Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Madagala Koti (A.1) Visakhapatnam vs State Of A.P Rep. By Its Public ... on 6 March, 2014
Bench: L.Narasimha Reddy, M.S.K.Jaiswal
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAl CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1630 of 2009 06-03-2014 Madagala Koti (A.1) Visakhapatnam .... Appellant State of A.P Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1630 of 2009 JUDGMENT (per LNR,J):
Things would have been different altogether had the State preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 17.09.2009 rendered by the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in S.C.No.10 of 2009. What is before us is only an appeal preferred by A.1 in that case.
The trial Court convicted him for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Separate sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run separately. A.2 was acquitted.
A.1 is the welder by profession and the deceased was his wife. The couple had three children, aged 10 years, 5 years and 3 years by 2008. A.1 suspected the fidelity of his wife and is said to have harassed her for several years. Unable to bear it, the deceased was living in the house of her parents along with the children. A.1 is said to have been visiting the house of the parents of the deceased frequently.
On 14.10.2008, when the sister of the deceased by name Janaki-P.W.1 was playing in the ground in front of the house and their parents were not there in the house, A.1 is said to have come there in angry condition and quarreled with his wife. On hearing the noise, P.W.1 is said to have gone to that place. She found that the door of the room was locked from inside and when she opened the window by pushing the door, she found that A.1 was indiscriminately beating the deceased, even while the latter imploring him in different ways. Twice the deceased was said to have been thrown to the ground and A.1 is said to have stood on her stomach. Thereafter, he said to have taken a knife and hacked the hands of the deceased.
The injured, in that condition was shifted in Ambulance to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, and while undergoing treatment, she died at 8.00 p.m on that day. P.W.2, the resident in the immediate neighbourhood, filed a complaint under Ex.P.2. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.364 of 2008 was registered under Sections 307, 498-A and 114 I.P.C by the Police of Pothinamallayyapalem Police Station. On coming to know that the victim succumbed to injuries, the Section of law was altered to 302, 498-A and 114 I.P.C. The statement of P.W.1, the sister of the deceased, was recorded. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared. Inquest and post mortem were conducted. After completion of the investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet.
The trial Court framed necessary charges against A.1 and his sister A.2. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were filed. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 was filed. M.Os.1 to 7 were also taken on record. As already observed, the trial Court convicted A.1, but acquitted A.2.
Smt.A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very presence of P.W.1, the so called eyewitness at the scene of offence, is doubtful and the evidence of P.W.1 herself, substantiates the same. She contends that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and once her evidence is made doubtful there does not exist any basis to sustain the conviction of A.1. She further contends that the other witnesses examined by the prosecution are of no help to prove the charge against A.1. It is also pleaded that the grounds that weighed with the trial court to acquit A.2, hold good for A.1 also.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that A.1 committed the heinous crime of not only killing his wife-deceased in a barbaric manner, but also hacked her hands. He contends that though the deceased started living in the house of her parents, unable to bear the harassment of A.1, he virtually became a savage, if not, a cruel animal, and killed the deceased in a horrifying manner. She submits that A.1 does not deserve any indulgence, by this Court.
A perusal of the statement recorded from P.W.1 and her deposition in the Court would make, even a person with strong will, to shiver. A serious doubt arises as to whether such beastly characters exist in the so called civilized society. The deceased is one of the five daughters of her parents. A.1 is said to have loved the deceased and ultimately married her. The couple had three children, who were clearly grown up by 2008. As is the case with many indisciplined youth, A.1 too became slave of alcoholism. Added to that he is said to have suspected the character of his wife-deceased.
The harassment of the accused caused to the deceased was so unbearable, that she had to move to the house of her parents together with children and live there. Even then, the cruelty in A.1 did not subside. It is stated that he used to visit the house of the parents of the deceased now and then and on that particular day i.e., on 15.10.2008, he has gone to the house at 2.00 p.m. At that time, the parents of the deceased were not there and P.W.1 was playing in the ground. P.W.1 is said to have heard the loud voices from the place where the deceased and A.1 were present. Naturally, P.W.1 became anxious and went to that place. The door was locked from inside. Having become tense, she pushed the doors of the window. What she said to have seen from the window, is as under:
"Then I observed my sister Pavani, requesting A1 saying to permit her to live along with him and take with him wherever he goes. Then A1 kicked her on her chest. Then she fell down on the floor. Then she tried to get up. But again A.1 hit her on her stomach with Kada knife back part. Then she again fell on the ground. Then A.1 supported his legs on my sisters stomach and hacked my sister's hands. One hand was completely amputated and removed from her body. Then he opened the door and I questioned him that why he behaved like that. Then A.1 tried to beat me also. Then A1 got down the steps and I followed him to telephone my mother. Then A1 went to the kirana shop opposite to house. Then A.2 was sitting at the kirana shop."
P.W.1 is a child witness. Her age being 13 years, the trial Court has taken adequate precautions that are stipulated in law. This witness was extensively cross examined and nothing substantial was elicited from her. An attempt to prove that P.W.1 was not there at the scene at all was made by examining D.W.1, the Head Master of the school where P.W.1 was said to be studying. The attendance register was filed as Ex.D.1. However, the veracity of Ex.D.1 was not established. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted almost every suggestion made to him.
There is another strong evidence in the form of deposition of P.W.4. She is the person running a tea stall, which is referred to in the evidence of P.W.1. She stated that A.2 was waiting in her stall and when she was preparing tea, suddenly A.1 came in a very horrifying condition with blood on his hands and clothes. Nothing was suggested to this witness to doubt what is stated by her.
P.W.2 is the immediate neighbour, who noticed the incident immediately and submitted the complaint. He too spoke about the presence of P.W.1 and the occurrence of the entire incident.
P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness and she has only stated what she has noticed the incident after she came to the house. P.W.5 is another sister of the deceased. She stated that unable to bear the harassment of A.1, the deceased came to the house of their parents.
The evidence of remaining witnesses is in relation to the steps that are required to be taken under law. The Investigating Officer, P.W.13 narrated the sequence of events and the very steps taken by him. P.W.14 is the Officer, who filed the charge sheet.
A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence in this case discloses that A.1 committed the crime of murder of his wife-the deceased, in most barbaric manner. His motive was so strong that he came all the way with a firm determination to the house of the parents of the deceased, where she was staying. There was not even a scope for his being provoked to commit any crime. P.W.1 stated that the deceased was imploring A.1 in many ways and even promised to follow him wherever he wants her to come. Even that did not appeal. Even when they go for hunting the most cruel animals would be kind enough in the context of killing the prey. Here is a brute, who not only killed his wife in a manner which makes the animals also to feel shame, but also proceeded to hack the hands of the person whom he loved and married notwithstanding the opposition of her parents. The trial Court itself recorded a finding that the crime committed by A.1 is the rarest of the rare. However, it blinked when it came to the question of choosing the punishment for A.1.
Had the State filed appeal, we would have certainly considered the feasibility of imposing the punishment of death to A.1. We are, however, helpless in this regard. The only thing we can do at this stage is to direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to any remission whatever and he shall remain in jail till his death.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed and it is directed that the appellant shall not be released on remission of whatever description.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J ______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Dt: 06.03.2014