him that the accused killed the deceased by throttling the necks. He saw the dead bodies lying inside the house of P.W-2. P.W-2 took the accused into his custody and took him to Panchayat Office. P.W-2 informed the incident to P.W-8 the Sarpanch of the village. P.W-8 went to the house of P.W-2 and saw the dead bodies and after enquiring the matter he prepared a report ExP-5 and sent the sane to police station through P.W-1. P.W-10 Head Constable of Ramannapet Police Station received the report and registered a case in Cr.No. 15/88 under Section 3021.P.C. and issued express F.I.R. Ex.P-9. P.W-11 C.I. of police took up investigation from P.W-10. He proceeded to Chada village along with P.W-10 and others and reached the village at 1 am. He went to the scene of offence during that night and as it was dark he could not proceed with further investigation. He found the accused at Panchayat Office guarded by village servants. He conducted inquest over the bodies of D-1 and D-2 on 6-2-1988 from 7-00 am. to 8-45 am. Ex.P-6 is the inquest report conducted over the dead body of the wife of the accused. i.e., Andalu. Thereafter he conducted inquest over the dead body of the child from 9 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. Ex.P-7 is the inquest report. The above inquests was conducted in the presence of P.W-9 and others. He conducted scene of offence panchanama Ex. P-8 in the presence of P.W-9 and another. He prepared the sketch map for the scene of offence Ex,P-14. P.W-7 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Ramannapet conducted post-mortem examination over the body of Andalu on 6-2-1988 from 1-40 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. He opined the cause of death was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem report. He also conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Santoshamma from 5-30 p.m. to 6-45 p.m. He opined that the death was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling Ex.P-4 is the post-mortem report. Thereafter the accused was arrested on 6-2-1988. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed by P.W-11.
4. The prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. Defence examined D.W-1 Superintendent of the District Jail, Nalgonda and marked Exs.D-1 to D-14. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the offence and insanity was pleaded.
5. It was pleaded that the accused was insane at the time of the offence and hence he is entitled for the benefit under Section 84 of I.P.C.
6. The court below after considering the entire material evidence on record convicted the accused as stated supra. Against that the present appeal.
7. The only point for consideration is whether the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is convicted.
8. P.W-2 is the sister of the accused. She deposed that she is a resident of Chada village. Accused is her brother. D-1 is the wife of the accused and D-2 is their daughter aged about three years. About ten years ago the marriage of the accused took place with the deceased Andalu. After the marriage the accused took the deceased No. 1 to Lalapet village near Hyderabad and lived for six years. Accused used to pull the rickshaw for his livelihood. Accused has one son and one daughter deceased No. 2 at the time of incident She deposed that the accused converted himself into Christianity. Accused used to visit her house once or twice in a year. Accused came to her house along with wife and daughter on the date of incident They lived in the house for two days. On the date of the incident she prepared the food and at about 10 a.m. took food for her husband and two sons who are at chelka at a distance of 3 miles from the house. While going the asked the accused to take food and take rest in the house. Accused, his wife and daughter were in the house. She returned back from the field at about 6 p.m. she found the doors were closed from inside. She called the accused for about ten minutes. Then the accused opened the door. The inside room was closed. She went into inside room by opening the middle door and saw the dead bodies of deceased 1 and 2 lying on the floor. Then she asked the accused what had done to them. The accused stated that he had killed deceased 1 and 2 as his wife refused to convert to Christianity along with him. Hearing her shouts and cries some villagers came to her house. P.W-1 also came there. She stated to P.W-1 that the accused killed the deceased 1 and 2. Then P.W-1 took the deceased to Panchayat Office and kept him there. Subsequently the Sarpanch of the village came and saw the dead bodies and enquired her. She told the Sarpanch that the accused told her that he killed D-1 and D-2. She also stated that there are contusions on the neck of D-1 and D-2. This witness was cross-examined at length. In the cross-examination she-stated that she does not know whether the accused became insane at any time. She stated that after returning from Lalapet the accused and his wife and children were stayed at Kacharam village at the house of his father-in-law for one year before the incident She stated that on Wednesday the behaviour of the accused is normal and she does not know the motive for the accused for killing Andalu D-1 and Santhoshamma D-2. She denied the suggestion that the accused had not stated to her that he killed D-1 and D-2. P.W-1 is the Village Servant. He deposed that he is a resident of Chada Village. On the date of incident while he was going to bazar he heard the galata in the house of P.W-2. Then he went there and enquired P.W-2. Then P.W-2 told him that accused killed D-1 and D-2 by throttling their necks. Then he went inside and saw the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2. He also found contusions on the neck of D-1 and D-2. By that time many villagers gathered there. Then he took the accused into custody and took him to panchayat office. Then he went to the house of P.W-2 Sarpanch and informed him. He also took the report of P.W-2 and gave the same in Ramannapet Police Station. P.W-3 is the husband of P.W-2. He only spoke about that after coming to house he came to know about the incident. P.W-4 is the father-in-law of the accused and father of the deceased Andalu. He is not an eye witness. He stated that on receiving information about the death of D-1 and D-2 he went to Chada village along with his wife and relatives and found the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 in the middle room of the house of P.W-2. He stated that he found nail marks and contusions around the neck of D-1 and D-2. He was cross-examined at length. In the cross-examination he stated that he does not know whether on account of madness of the accused D-1 came to Kesaram village along with the accused and living there. He also stated that he does not know whether the accused was taking medicine for his madness at Bhongir after coming to Kesaram, Village. P.W-5 is the wife of P.W-4. She is the mother-in-law of accused and mother of D-1. She is not an eye witness. She also came along with P.W-4 to Chada village after receiving information about the death of D-1 and D-2. In the cross-examination she stated that the accused had mental ailment. She came to know due to mental ailment the accused killed D-1 and D-2, P.W-7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2. He opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling the neck. P.W-8 is the Sarpanch. He stated that after P.W-1 informed him he went to the house of P.W-2 and saw the dead bodies. P.W-2 told him that the accused told her that he killed D-1 and D-2. Thereafter he went to the panchayat office and enquired the accused who stated to him that he killed Andalu D-1 and Santhosamma D-2. He prepared a report and sent to police station, Ramannapet through P.W-1. P.W-9 is the inquest panch. P.W.10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers.
