Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Tadepalli Venkata Ramana, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 16 November, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
Criminal Appeal No. 1343 of 2014
JUDGMENT :(per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) The sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 296 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] for causing death of his father-in-law Balle Venkata Rao [the 'Deceased'] on 10.04.2012, in the fields of Madakam Mutyala Rao
-PW3. By its Judgment, dated 13.11.2014, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. Challenging the same, the present Appeal came to be filed.
2) The facts, as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:
i. PW1 is the son of the Deceased, while the Accused is his brother-in-law. PW5 is the sister of PW1 and wife of the Accused. The marriage between the Accused and the daughter of the Deceased was performed about 20 or 25 years ago. It is said that, the Accused got addicted to bad vices and started assaulting the PW5. He never bothered 2 about family maintenance. PW1 and the Deceased used to chastise the Accused for his behavior and used to advice him not to consume alcohol. But, however, there was no change in the attitude of the Accused. Unable to bear the harassment in the hands of the Accused, PW5 came to the house of PW1 and the Deceased along with the children and was working as maid servant in some houses. While she was in their house, the Accused used to come and demand PW5 to return to matrimonial home. PW1 and other sent her to the Accused, but, there was no change in the attitude, as he used to beat, harass and neglected her, as a result of which PW5 returned back. The Deceased advised the Accused not to consume alcohol.
ii. One week prior to the death of the Deceased, the Accused came to the house of PW1 and demanded PW5 to join him. PW5 stated that if the Accused brings elders, she will go with him. But, the Accused failed to bring any elders. Even prior to the date of incident, the Accused beat PW5 questioning her as to why she was not returning to matrimonial home. After the said incident, PW1 went to coolie work, while, the Deceased took buffaloes for grazing in the field. It was 1.00 PM by then. He was grazing buffaloes in the field of PW3. Even PW2 and PW3 were grazing cattle at different places in the field. The Accused came to the field and was talking with the Deceased and thereafter, he hacked the Deceased with sickle on the front and back side 3 of the neck. The Deceased fell down. PW2 and PW3 ran to that place and noticed the Deceased lying with injuries. The Accused is said to have escaped from the place. They informed the incident to PW1 on phone. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem and later to Eluru Government Hospital, where he died.
iii. After the Deceased was taken to Eluru Government Hospital, PW1 returned to village and presented a report before PW10
-the Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police, which came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 32 of 2012. Ex.P6 is the FIR. Thereafter, he along with PW7 and others proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P2. At the scene, he seized empty water bottle having blood stains and hand stick, apart from blood stained earth and controlled earth. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P7. At the scene, he examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements. As it was night, he stopped investigation and on the next day, he received death information vide Ex.P8. Basing on which, he altered Section of law from 307 IPC to 302 IPC and issued Ex.P9 the altered FIR.
iv. Further investigation in this case was taken up by PW11 -
Inspector of Police. According to him, on receipt of the altered FIR, he verified the investigation done, visited the 4 scene of offence along with PW7 and others. His evidence also discloses preparation of a rough sketch of the scene and also seizure of plastic water bottle. Along with SI of Police and VRO- PW7, he left the village and reached Eluru Government Hospital, where, he conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. After conducting the inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. v. PW9 - CAS, Area Hospital, Eluru, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P5 postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to injuries to greater vessels of neck, resulting in shock and hemorrhage. According to Doctor, the approximate time of death was within 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. vi. After the arrest of the Accused and after securing all the necessary documents, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the Accused before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jangareddigudem, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 37 of 2012. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the Accused, charges referred to above came to be framed, read over and 5 explained to the Accused to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
vii. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs. P1 to P12. After the closure of entire prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. No defence evidence is adduced, but, however, got marked Exs. D1 and D2.
3) Believing the evidence of PW1 to PW6, more particularly, the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW6, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused. Challenging the same, the present Appeal came to be filed.
4) The learned Counsel for the Appellant would contend that, though at first blush, reading of the evidence indicates involvement of the Accused in the offence, but, a perusal of the evidence shows that the version of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 is a complete improvement from what they stated in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. It is further stated that, though, PW6 also speaks about being present along with PW2 and PW3 and witnessing the incident, but, PW2 and PW3 did not refer to the presence of PW6 along with them at the scene. Hence, a doubt arises as to whether PW6 was present.
6
5) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that, there are four eye witnesses to speak about the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve them.
6) In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW1. PW1 is no other than the son of the deceased. He was not an eye witness of the incident, but, he speaks about earlier quarrels between the Accused and his wife [sister of PW1]. Insofar as incident proper is concerned, it is stated that, on the date of incident, he went to coolie work, and the Deceased took buffaloes for grazing to the fields of PW3, which is within the limits of Thadithota village. According to him, the Accused went there, quarreled with his father and demanded him to send PW5 to his house. Though, some persons were present, they did not intervene. According to him, the said quarrel was witnessed by PW2 and PW3 and they also did not intervene as it was between father-in-law and son-in-law. During that quarrel, the Accused hacked the deceased with sickle. The incident was informed to him by PW2 and PW3 on phone. Pursuant to which, he went there and noticed the body of the deceased. Thereafter, arrangements were made to take the body to hospital. The suggestions given to the witness in the cross-examination were all denied.
