Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Arneni Lavanya, Chittoor Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 30 August, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1043 of 2015
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) The sole accused, aggrieved by the Calendar and Judgment, conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.120 of 2014 on the file of XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Piler preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. where she was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. while finding not guilty for the offence punishable under section 380 or 411 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, the appellant/accused to suffer one month simple imprisonment, but no compensation was awarded to P.W.1 for the death of his mother.
The case of prosecution in brief is that deceased Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma is resident of Besthapalli h/o Motumallela, Rompicharla Mandal, residing alone in the house whereas her son is residing at Bhakarpet and Tirupati.
About 20 days prior to 29.08.2013 the accused by name A.Lavanya visited Besthapalli h/o Motumallela Village, Rompicharla Mandal along with her tender aged daughter, got acquaintance with the villagers claiming that she is an orphan and stayed in Besthapalli h/o Motumallela taking shelter in the house of deceased Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma. While things stood thus, during the night of 29.08.2013 the deceased Ponna Rajamma 2 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
@ Manilamma slept in her house while the accused was also staying in the house bolting the doors inside, the accused with an ulterior motive to cause death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and commit theft of gold ear studs of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma woke up at 2.00 a.m., during the intervening night of 29/30.08.2013 and assaulted Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma with an iron plank and bill hook, caused grievous injuries on the body of the person of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and attempted to throttle her to death, committed theft of pair of gold ear studs, but due to severe pain Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma raised hue cry to attract the attention of the neighbours. On hearing cries G.Chandra (P.W.2) who was returning from his agricultural fields out side Besthapalli h/o Motumallela raised cries thereupon Mure Viswanatha Reddy (P.W.3), Pothireddy Jayarami Reddy (P.W.4), Mudugula Chengaiah (L.W.5), Gokanti Sulochana (L.W.6), Gerigi Chandramma (L.W.7) and Mure Muni Reddy (L.W.8) and two others gathered at the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma. They knocked the door of the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, but the accused or the injured Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma did not open the door. At the same time they have forcibly opened the door of the house of the Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma entered into the house while they are attending on the injured, the accused absconded from the scene. Immediately Pothireddy Jayarami Reddy informed about the incident to son of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma by name Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (P.W.1) about the occurrence and requested him to visit Besthapalli h/o Motumallela Village to shift the injured for treatment. Immediately he rushed to Besthapalli h/o Motumallela 3 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
Village and the injured was shifted to Community Health Centre, Piler in an auto and got admitted her for treatment. While she is undergoing treatment the duty Doctor advised to Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (P.W.1) to shift the injured Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi for better treatment.
On 30.08.2013 M.Suryanarayana (P.W.23), the Sub- Inspector of Police, Rompicherla received information about the occurrence and admission of the injured Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma in Community Health Centre, Piler for treatment and visited Community Health Centre, recorded the statement of Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (P.W.1) and returned to Rompicherla Police Station at 7.00 a.m., on 30.08.2013 the same was registered as a case in Crime No.73 of 2013, for the offence punishable under section 397 of I.P.C. and forwarded the express F.I.R. to all concerned. The then Inspector of Police, B.Partha Saradhi (P.W.24) took up investigation and once again visited the Community Health Centre, Piler secured the presence of Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (P.W.1) examined him and recorded his statement. The said Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (P.W.1) son of injured, shifted the injured to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi on 30.08.2013 and got her admitted for better treatment.
The Inspector of Police, B.Parthasaradhi (P.W.24) visited the scene of offence situated at Bestapalli h/o Motumallela Village of Rompicherla Mandal on 30.08.2013 at 9.00 a.m., observed the scene of offence in the presence of Kudithi Chalapathi (L.W.12) and Kuraparthi Muni Reddy (L.W.13) seized material objects under the cover of observation report, duly attested by them. He also examined Gukanti Chandra (P.W.2), MureViswanatha Reddy 4 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
(L.W.3), Pothireddy Jayarami Reddy (P.W.4), Mudugula Chengaiah (L.W.5), Gokanti Sulochana (P.W.6), Gerigi Chandramma (P.W.7) and Mure Muni Reddy (L.W.8) and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. While the Inspector of Police was at scene of offence at about 2.45 p.m. he received death intimation of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, he directed the Sub-Inspector of Police M.Suryanarayana to alter section of law from section 307 of IPC to section 302, 380 of IPC and submitted express First Information report.