9. The evidence of P.W-2 who is no other than the sister of the accused is clinching the truth that the accused killed D-1 and D-2 by throttling their neck and the accused made an extra judicial confession to her after she returned to their house from the field. P.W-2 being a sister of the accused she cannot be attributed any motive or enmity to implicate the accused in a murder case. Apart from that, P.W-2 informed P.W-1 immediately when he came to her house and P.W-1 in turn to the Sarpanch P.W-8. P.W-8 came to the house of P.W-2, saw the dead bodies and sent Ex.P-5 report to the police through P.W-1. Thereafter he went to the panchayat board office and enquired the accused who told him that he killed D-1 and D-2. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8 proves that the accused killed the deceased by throttling their necks and this is also corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W-7 who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 and opined that the death is caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Thus the oral evidence is amply corroborated by medical evidence which shows that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.
10. Mr. P. Raghava Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the accused was insane when he had done the acts, therefore he is entitled for the benefit under Section 84 of I.P.C. In view of the above contention it has to be seen whether the accused is entitled for the benefit under Section 84 I.P.C. Section 84 reads 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"
In view of the provisions of Section 84 it is to be teen whether the accused was insane at the time of doing the act, namely at the time of commission of the offence.
11. D.W-11 is the Superintendent of the District Jail, Nalgonda. He deposed that on 8-2-1988 the accused was admitted in the District Jail, Nalgonda. The accused was referred to superintendent, Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda as he was behaving abnormally. Superintendent-Civil Surgeon, R.M.O. Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda advised him to refer the accused to Psychiatrist at Hyderabad. After taking permission of the court the accused was sent to psychiatrist for examination. Then he was sent to the institution of Mental Health, Hyderabad under his letter Ex.D-8. On 17-8-1988 the accused was discharged from Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad under discharge letter Ex.D-9, as the accused was having normal behaviour. On 1-12-1988 he addressed a letter to the District Judge, Nalgonda to send the accused to the Mental Health Hospital, Hyderabad. He again sent the accused on 31-1-1989. Thereafter the accused was discharged on 27-4-1989. In the cross-examination he stated that the accused was behaving normally from 27-4-1989 till today. The accused was also behaving normally from 17-8-1988 to 1-12-1988 after discharging from Mental Hospital, Hyderabad. He further stated that the accused was behaving normally from the date of admission i.e., from 8-2-1988 to 25th or 26lh February, 1988. He was behaving abnormally for 2 or 3daysbefore 1-3-1988, so he referred him to the Hospital for the opinion of the doctor. Thus the above evidence of D.W-1 shows that accused behaved abnormally for 2 or 3 days from 1-3-1988, for ail other days he was normal when he was in jail and he was also normal when he was in hospital and no doctor is examined to show that the accused was using any medicine while undergoing treatment for illness. On the other hand P.W-2 the own sister of the accused stated that the accused was not having any mental illness. She further stated that when the accused came on Wednesday his behaviour is normal. P.W-4 father in-law of the accused also stated that he does not know whether the accused was having mental illness and he was taking any medicine from Bhongir. P.W-4 is no other than the father-in-law of the accused and father of D-1 who is the wife of the accused. After return from Lalapet the accused stayed for some time with him. If really the accused having any alleged mental illness he could have definitely known about the same. P.W-5 is the wife of P.W-4 and mother of the deceased No. 1. In the cross-examination she stated that the accused had mental ailment. She further stated that for one year the accused took treatment from Dr. Ramachandraiah and he recovered to some extent She did not produce any document to show that the accused underwent treatment from Doctor Ramanadham. Therefore in view of the above stated circumstances we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant that the accused committed the offence when he was under mental disorder. The court below also found that no evidence was produced to show that the accused was abnormal at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore we see no merits in the appeal.
12. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.