Telangana High Court
Dudella Vijaya, Warangal., vs State Of Ap., Thrpp., Hyd., on 13 June, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.445 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU) The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), by the appellant/accused in S.C.No.602 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, challenging the Judgment dated 11.04.2014 whereunder the trial Court found her guilty for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'IPC') and convicted her under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offense under Section 302 of IPC; she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offense under Section 449 of IPC; and she was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to 2 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the offense under Section 323 of IPC. However, the trial Court directed all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant was given the benefit of set of in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C in respect of period of remand, if any.
2. The brief case of the prosecution against the appellant as per the charge-sheet is as follows:
i) The appellant herein was married to one Swamy, who is the son of PW.2 herein and Smt.Mallamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). Since the husband of the appellant herein died much prior to the above alleged offence, subsequent to the death of her husband, the appellant herein took custody of all the properties acquired/purchased by her father-in-law (PW.2) and house purchased by her husband and that the appellant said to have neglected her parents-in-law. It is alleged against the appellant that PW.2 and his wife raised panchayats before the village elders and the village elders advised the appellant to take care of her in-laws by providing some maintenance to the old couple. It is also alleged by the prosecution that when the in-laws of the appellant wanted to dispose of some agricultural property to 3 meet their necessities, the appellant herein decided to eliminate the old couple, so that she can avoid the payment of maintenance etc.
ii) In view of that, on 27.08.2012 at about 08.00 A.M. the appellant went to the house of PW.2 and attacked the old couple, she bet the deceased with hands and kicked her in her stomach with legs, thereby killed her and when PW.2 tried to intervene, the appellant attacked him and caused simple injuries to him.
iii) PW.1, who is the daughter of PW.2 and deceased, lodged a complaint against the appellant and on the basis of the said complaint, police have registered a case in crime No.164 of 2012 for the offenses under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the police have examined all the material witnesses, recorded their statements, and completed the other formalities like preparation of scene of offense panchanama, inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referring the dead body of the deceased for post-
mortem examination. PW.2 was sent to hospital for medical examination and he was treated by PW.5-Medical Officer at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. In due course, the investigating officer got the 4 scene of offense photographed with the help of PW.7, and after completing the further investigation and after collection of medical reports, laid the charge-sheet against the appellant.
iv) The said charge-sheet was initially registered as PRC No.78 of 2012 and on committal, the trial Court took up the case for trial. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant herein for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 307 of IPC. She denied the allegations leveled against her and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, prosecution have examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. Broken bangle pieces (six in number) produced by the prosecution were marked as MO.1. The appellant herein was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and she denied the evidence of the material witnesses and produced some revenue record to establish her right over the agricultural land. The trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offenses under Sections 302, 323 and 449 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced her with imprisonment as indicated above.
5
3. The appellant has filed the present appeal on various grounds and contended that the trial Court was wrong in accepting the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 by ignoring the defence taken by the appellant herein. The trial Court failed to appreciate that PW.2 when examined before the Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. he has stated that the appellant herein and her son caused fracture to right hand and left leg of the deceased, thereby, she died due to the injuries but those injuries were not noticed by PW.6-Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The trial Court failed to appreciate that PW.2, who was examined by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., gave a different contradictory versions but the trial Court failed to appreciate this fact. The appellant further claimed that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence of material witnesses was not corroborated with each other, thereby, committed an error in convicting the appellant, therefore sought for setting aside the impugned Judgment and prayed for her acquittal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued before this Court that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that PW.2 deposed before the trial Court that he was never referred to any Medical Officer, thereby, the trial Court could not have accepted the evidence of PW.5, who deposed as if he has examined PW.2 and found some contusions and abrasions on his person. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has also argued that in view of the evidence placed before the trial Court i.e., PW.2 was suffering from some mental illness, therefore much credibility could not have been attached to the evidence of PW.2 and if the evidence of PW.2 is discarded, there is no evidence to believe that the appellant herein committed murder of her mother-in-law and caused injuries to PW.2, therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned Judgment.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that PW.2 who is no other than the husband of the deceased is a most natural witness to the offense, and he was also attacked by the appellant and that his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.4. She has further argued that the defence taken by the appellant that the deceased suffered injuries due to fall of a rafter from the roof has been proved, as the Medical Officer categorically deposed that the injuries on 7 the body of deceased cannot be caused by such fall and PW.4 deposed about the presence of appellant at the house of the deceased at the time of above offense, and PW.2 deposed about the attack by the appellant, therefore the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. As could be seen from the allegations in the charge sheet and according to the evidence of the material witnesses examined by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution was that she was married to one Swamy, who is the son of PW.2 and the deceased. It was alleged against her that due to the harassment caused by her, her husband committed suicide and died about 12 years prior to the above referred offense on 27.08.2012. The family of PW.2 has got seven acres of land and husband of the appellant has purchased another three acres of land and a house. After the death of Swamy, the husband of the appellant, the appellant along with her children started residing in a separate house. It is also alleged that the appellant though enjoying the landed property, started neglecting PW.2 and his wife (the deceased). Several panchayats were conducted in the presence of the village elders including PW.4 who advised the appellant to look after the parents-in- law in a proper way by providing some maintenance, but she did not 8 follow the advice of the village elders and about 20 days prior to 27.08.2012, the appellant and her son beat the deceased and caused fracture to her left leg and right hand.