At about 3.30 p.m., on the same day the Inspector of Police, B.Parthasaradhi received an altered express FIR from Rompicherla Police Station in the above Crime No.73 of 2013, visited Tirupathi, held inquest over the dead body of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma from 10.00 a.m., to 1.00 p.m. on 31.08.2013 in the presence of Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (L.W.1), Ponna Padmanabha Pillai (L.W.9), Gukanti Ramana @ Ramanaiah (L.W.10) and Gukanti Sundara (L.W.11) and the Inspector also examined Ponna Sivalingam Pillai (L.W.1), Ponna Padmanabha Pillai (L.W.9), Gukanti Ramana @ Ramanaiah (L.W.10) and Gukanti Sundara (L.W.11) and recorded their statements at the time of inquest. On the basis of the unanimous opinion expressed by the mediators the apparent cause of death was the injury caused with iron plank and a sickle by the accused.
After completion of inquest, Inspector of Police, Partha Saradhi arrested the accused on 31.08.2013 at 5.00 p.m., at Mallela Cross Road on Piler-Talapala Road, in the presence of Kudithi Chalapathi (L.W.17) and Kanukrthi Hari Babu (L.W.18) interrogated her in detail, she disclosed her identity and confessed 5 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
that she will show the gold jewellery she committed theft from the person of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and the same was reduced into writing in the presence of Kudithi Chalapathi (L.W.17) and Kanukurthi Hari Babu (L.W.18). In pursuance of confession leading to discovery B.Parthasaradhi, Inspector of Police and other witnesses Kudithi Chalapathi (L.W.17) and Kanukurthi Hari Babu (L.W.18) along with staff were lead to Eguvapalem of Rompicherla Mandal where her house is situated, produced the gold ear studs, blood stained saree and blouse before the Inspector of Police informing that the gold ear studs she committed theft from the person of deceased and the saree she was wearing at the time of commission of offence and they were seized under the cover of panchanama/mahazar in the presence of two witnesses referred above. The blood stained cloths, blood stained and controlled earth, iron plank, sickle were sent to RFSL along with letter of advise and in turn issued report opining that the material objects containing human blood stains and issued a report. An autopsy was held by the Professor, Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, Tirupathi and opined that the cause of death is due to Haenoraregic shock due to multiple wounds she sustained.
Nare Suresh Kumar Reddy (P.W.7) conducted test identification parade of the properties in the presence of elders on 04.09.2013 at 11.30 a.m., at the M.R.O. office, Rompicherla and during the test identification parade P.W.1 identified the gold ornaments as that of his mother. After completion of entire investigation the Inspector of Police, Piler Circle filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler, who in turn registered the same as P.R.C. and after following procedure under 6 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to Sessions Division, Tirupathi, since, the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court as per section 209 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge in turn registered the same as Session Case and made over to XI Additional Sessions Judge, Piler.
After securing the presence of the accused, hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, framed charges for the offence punishable under section 302, 380 or 411 of IPC read over and explained to her in vernacular language, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined marked Exs.P.1 to P.13, M.Os.1 to 9 and after closure of the prosecution evidence the accused/appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence that appeared against her in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, she denied and reported no defence.
Upon hearing argument of the Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. convicted and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount, the appellant/accused to suffer one month simple imprisonment, while finding not guilty for the offence punishable under section 380 or 411 of I.P.C. and acquitted for the same.
Aggrieved by the Calendar and Judgment, conviction and sentence passed there under the present appeal is filed through Legal Aid Counsel raising several contentions. The main contentions raised before this Court are that the property was not 7 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
identified strictly adhering to Criminal Rules of Practice and that she was only a beggar and the question of commission of murder for gain or otherwise does not arise and that the inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is suffice to hold that the appellant/accused is not guilty for the grave charge of murder punishable under section 302 of IPC as the trial Court committed an error in recording conviction though motive, intention and pre mediation are not established by cogent and convincing evidence and requested to set aside the same.
