Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chanda Lakshminarayana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALT(CRI)61, 1996CRILJ2670
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, Ramesh Madhav Bapat
JUDGMENT Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 472 of 1993 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar is the appellant herein. He faced his trial on three charges. The first charge against him was under Section 498A. I.P.C. On evidence, the learned Judge found that the prosecution was not able to prove the said charge and therefore he was acquitted of that charge. The second charge against the appellant was under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has been able to establish the said charge and therefore he convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The third charge against him was under Section 304B, I.P.C. On evidence, the learned Judge acquitted him of that charge.
2. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows : The accused is alleged to have committed murder of his wife on the intervening night of 17/18-8-1992 in Rampur village and caused her death by stabbing her.
3. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the accused and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Rampur village. The deceased was the wife of the accused. P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the mother and father of the deceased respectively. P.W. 4 is the brother of the accused.
4. It is further alleged by the prosecution this three years prior to the death of the deceased, she was given in marriage to the accused who was a resident of Rampur village, Huzurabad Mandal. At the time of marriage, parents of the deceased had given a dowry of Rs. 1 lakh to the accused. After marriage, the accused and the deceased stayed happily for about 1 1/2 years and they were blessed with a son. After the birth of the son, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused started demanding additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- from P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were his parents-in-law. He is also alleged to have demanded five tolas of gold in addition to the money. The accused did not attend the naming ceremony of the child which was celebrated on the 21st day after the birth of the child. He deserted the child as well as his wife for a period of about ten months, who had gone for delivery to her parents house. Later on, P.Ws. 1 and 3 and others went to Rampur village and approached the Sarpanch of the said village and reported the matter and attitude of the accused. The accused having come to elders of the village refused to accept the deceased unless his demand for money and gold was met with. At last it was decided in the meeting that the parents-in-law of the accused should pay him Rs. 5,000/- Thereafter, the accused agreed to take his wife back to his house.
5. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the deceased joined her husband. On the date of death of the deceased, one person from Rampur went to P.W. 1 and informed him that the deceased had died at Rampur. P.W. 1 is alleged to have gone to Rampur on a scooter and noticed that his sister was lying dead with an injury on her person in the house of the accused. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. (Ex. P-1). On the strength of the information given by him, the police machinery was set in motion and the offence came to be registered against the accused-appellant.
6. It can further be seen from the evidence on record that P.W. 12, the S.I. of Police, Huzurabad received a report Ex. P1 given by P.W. 1. He registered Crime No. 77/92 under Sections 498A and 302, I.P.C. and despatched the express FIRs to all concerned.
7. It can further be seen from the evidence on record that on 18-8-1992, P.W. 11 - the M.R.O., Huzurabad conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of a mediator. The inquest report is produced on record as Ex. P5.
8. On 18-8-1992, P.W. 13 - the Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence which is produced as Ex. P10. P.W. 13 examined P.Ws. 2 to 6 and other neighbours and recorded their statements.
9. On a requisition given by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 - the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Huzurabad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased along with another doctor - Dr. Raman, and the post mortem certificate which is produced on record is Ex. P7. According to the opinion of the doctors, the deceased died due to internal haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury.
10. It can further be seen from the record that on 22-9-1992 at about 4 p.m., P.W. 13 - the Inspector of Police took up investigation, arrested the accused at Rampur village and interrogated him. P.W. 13 sent the accused for remand. On receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report and other connected papers, P.W. 13 filed the charge-sheet.
11. The defence of the accused is total denial. He stated that on the date of the incident he was not in the house as he had gone to Jagtial and on his return, he found the doors of his house were open and there were three unknown persons present. As soon as he entered the house, all the three ran away from the house. He saw his wife dead lying on the bed. On seeing her dead, the accused is alleged to have raised alarm - "Thieves - Thieves". On hearing the shouts, his brother and other villagers came to the scene of offence. He further stated that he was not responsible for the death of the deceased. He further stated that a false case has been foisted against him by P.W. 6 on the accused refusing to pay him a sum of Rs. 20,000/-.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused Mr. Padmnabha Reddy has submitted at the bar that the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and he has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence as brought on record would not establish that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. He submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances as brought on record would not go to prove that the accused-appellant is guilty of committing the murder of the deceased.
13. While rebutting the aforesaid argument, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted at the bar that the circumstances as brought on record would go to establish that the accused-appellant is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. It is further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that when the accused saw the dead body of his wife, he did not take steps either to remove her to hospital or to report the matter to police immediately. This fact would itself go to establish that the accused was of guilty mind and therefore the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction of the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. has to be confirmed.