8. The prosecution has alleged that on 27.08.2012 at about 08.00 A.M. the appellant herein having decided to eliminate her in-laws, trespassed into their house and abused the deceased in the filthy language and beat her and kicked her in the stomach and killed her. She also made an attempt to take life of PW.2 and when he made hue and cries she escaped from the scene of offense.
9. In order to prove this case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. PW.1, who is the daughter of PW.2 and the deceased herein, lodged Ex.P.1 complaint within three hours of the alleged offense and narrated the entire incident including the attack of the appellant against her parents. PW.2 is the victim at the hands of the appellant and the husband of the deceased. Even though PW.3 is shown as eye witness to the alleged offense, he did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared as hostile. PW.4 is shown as eye witness and he deposed before the trial Court that on the date of the offense, he saw the appellant herein going to the house of PW.2. He has also deposed about the motive of the appellant for committing this offense. PW.4 deposed 9 about the previous panchayats, and in that the elders have advised the appellant to provide maintenance to her in-laws. PW.5 is the Medical Officer who has examined PW.2 and PW.6 is another Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. PW.7 is photographer who has obtained the photographs at the scene of offense.
10. The trial Court having accepted the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, found the appellant guilty for the offenses under Sections 302, 323, and 449 of IPC and convicted her for the said offences.
11. There is no dispute about the relationship between the appellant and the deceased as well as PWs.1 and 2. There is no dispute about the death of the husband of the appellant and she is living in a separate house along with her children. The appellant did not dispute her enjoyment of the agricultural land and house property and also panchayats raised by PW.2 and the deceased before the village elders on the ground that she is not providing adequate maintenance to her old aged parents-in-law.
12. The prosecution alleges that the appellant intended to eliminate her in-laws. For this purpose, she entered into the house of 10 PW.2 and attacked the elderly couple. PW.1 deposed about her presenting Ex.P.1 report soon after the death of her mother and deposed about the previous incident including the death of her brother i.e., husband of the appellant by way of suicide. PW.2 categorically deposed that the appellant herein throttled the deceased by holding her neck when PW.2 tried to intervene, she also attacked PW.2. PW.5 deposed before the trial Court that he received requisition from the police and accordingly, he examined PW.2 and found simple injuries on the body of PW.2.
13. It may be true that PW.2 deposed before the trial Court that he was not referred to any Medical Officer, however, the evidence of PW.5 categorically shows that on 27.08.2012 he received a requisition from police to examine PW.2 and he found contusion and abrasion on the right leg and other contusion and abrasion on the right elbow. PW.5 is the Medical Officer working in MGM Hospital, Warangal, and his evidence further shows that having considered the injuries on the body of PW.2, he has referred PW.2 to radiology examination, which shows there was no such fractures. Unless, PW.5 examined PW.2, and he has issued wound certificate, there is no necessity for PW.5 to depose falsehood as suggested by the defence. The trial Court while analyzing 11 and examining the evidence of PWs.2 and 6 has rightly held that PW.2 who was more than 70 years old, might have forgotten his examination by the Medical Officer. One can imagine the situation under which this old man was referred to hospital.