During hearing the Legal Aid Counsel Sri Parameswara Rao would contend that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution are P.Ws.2, 3, and 4 their evidence is full of inconsistencies and apart from that the property M.O.1 was not properly identified in the test identification parade conducted by Nare Suresh Kumar Reddy (P.W.19) and in the absence of any material directly pointing out the complicity of the appellant/accused for the grave charge, recording conviction of accused/appellant is an illegality and requested to set aside the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC.
Whereas the Public Prosecutor for the State would support the Calendar and Judgment conviction and sentence thereunder and requested to dismiss the appeal.
Considering rival contentions material available on record the point that arise for consideration is that:
"Whether the accused caused the death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma with an intention to kill her, knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in normal course in events, if not conviction of appellant and sentence imposed by trial Court be sustained?"
8 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
In Re-Point:
This is an appeal filed under section 372 of Cr.P.C. Section 374 Cr.P.C. conferred a substantive right of appeal on the accused who is convicted by the Trial Court and this Court while exercising power under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is bound to re-appraise entire evidence to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Court below and decide the legality of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to re-appraise entire evidence recorded by the Court below after giving an opportunity to both the parties, i.e., accused/appellant and the respondent, unless the Court finds manifest perversity in the calendar and Judgment or such findings were recorded without evidence, normally, this Court cannot interfere with such fact findings in appeal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. It is the sacrosanct duty of the appellate Court, while sitting in appeal against the Judgment of the trial Judge, to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper re-assessment, re-appreciation and re-scrutiny of the material on record. Appreciation of evidence and proper re-
assessment to arrive at the conclusion is imperative in criminal appeal. This is the quality of exercise which is expected of the appellate Court to be undertaken and when that is not done, the cause of justice is not sub-served, for neither an innocent person should be sent to prison without his fault nor a guilty person should be let off despite evidence on record to assure his guilt (vide Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna vs. State of Gujarat1. Keeping in 1 2013 - 15 SCC 263 9 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
view of the scope of section 374(2) Cr.P.C. we would like to re- appreciate entire evidence on record to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Court below.
The case of prosecution is based on both directed and circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove all the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt to be drawn must be fully established and the facts so established must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused and by circumstance consistent with innocence of accused, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. (vide Kishore Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh)2.
The Apex Court while discussing the scope of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, more particularly, circumstantial evidence held that, in a case of murder when the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to prove all the incriminating facts and circumstances and the circumstances which are incompatible with innocence of the accused to draw inference of guilt and such evidence should be tested by touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by Supreme Court (vide Syed Hakkim vs. State)3.
Similarly, in G.Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka4, the Supreme Court is of the view, when the case of the prosecution is based on proof of circumstantial evidence on the basis of which conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established fully, individual chain of circumstances must be complete pointing out 2 AIR 1990 S.C. 2140 3 2009 Cr.L.J. 1891 4 AIR 2010 S.C. 2914 10 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
the guilt of accused, all proved facts must lead to inference of guilt of the accused alone and court has to draw distinction between primary and basic facts while appreciating the circumstances and regard must be had to common course of natural events and human conduct and finally the facts established should be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt accused and it does not mean that each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused must be excluded by proved facts. In Rukia Begum Vs. State of Karnataka with Issaq Sait vs. State of Karnataka with Nasreen vs. State of Karnataka5; Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Balaprasanna6; Shaik Khadar Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh7, the same principle was reiterated.
The Supreme Court in Trimukh Maloti Kikran vs. State of Maharashtra8, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
"In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence"5
AIR 2011 SC 1585.
62009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 113.
72009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 859 (AP).
82006 (10) SCC 681.
11 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
Keeping in view of the scope of circumstantial evidence and the sacrocent duty that vested on this Court i.e. to be discharged by this Court, it is appropriate to re-appreciate the evidence with reference to contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant/accused.