14. We proceed to scrutinise the evidence on record so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the crime.
15. In order to prove that the deceased died of homicidal death, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 10. P.W. 11 - the M.R.O. had conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediator. The inquest report is filed on record as Ex. P5.
16. It further appears from the evidence on record that P.W. 10, on receipt of requisition, had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of one more doctor - Dr. Ramana. The autopsy was conducted jointly and both the doctors had issued the autospy certificate which is produced on record as Ex. P7
17. The evidence of P.W. 10 was relied on by the trial Court. He stated in his evidence that on external examination, he had noticed punctured wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" with irregular margins on the upper part of the abdomen placed 1" below the costal margin 1/2" left to the mid line. He further stated that on internal examination, he found that the left lobe of liver ruptured on the anterior aspect with high amount of blood collection in the peritorial cavity. He further stated that the internal injury corresponds to stab injury noticed by him externally. According to his opinion, the deceased died due to internal haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury. According to him, the death of he deceased was below 48 hours and about 24 hours from the time of his postmortem examination. He further opined that object like M.O. 1 could cause the injury noticed on the person of the deceased.
18. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution on the point of homicidal death, we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the fact that the deceased died of homicidal death.
19. We proceed to consider the other evidence as brought on record so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the crime. As stated earlier, the prosecution has led evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 13. They also produced certain documents which were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-10.
20. P.W. 1 happens to be brother of the deceased who gave the F.I.R. and set the police machinery in motion. P.W. 2 happens to be the mother and P.W. 3 happens to be the father of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the younger brother of the accused; P.W. 5 is the cousin of the accused, P.W. 6 is the neighbour and P.W. 7 is the Sarpanch of the Village, P.W. 8 is the person who had acted as mediator when the inquest panchanama was conducted. P.W. 9 was the panch witness when the Investigating Officer seized M.O. 1 at the instance of the accused under Ex. P6. P.W. 10 is the doctor who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; P.W. 11 is the M.R.O. who had conducted inquest. P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 are the investigating officers.
21. P.W. 1 on receipt of the information that his sister died at Rampur village, proceeded on a scooter on the next day of the incident i.e. 18-8-1992 and reached the house of the deceased at about 8 a.m. and saw his sister lying dead. Thereafter, he went to the police station and filed the F.I.R. which is produced on record as Ex. P1.
22. By reading Ex. P1, it can be definitely stated that he did not attribute any motive or he did not suspect that the accused had a hand in killing his wife Therefore, while giving Ex. P1 P.W. 1 had not stated that the accused was the person responsible for causing the death of the deceased.
23. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased who spoke about the marriage of the deceased with the accused. Both witnesses have stated in their evidence that at the time of marriage they had given Rs. One lakh as dowry and after marriage, their daughter joined the accused and both of them stayed happily for about 1 1/2 years and that during the period, they were blessed with a son and after the birth of the son, the accused started demanding additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- and also five tolas of gold which they could not give and this, it is stated by both the witnesses, is the reason for the accused deserting their daughter (deceased) for about ten months. Thereafter they went to Rampur Village and requested an elderly person from their community to mediate and bring about a settlement. Both of them further stated that the mediation by the elderly person was successful in which it was suggested that they should pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- and accordingly P.Ws. 2 and 3 are alleged to have paid Rs. 5,000/- to the accused and thereafter their daughter (deceased) joined him in the matrimonial house.
24. P.W. 4 happens to be the younger brother of the accused. P.W. 5 is his cousin and P.W. 6 is his neighbour. All of them rushed to the house of the accused on hearing the cries of the accused - "Thieves - Thieves" and found that the wife of the accused was lying dead on a cot. They have further stated that they had not seen any strangers running from the house of the deceased at that relevant time.
25. The learned Counsel, Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted at the bar that the only circumstances which was brought on record by the prosecution connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is not sufficient to hold that the accused-appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The learned Counsel further submitted that the panchanama of the scene of offence shows that all the articles in the house were seen scattered, the house was ransacked and it is the defence version that some strangers entered the house and committed murder of the deceased and during the said process, all the articles were scattered.
26. The learned Public Prosecutor on this piece of evidence submitted that the accused was responsible for causing the death of his wife though there is no direct evidence on the point. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the fact that the accused did not report the matter to police immediately after the incident or even tried to take his injured wife to the hospital would go to prove that the accused was responsible for causing the death.