7) As per the evidence of PW2, on 10.04.2012 at 2.00 PM, PW2 and PW3 were grazing cattle in the lands of Madakam Mutyalarao. It is said that, while PW2, Venkat Rao and Mutyalarao were grazing cattle at different places, the Accused came there and both 7 of them talked for some time and thereafter the Accused is said to have hacked the deceased with a sickle on front and back side of the neck, as a result of which, the deceased fell down raising cries. PW2 and PW3 rushed to that place and then, the Accused escaped from that place. PW2 claimed to have informed about the incident to PW1. But, this version of PW2 is again a complete improvement of what he has stated to in his earlier statement.
8) It would be appropriate to extract the evidence of PW10 who examined PW2 and PW3 immediately after registering the FIR, which is as under:
"PW2 did not state before me that the accused was in a drunken state. PW2 did not state before me that he tried to catch hold of the accused but the accused escaped. PW2 did not state that he saw the accused hacking the deceased with knife. Pw3 did not state before me that he secured the ambulance by doing phone call. PW3 did not state before me that he did not interfere in the discussion between the accused and the deceased as it is between the father-in-law and son-in-law. PW3 did not state before me that himself, PW2 and the Deceased were grazing cattle in three different places in that field. PW3 did not state before me that he was grazing his bulls in his field. PW3 did not state before me that the accused hacked the deceased with sickle and that he alone witnessed it. He did not state that while he was calling the persons in that surroundings, the accused escaped from that place".
9) From the evidence of PW2, it is very clear that, he did not state in his earlier statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C., that he tried to catch the Accused but the Accused escaped. He also did not state before the police that he saw the Accused hacking the Deceased with knife.
10) Similar is the version of PW3 who in his evidence states that on the date of incident, he, the deceased and PW2 were grazing cattle at different places. According to him, at 2.00 PM, the Accused came to the said place and entered into some discussion 8 with the deceased. They did not involve as the discussion was between father-in-law and son-in-law. But, the deceased started raising cries. Then the Accused hacked the Deceased with a knife on both sides of the neck. The witness did not say that the Accused hacked the Deceased with sickle. The Deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries. PW3 and PW2 informed about the incident to PW1 by phone. This information which is now given in the Court is again an improvement from what he has said before the investigating officer during his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
11) PW5 is no other than the daughter of the Deceased and wife of the Accused. Her evidence is to the effect that the Accused used to consume alcohol and was not bothering to maintain the family. Unable to bear the harassment in the hands of the Accused, she went to her paternal home along with children. Thereafter, the Accused used to visit her paternal home in an ebriated condition and quarreled with them. Two years prior to the incident, the Accused threatened to kill the Deceased. When the Deceased went to graze cattle in the lands of Mutyala Rao, she was informed that the Accused hacked the deceased. She visited the scene and found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries on both sides of the neck. She is not an eye witness to the incident.
12) PW6 in his evidence deposed that, 2 years prior to the incident, while he was grazing cattle in the lands of Mutyalarao, he saw the Accused and the Deceased quarrelling. The Accused was 9 demanding the Deceased to send his daughter to the house of the accused, to which, the deceased stated that he will send his daughter when he stops drinking alcohol. Then, the Accused hacked the Deceased with knife and left the place.
13) From the evidence of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of PW3, PW5 and PW6, who were examined as eye witness to the incident, it is clear that, none of them saw the Accused coming to the scene of offence with a weapon. In fact, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the Accused was armed with the sickle. On the other hand, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses show that the Accused and Deceased talked for some time, thereafter, a quarrel ensued between both of them and in that quarrel, the Accused is said to have beat the Deceased with sickle.
14) It is normal that, in villages whoever takes cattle for grazing, carries a weapon. In the absence of any evidence that the Accused went to the scene with a sickle, in all probability, he must have used the weapon [sickle] carried by the deceased and gave a blow on the neck of the Deceased. In fact, if the cross-examination of the witnesses is seen, the alleged threat given by the Accused was never spoken to by PW1. Therefore, we feel that, the alleged motive, which is sought to be proved by the prosecution on the ground that the Accused earlier threatened the Deceased with dire consequences, is an improvement in court as the said fact was not spoken to by PW1 in his earlier statement.
10
15) But, there is consistent evidence on record to show that there were disputes between the family of the Accused and the Deceased, since, the Deceased was refusing to send his daughter with the Accused as he was consuming alcohol and harassing his daughter. He promised to send his daughter with Accused provided he stops drinking alcohol. If really the Accused had intention to kill, he would have definitely gone there armed with a weapon. As stated above, none of the witnesses speak about the Accused carrying weapon along with him.
16) Having regard to the above and as the incident occurred out of a sudden quarrel, we hold that the Accused has no intention to cause the death but in the process of a sudden quarrel, the Accused picked up a sickle and hacked the deceased. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the conviction imposed on Appellant in Sessions Case No.296 of 2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Kovvur, is modified from Section 302 I.P.C. to the one under Section 304, part II of I.P.C. and accordingly Appellant is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven years.
17) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Date: 16.11.2019.
SM.
11
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Criminal Appeal No. 1343 of 2014 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Date: 16.11.2019 SM.