The direct evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution is the testimony of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. P.W.2/G.Chandra who heard cries while returning home at about 2.00 a.m., when reached the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, from the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, immediately called for help of Jayarami Reddy, Sundhara, Chengaiah and Ramana who gathered there and knocked the door of house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, but found that the door was locked from inside and as the door was not opened, they opened the door using a crowbar. On entry into the house P.W.2 and other witnesses found Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and Lavanya the accused/appellant alone in the house and Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma lying on the floor oozing blood and found bleeding injury and immediately Jayarami Reddy informed Rajamma's son P.W.1/P.Sivalingam Pillai on telephone. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he admitted that Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma's house is a pucca house and their house is situated by the side of the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma. The distance between the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and the other house is 'Nalugu Barlu' (in vernacular) and it belongs to Sundhara, Sulochana, Chandramma, Munireddy, Pardha. Any cries from the house cannot be heard. He admitted that a week prior to death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma the accused/appellant used to 12 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
came to village and used to beg in the village during day time and stay in an abandoned house during night. Since she was not allowed to stay in the house of any of the villagers.
P.W.3/M.Viswanadha Reddy also testified that on one day while he was sleeping in his house at about 2.00 a.m., G.Chandra (P.W.2) came, woke him up and informed about raising cries by the inmates of house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and frightened by the said cries, P.W.2 came to his house and asked him to accompany him to go to the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, thereupon himself, Gukanti Ramana, Gukanti Sundhara, Pothireddy Jayaramireddy and P.W.2 went to the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and by the time it was very dark and the doors were bolted from inside. Then they brought a torch light and focused through the gaps in the door way and observed that the accused was sitting on the top of the Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma pressing her neck with her hands, they brought crowbar and broke open the doors, went inside the house and switched on the lights and found Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma lying on the floor of the house with bleeding injury and Lavanya/accused/appellant alone was also inside the house. Immediately they covered the injury with bed sheet and towel and informed the incident to her son. In the cross-examination for one reason of the other, the counsel elicited that Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma was wearing ear studs during the night before the incident and the witness further stated that she used to wear gold ear studs regularly, except that nothing was elicited in the cross- examination.
13 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
Similarly Jayaramireddy (P.W.4) who accompanied P.W.1 to the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, at about 2.00 a.m., also testified in the same lines of P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the cross- examination of P.W.4 also the counsel for the appellant/accused could elicited noting to disprove the presence of accused/appellant in the house at the time of incident and also about opening of doors with crowbar. Therefore, the consistent evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 directly pointing out the complicity of the appellant/accused for causing death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma during midnight of 29.08.2013. Though they were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defence before the trial Court, nothing was elicited to disprove the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4. The witnesses are the neighbours of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, they are independent witnesses and no enmity was attributed to them to speak against the appellant/accused before the Court. In the absence of any material, attributing malafides to the direct witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 their evidence is to be accepted as they are independent witnesses, not interested either in the prosecution case or in the defence case. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is worthy of credence and they are wholly reliable witnesses being independent witnesses.
There is no dispute as to the un-natural death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and the volumeness evidence before this Court i.e., the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the medical evidence of Doctor who issued Ex.P13 post-mortem certificate would clinchingly establish that the Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma died due to injuries that were caused on her body.
14 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
The main reason for the commission of offence is to commit theft of gold ornaments that were wearing by Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma. Though the appellant/accused is a beggar she was allowed to stay in the house of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma as she was alone in the house, during the night of 29.08.2013 taking advantage of the situation as Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma was alone, the accused/appellant with a view to snatch away the gold ornaments and other valuables of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, she caused grave injuries on the body of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma during midnight with M.O.2 and M.O.3 which resulted in death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and she already snatched away the gold ear studs marked as M.O.1 which were identified by P.W.1 during test identification parade which is relevant under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act and even according to the evidence of N.Suresh Kumar Reddy (P.W.7), VRO of Bommaiahgaripalli. Ex.P4 is the test identification parade proceedings dated 04.09.2013, the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P.4 and evidence of P.W.1 proved that M.O.1 belongs to the deceased Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma. It is the consistent case of the prosecution from the beginning that the arrest of the accused/appellant on interrogation she led the Inspector of Police and other witnesses 19 to 23 to the house of accused/appellant and the same is reduced into writing. Ex.P10 and seized M.Os. 1 and blood stained saree and other items M.Os.6 to 9 which were sent to R.F.S.L. for chemical examination, along with letter of advise. The Assistant Director, on examination issued Ex.P11 opining that the above items contain blood stains of human origin.