27. After considering the facts and the above arguments advanced at the bar, we are of the opinion that this evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused had taken the plea by way of defence that some strangers entered the house and they committed the murder of his wife. We are also not inclined to accept this plea raised by the accused. Even the plea raised by the accused is held to be false, the prosecution has to come forward with direct or circumstantial evidence so as to connect the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. There are important links missing in the chain to connect the accused with the crime which the prosecution is unable to establish. We, therefore, hold that the accused is entitled to acquittal of this charge.
28. Now, we proceed to scrutinise the other evidence on record so as to see whether the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 on the point of harassment is relied on by the prosecution. It is stated by these witnesses that after the marriage, the deceased stayed happily with the accused for 1 1/2 years and during that period they were blessed with a son and thereafter the accused started demanding Rs. 15,000/- and five tolas of gold which they could not satisfy and, therefore, the accused has deserted his wife (deceased) for about ten months. Harassment of demanding additional money stands proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The above evidence stands further corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 7 who happens to be a resident of Rampur and also happens to be the Sarpanch of the village. It is stated by him in his evidence that he was approached by P.Ws. 1 and 3 who complained that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from them though he was paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of dowry at the time of marriage. P.W. 7 is alleged to have mediated the dispute between the accused and P.Ws. 1 and 3, and he suggested to P.Ws. 1 and 3 to give additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused and settle the matter. P.W. 7 stated that P.W. 3 did give a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused and sent his daughter to Rampur along with the child so as to enable her to lead matrimonial life with the accused. P.W. 6 also stated about P.Ws. 1 and 3 giving additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- as per the demand of the accused. P.W. 6 is also one of the senior citizens of the village who had mediated the dispute between the accused and P.Ws. 1 and 3, along with P.W. 7. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of these two independent witnesses who were cross-examined at length, but their evidence remains unshattered. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of these two witnesses coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 inspires confidence to hold that the accused was harassing the deceased to extract money, as contemplated by Explanation (b) to Section 498-A, I.P.C. Therefore, we hold the accused guilty of the said offence.
29. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the accused can be convicted by this Court under Section 498A when the learned Sessions Judge recorded acquittal against the accused-appellant. We find there is no legal impediment in doing so. In order to gain support for our view, we are supported by the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC (Cri) 235. In that case when the accused was facing a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. their Lordships held that though there was no specific charge of the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. the Court could convict the accused of the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. Their Lordships observed :
"The learned counsel, however, submits that since the charge was for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, the accused were not put to notice to meet a charge also made against them under Section 306, I.P.C. and they are prejudiced by not framing a charge under Section 306, I.P.C. and, therefore, presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn and consequently a conviction under Section 306 cannot be awarded. We are unable to agree. The facts and circumstances of the case have been put forward against the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and when there was a demand for dowry it cannot be said that the accused are prejudiced because the cross-examination of the witnesses, as well as the answers given under Section 313, Cr.P.C. would show that they had enough of notice of the allegations which attract Section 306, I.P.C. also. That apart, what all Section 113A of Evidence Act says is that the Court, having regard to the other circumstances of the case can presume. Therefore, the circumstances in this case would show that the accused have been demanding dowry even within a short period after the marriage and the deceased also had to live in her parent's house and it is the husband who went and brought her back. The deceased followed him and unfortunately, the incident has taken place. Since there is no direct evidence regarding administration of poison to the deceased as such, the only course left is to hold that the prosecution has proved only suicide. In the circumstances, Section 306, is attracted. For these reasons, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and the sentence of imprisonment for life are set aside. Instead, they are convicted under Section 306, Indian Penal Code ...."
The same analogy applied to the present case. We may also mention that in the course of examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused was specifically confronted with the incriminating material regarding the demand of additional amount and gold and the harassment done to his wife. Therefore, the accused had sufficient knowledge of the allegations against him and there can possibly be no prejudice caused to the accused by convicting him for a lesser offence under Section 498A, I.P.C., since we find that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the larger offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
30. It may be seen from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, especially at para 30, while acquitting the accused under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., he has not given cogent reasons as to why he has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the accused under Section 498A. I.P.C. The main reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge is that the alleged harassment did not take place 'soon before' the date of her death. But that is an irrelevant consideration while holding him guilty under Section 302, I.P.C.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the accused is entitled to acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and accordingly we set aside his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and the sentence imposed thereunder and we acquit him of that charge. Instead, we hold him guilty of the offence punishable under S. 498-A, I.P.C. and convict him thereunder and sentence him to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) in default to suffer S.I. for six months.
The Criminal Appeal is thus partly allowed.
32. Appeal partly allowed.