14. As could be seen from the averments made in Ex.P.1 complaint, the police have found PW.2 at about 11.00 A.M. on 27.08.2012, by that time he lost his wife in attack of physical violence and he suffered injuries and he was sent to hospital and examined by the Medical Officer at 04.00 P.M. Given his old age and the circumstances mentioned above, he might have forgotten the examination conducted by the Medical Officer. Therefore, the contention of the defence that PW.2 did not receive any injuries and he was not referred to any hospital cannot be considered. While it may be true that PW.3 deposed that the appellant's father-in-law suffered from mental illness and was referred to some quack doctors, there is no acceptable evidence to believe that PW.2 was suffering from any mental illness. The impugned Judgment clearly shows that PW.2 was cross-examined at length and he was able to give proper answers in the entire cross- examination. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 coupled with examination 12 of PW.5 clearly shows that there was physical violence against PW.2 as well as his wife, at about 08.00 A.M. on 27.08.2012.
15. Regarding the evidence of PW.6 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he found eight ante-mortem injuries and they include fracture of ribs, contusion over right kidney, apart from other serious injuries. PW.6 was of the opinion that the deceased died due to the shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries. There is no dispute about the age of the deceased and that she was suffering from old age ailments. The appellant has claimed that all the above referred injuries were caused due to fall of a rafter from the roof, but the photographs filed by the prosecution did not suggest any such damage to the roof or fall of rafters in the house. Moreover, the Medical Officer categorically ruled out the possibility of causing such multiple injuries due to fall of a rafter. It is absurd to believe that the old lady sustained eight different injuries on eight different parts of the body due to fall of a rafter. The postmortem report of the deceased indicates that she received fractures of both ribs. PW.6 found fresh wounds on her kidney.
16. PW.2 is natural witness to the incident and in fact he has also received injuries in the same attack. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the evidence of PW.4 proved that the appellant went 13 to the house of PW.2 on that particular day, and the motive of the attack was also established by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 as well as PW.4. Further, PWs.1 and 2 may not get any benefit by foisting a false case against the appellant. Here in this case, the death of the deceased due to the physical assault on her vital parts and presence of her husband at the house at that particular time has been established. There was no necessity for PWs.1 and 2 to attribute the offense to the appellant herein. The evidence placed before the trial Court clearly indicates that the appellant is managing the entire agricultural land and PW.2 and his wife are staying in a separate house and have been raising panchayats before the elders seeking an advice to the appellant to provide some maintenance to them. Even though the appellant has claimed that she has been providing maintenance to PW.2 and the deceased and the same was suggested to PW.2, he denied the said suggestion.
17. It is found from the evidence of PW.2 that he lodged a complaint before the police on the ground that their daughter-in-law neglected them and police have advised them to approach the village elders for better counseling to the appellant herein. PW.4 is an independent witness without any motive to depose falsehood against the appellant. The evidence also shows that PW.2 and his wife want to 14 dispose of 1.5 acres of land to meet their expenditure. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellant want to eliminate her in-laws to avoid the panchayat and payment of money and to prevent the sale of land has been proved through the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4.
18. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the appellant that PW.2 was suffering from mental ill-health. As rightly observed by the trial Court, except suggestions put to the witnesses nothing has been established to believe that PW.2 was suffering from mental health. The trial Court examined the evidence of each and every witness minutely and gave elaborate reasoning as to why the same can be accepted and as to why the evidence of PW.3 who was declared as hostile cannot be accepted. Learned District Judge analyzed the entire evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion.
19. In view of the above stated circumstances, the prosecution is able to prove that the appellant entered into the house of PW.2, killed his wife, and caused him simple injuries. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offenses under Sections 302, 323 and 449 of IPC.
15
20. After meticulously scanning all the available material on record and considering it from every angle, it is evident that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
21. In view of the findings recorded hereinbefore, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed, confirming the sentence of conviction imposed against the appellant/accused vide Judgment dated 04.11.2014 passed in S.C.No.602 of 2013 by the learned trial Court. The trial Court is directed to take necessary steps for the appearance of the appellant/accused to serve the remaining sentence.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Dated 13.06.2024 ynk 16 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.445 OF 2014 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU) Dated 13.06.2024 ynk