15 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
Therefore, the evidence on record established seizure of M.Os based on confession made by the accused, leading to discovery:
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26. The conditions necessary for invoking the aid of the Section are as follows:
a) there must be a discovery of a fact albeit relevant fact in pursuance of an information received from a person in police custody;
b) the discovery of such fact must be deposed to;
c) at the time of giving information the accused must be in police custody;
Then the effect is that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. What is allowed to be proved is the information or such part thereof as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. Discovery evidence is not substantive evidence (vide Dinakar vs. State9.
Similarly, in Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Balaprasanna10, the Apex Court held as follows:
"Law is well settled that the prosecution while relying upon the confessional statement leading to discovery of articles under section 27 of the Evidence Act, has to prove through cogent evidence that the statement has been made voluntarily and leads to discovery of the relevant facts. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been stated and restated in several decisions of the supreme Court. However, in almost all such decisions reference is made to the observations of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67. At one time it was held that the expression 'fact discovered' in the second is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the 9 AIR 1970 Bombay 438 10 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) (SC) 113
16 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
expression 'fact discovered' includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, as noted in Pulukuri Kotayya's case. The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows:-
1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
2) The fact must have been discovered.
3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act.
4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.
5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.
6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible."
In view of the principle laid down in the above decision, when a fact is discovered in pursuance of confession leading to discovery is only relevant piece of evidence, but it is not a substantive piece of evidence.
Even otherwise, in Brijesh Mavi vs. State of NCT of Delhi11, the Apex Court, held that recovery evidence, when not sufficient to prove culpability of accused and no direct evidence connecting accused to murder. Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused two years after incident is not believable. 11
2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 865 (SC).
17 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
Mere recovery of weapon, therefore, not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence of murder under Section 302 of I.P.C.
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the Judgments referred supra, the confession leading to discovery marked as Ex.P10 and seized of M.Os. is another strong link in the chain of circumstances and corroborated the direct evidence of P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 and the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the mediators who accompanied P.W.4 at the time of seizure of M.Os.1, 6 to 9 under the cover of Ex.P.10 after arrest and nothing could be elicited to disprove the seizure of M.Os.1, 6 to 9 based on confession of the accused leading to discovery which is relevant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Identification of M.O.1 during the test identification parade held by P.W.7/N.Suresh Kumar Reddy, VRO is another strong link in the chain of the circumstances. Therefore cumulative effect of the proved circumstances completed links in the chain of circumstances so as to draw an inference that the accused/appellant who was found in a house alone along with injured Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, when the doors were opened the appellant/accused caused death of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma during midnight with a view to gain i.e. to commit theft of gold ornaments.
Besides the circumstantial evidence, the oral evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 directly clinches the issue as to who caused injuries on the body of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma during midnight. It is not the case of defence at any stage that some other persons entered into the house and committed murder of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma and she did not even deny her presence 18 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
when the doors were opened. Therefore, it is for the accused/appellant to explain when she was alone in the house bolting the doors from inside and deceased Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma was found lying on the floor with bleeding injuries, but for one reason or the other, the appellant/accused did not state anything as to the reason for her presence in the house during midnight and no suggestions was put to any of the witnesses that she was not found in the house at the time when the doors were opened by P.Ws.2 to 4 and others. In the absence of any material elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 to 4 who are the direct witnesses and seizure of iron plank and sickle marked as M.Os.2 and 3 clinchingly establish that the appellant/accused is the person who caused injuries on the body of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma which led to her death.
It is a common knowledge of any one that causing such injuries on the vital parts of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma with M.Os.2 and 3 would lead to death and based on the weapon used the Court can draw an inference that she had knowledge that the injuries caused on the vital parts of the body with M.Os.2 and 3 would sufficient to cause death in normal course of event and similarly intention of the appellant/accused to cause death can also be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore, taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence including evidence of identifying witnesses the trial Court rightly concluded that the petitioner caused injuries on the person of Ponna Rajamma @ Manilamma, which led to death, with an intention to kill her, knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Even after reappraisal of entire 19 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
evidence, we find no material to come to any other conclusion, than the conclusion arrived by the trial court and consequently the appeal is devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming calendar and Judgment, conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.120 of 2014 on the file of XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Piler. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 30.08.2019 sdp 20 MSM, J & CMR, J Crl. A No.1043 of 2015.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2015 Date:30.08.2019 sdp